– DRAFT –
DXWG Plenary Jan 29 2019

Admin

<kcoyle> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2019/‌01/‌22-dxwg-minutes

Proposed: accept minutes https://‌www.w3.org/‌2019/‌01/‌22-dxwg-minutes

+1

<AndreaPerego> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

<ncar> +1

<kcoyle> +1

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1

<annette_g> +1

Resolved: accept https://‌www.w3.org/‌2019/‌01/‌22-dxwg-minutes

open actions

<kcoyle> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌open

<annette_g> yes, me

<AndreaPerego> I was already.

<PWinstanley> antoine: I am subscribed

<PWinstanley> ... I've received all the exchange with Paul Walk - the last emails

<kcoyle> action #244

<PWinstanley> ... My own action - I want to check whether Nick or Rob are planning ontology changes, or is it stable for the nxext few days, esp the diagram

<PWinstanley> ... I've spotted some changes today and need to know if there are any others in the pipeline

<PWinstanley> ncar: No change apart from small changes and colour alterations

<PWinstanley> ... a new diag might be added

kcoyle: I'm going to close the action on subscribing

Assessment of Current Position

kcoyle: anything to add to Dave Browning's post?
… it seems that they're going to try and have a new WD soon.

ncar: have they decided?

kcoyle: I haven't seen

ncar: maybe they'll decide tomorrow

PWinstanley: we had a meeting on the point of distributions/services
… whether to describe an API.
… this was a lot of discussion.
… result: annette_g will make a proposal
… Dave will initiate a doodle poll for the sprint

annette_g: I thought my ideas would be considered for the next WD
… not the coming one
… I'm worried that people would say it's impossible to consider my changes

kcoyle: it's flexible, but there needs to be a stopping point.
… none has been declared yet

annette_g: my sense is that the group will publish the next WD very soon

AndreaPerego: about closing action 276
… I can do it

<AndreaPerego> close action-276

<trackbot> Closed action-276.

kcoyle: Profile ontology

ncar: there were many PRs, with dependances
… Rob and I did a lot of them last night
… handling incremental feedback
… What is now in the main view is a first batch of updates

<ncar> Best upated doc: https://‌raw.githack.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌paper-reviews/‌profilesont/‌index.html

ncar: There is another branch
… The main thing is examples, appearing higher up in the doc.

<ncar> Crosswalks: https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌wiki/‌PROF-Alignments-and-crosswalks

ncar: We've removed some difficult things (base specifications, inverse)
… there are crosswalks
… which could allow to simplify PROF (by deprecating elements that exist in other vocs)
… for example VANN prefered namespace abbrev and PROF token
… kcoyle we now have the example as you asked for
… but rob and I are still not convinced.

kcoyle: when will you publish a new WD?

ncar: we still have many issues
… possibly another week worth of incremental updates.

<PWinstanley> antoine: when was the date?

<PWinstanley> kcoyle: 10 Feb

ncar: yes
… it would be the latest

ncar: 12th

<PWinstanley> antoine: the second batch of updates presented by Nick, will they be merged soon?

ncar: yes
… the problem is that until yesterday we didn't have a meeting for approving it
… again we're waiting for DCAT group to free a slot

ncar: we'll try to have them for the next call

kcoyle: conneg?

ncar: only comments received are from the JSON-LD people

kcoyle:

kcoyle: Profile Guidance

ncar: at the last profgui meeting I had 3 actions. (1) create an issue, (2) create a google doc
… (3) schedule a meeting

kcoyle: ok

ncar: we've got several comments both for profgui and PROF
… it seems to me that some considerations (role) with assist with answering

<PWinstanley> antoine: this gives me a transition to another topic from Nick - the call for profgui and prof, there is value in merged calls

<PWinstanley> +1 to antoine point

kcoyle, ncar: it would make sense

antoine: regular calls could be as long as usual
… it is the sprints that would be longer.

<PWinstanley> antoine: the issues in AOB, they may include everyone here.

<PWinstanley> kcoyle: shall we go through from top to bottom

AndreaPerego: I've discovered that the references in the spec are not where they should be
… some references are in the normative section (e.g. for UCR) which seems strange.

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> .. right, because the context is not marked as informative, as of: https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌respec/‌wiki/‌ReSpec-Editor%27s-Guide#references

AndreaPerego: this is handled by reSpec
… I've discovered that there was an issue in reSpec
… any reference in a normative section is normative
… unless there's a ! before
… should we ask DaveR about it?
… For example in DCAT DOAP and VIVO were probably not meant to be normative.

kcoyle: nobody noticed that when we published the WD
… AndreaPerego could you send a note to our mailing list and copy DaveR?

AndreaPerego: yes

Action: AndreaPerego to send a note about the issue of normative references, copying DaveR

<trackbot> Created ACTION-282 - Send a note about the issue of normative references, copying daver [on Andrea Perego - due 2019-02-05].

AndreaPerego: on the other issue. There are comments with names of persons
… in my PR all these noted have been changed into editor's notes
… we can decide if we should keep them or remove them
… I've also tried to harmonize things
… like references to specific sections, with title of the document
… there was no consistency in the way some citations are made

Jaroslav_Pullmann: thanks Andrea!
… I've already looked at suggestions and merged the PR
… About normative specs I didn't know. Now I've looked at reSpec
… the exclamation mark doesn't work
… I've started looking at it
… For some references I could have reSpec works as I would like

AndreaPerego: automatically they should be considered as informative, not normative
… you shouldn't have to mark them as informative

Jaroslav_Pullmann: apparently it looks at the closest section.
… I've put some intermediary sections as informative

AndreaPerego: issue #701 has been fixed in my PR
… we just have to answer Bart Hanssens

Jaroslav_Pullmann: thanks, I will respond

Action: Jaroslav_Pullmann to answer Bart Hanssens wrt issue 701

<trackbot> Created ACTION-283 - Answer bart hanssens wrt issue 701 [on Jaroslav Pullmann - due 2019-02-05].

kcoyle: thanks both

<AndreaPerego> Thanks!

<PWinstanley> antoine: admin points - checking AndreaPerego recent PR he asked the github DXWG editors which is neither complete for editors nor accurate in that there are additional people

<PWinstanley> AndreaPerego: this was one of the rules for the PR

<PWinstanley> ... I thought the group included all

<PWinstanley> antoine: do you have a link so we can review?

<AndreaPerego> https://‌github.com/‌orgs/‌w3c/‌teams/‌dxwg-editors

AndreaPerego: if you do a PR and ask a review, you get this group

<PWinstanley> this looks like W3C staff having a position in all groups

kcoyle: maybe it's easier if we pretend it doesn't exist

<PWinstanley> (with Phil being an ex W3C)

kcoyle: I've not idea where it comes from

AndreaPerego: maybe it's DaveR who created it

kcoyle: it's odd

+1

AndreaPerego: we should ask Alejandra to review
… as it was also about UCs in which she's been invovled

<PWinstanley> antoine: I don't remember seeing anything worrying about the UC section, but it is a good idea to ping alejandra

AndreaPerego: yes I prefer that she reviews these changes

PWinstanley: have people had any further thought about F2F5?

<PWinstanley> antoine: there was an early March date, that is impossible for me. I want to see how the sprints work before deciding on F2F5

kcoyle: ok so the one in March probably won't happen
… let's keep the option open for later

kcoyle: meeting adjourned

<ncar> bye!

<PWinstanley> bye!!

<annette_g> bye!

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> bye!