W3C

– DRAFT –
DXWG CNEG Subgroup telecon

13 February 2019

Meeting minutes

<ncar> hello

<ncar> Can you hear me on WebEx Lars?

<ncar> I can see you in there but hear nothing

<ncar> * Rob and I can hear each other

* i have previously had to restart Windows Audio service "=_

<ncar> * I'm using WebEx on an iPhone so dont have any Windows issues

Confirm Agenda

<LarsG> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌wiki/‌Meetings:CNEG-Telecon2019.02.13

Resolved: Agenda confirmed

Approve minutes

<LarsG> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2019/‌01/‌16-dxwgcneg-minutes.html

<ncar> +1

+1

<LarsG> +1

Resolved: minutes approved

open action items

<LarsG> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌products/‌4

<ncar> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌products/‌4

<LarsG> action-234?

<trackbot> action-234 -- Nicholas Car to Use definitions to create abstract model diagram and text -- due 2018-10-17 -- OPEN

<trackbot> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌234

<LarsG> close action-234

<trackbot> Closed action-234.

<LarsG> roba: Then I can do the sequence diagram

<LarsG> action-243?

<trackbot> action-243 -- Rob Atkinson to Go back through the discussion, come to a conclusion, discuss with antoine and work out what requirement #267 actually meant -- due 2018-11-01 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌243

<LarsG> roba: still pending review. The Use Cases are in the document. Probably nothing

<LarsG> ... more to do.

<LarsG> ... We can respond by saying "let's make sure there is an issue

<LarsG> ... in cneg-by-ap about how to negotiate multiple aspects", e. g.

<LarsG> ... gzip vs zip at the same time you negotiate what the content would be?

<LarsG> ncar: isn't that just ordinary conneg?

<LarsG> ... everything we do here aligns to ordinary conneg stuff.

<LarsG> ... see no work to be done. We're just waiting for the group to close #267

<LarsG> close action-243

<trackbot> Closed action-243.

Topics

<LarsG> Subtopic: Suggest a realistic timing for a 2PWD

LarsG: seems like quite a lot of work to do

ncar: 2PWD was slated for end of Feb
… expect to work on this post ontology doc 2PWD

ncar: tagged feedback issues in 2PWD

<LarsG> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌milestone/‌17

ncar: lets visit these then revisit timing
… in plenary @kcoyle asked us to use feedback tag, and sub groups should delegate a responder and review response before sending out

LarsG: can we get these done for 2PWD

<LarsG> ncar: yes, time scheduled next week

<LarsG> ... then the other editors can approve PRs

<LarsG> roba: shall we do sprints like the other groups?

<LarsG> ncar: only eight issues, we can easily find answers to those

<ncar> Query for current issue: https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Aprofile-negotiation+label%3Afeedback

<LarsG> roba: we can do a mini-sprint now

reviewing https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌662

roba: lets review encoding profile def..
… IANA profile registry is not really used...

http://‌buzzword.org.uk/‌2009/‌draft-inkster-profile-parameter-00.html

<ncar> The JSON-LD profile note: https://‌www.w3.org/‌TR/‌json-ld/#iana-considerations

Action: ncar to review initial "no overlap" determination and propose explanatory note

<trackbot> Created ACTION-291 - Review initial "no overlap" determination and propose explanatory note [on Nicholas Car - due 2019-02-20].

<LarsG> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌663

<LarsG> roba: Are JSON-LD community using profiles for different cases than we?

<LarsG> ... OTOH they talk about different content

<LarsG> ... that's why we talk about tokens as profile identifiers

ncar: importing namespaces (context) doesnt tell you as much
… the type of profile we are talking about is more general

roba: URI deferencing is preferred over a central registry

<LarsG> ... we need a richer set of options to describe the profiles

<LarsG> ... and we think that profiles need to be more richly described

<LarsG> ... (inheritance etc.) and we don't think that a profile registry

<LarsG> ... will scale

roba: json-ld context is more an artefact related to a profile?

https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌290 needed to fully address these comments

also addresses #587 and #546

Action: roba to write up set of possible models to realise req #290 for discussion

<trackbot> Created ACTION-292 - Write up set of possible models to realise req #290 for discussion [on Rob Atkinson - due 2019-02-20].

addresses #382

Action: LarsG to update examples - following principle of symmetry with Accept mime behaviours

<trackbot> Created ACTION-293 - Update examples - following principle of symmetry with accept mime behaviours [on Lars G. Svensson - due 2019-02-20].

Action: ncar to set time next week for sprint

<trackbot> Created ACTION-294 - Set time next week for sprint [on Nicholas Car - due 2019-02-20].

<LarsG> ncar: we'll use next week's slot for profgui as a sprint meeting for conneg

<LarsG> (all agree)

Summary of action items

  1. ncar to review initial "no overlap" determination and propose explanatory note
  2. roba to write up set of possible models to realise req #290 for discussion
  3. LarsG to update examples - following principle of symmetry with Accept mime behaviours
  4. ncar to set time next week for sprint

Summary of resolutions

  1. Agenda confirmed
  2. minutes approved
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by Bert Bos's scribe.perl version 2.49 (2018/09/19 15:29:32), a reimplementation of David Booth's scribe.perl. See CVS log.

Diagnostics

Succeeded: s/Meeti g//