Proposed: accept minutes https://www.w3.org/2019/01/22-dxwg-minutes
Resolved: accept https://www.w3.org/2019/01/22-dxwg-minutes
<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
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
… it would be the latest
<PWinstanley> antoine: the second batch of updates presented by Nick, will they be merged soon?
… 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
ncar: only comments received are from the JSON-LD people
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
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?
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
<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: 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
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