20:53:41 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #profgui
20:53:41 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/02/14-profgui-irc
20:53:59 <kcoyle> rrsagent, make logs public
20:54:08 <kcoyle> meeting: profgui sprint
20:54:12 <kcoyle> chair: kcoyle
20:59:45 <kcoyle> I'll send you the link on skype
21:03:28 <ncar> ncar has joined #profgui
21:03:32 <ncar> hi
21:03:37 <kcoyle> https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profiles/
21:03:53 <kcoyle> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y4jP4SGZMnt63EpjTX11-hW6-3mxlaq1i-Lbiw4tx1M/edit#
21:04:00 <kcoyle> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:ProfGui-Telecon2019.02.14
21:04:24 <roba> roba has joined #profgui
21:07:11 <antoine> scribenick: antoine
21:08:04 <alejandra> alejandra has joined #profgui
21:08:09 <PWinstanley> present+
21:08:12 <alejandra> present+
21:08:33 <kcoyle> https://www.w3.org/2019/01/23-profgui-minutes.html
21:08:46 <ncar> present+
21:08:53 <antoine> kcoyle: we didn't create an action for the resolution for the last resolution
21:08:55 <kcoyle> present+
21:08:59 <antoine> ... about creating a milestone
21:09:03 <antoine> present+
21:09:05 <roba> present+
21:09:16 <antoine> kcoyle: has anyone changed this milestone?
21:09:38 <kcoyle> action: kcoyle to update milestone as per last week's minutes
21:09:38 <trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
21:09:44 <alejandra> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/milestone/10
21:11:39 <kcoyle> resolved: approve minutes of 1/23
21:11:39 <antoine> Proposed: that we approve minutes
21:11:49 <PWinstanley> +1
21:11:54 <antoine> +1
21:11:55 <antoine> q+
21:12:33 <PWinstanley> antoine: we are approving minutes from 3 wk ago?  there were minutes from the one roba scribed.
21:12:51 <PWinstanley> ... this other was a sprint, but minutes need approval too
21:13:11 <antoine> https://www.w3.org/2019/02/06-profgui-minutes.html
21:13:46 <roba> +1
21:13:50 <antoine> RESOLVED: approve minutes from 6 Feb
21:14:02 <antoine> q+
21:14:23 <kcoyle> ack antoine
21:14:44 <PWinstanley> antoine: section1 - minutes of the last call, action on me to incorporate
21:15:00 <PWinstanley> ... edits into html master
21:15:13 <PWinstanley> roba: I looked at it and it was OK
21:15:20 <kcoyle> https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profiles/
21:16:10 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: so section 1 shows the results of the last discussion, and there have subsequently been more changes, but we press on
21:16:17 <antoine> kcoyle: we should rather dive in section 2 now, we can come back to the details of the new suggestions for section 1
21:16:19 <PWinstanley> ... and return to the more recent changes in due course
21:16:52 <antoine> [kcoyle goes through the intro of section 2]
21:17:11 <antoine> q+
21:17:28 <kcoyle> ack antoine
21:17:47 <PWinstanley> antoine: asking roba  what he means in his comments
21:18:05 <PWinstanley> roba: we are not taking responsibility for every use of the word profile in the outside world
21:18:31 <antoine> kcoyle: "outside of this document"?
21:18:38 <antoine> roba: maybe "outside of this context"
21:19:14 <antoine> PWinstanley: "in other contexts" - we want to claim our context
21:20:39 <roba> q+
21:21:16 <kcoyle> ack roba
21:21:39 <antoine> Discussion on keeping MUST/SHOULD/ETC etc
21:21:52 <antoine> We agree to keep them
21:22:05 <antoine> roba: this section is about constraints
21:22:05 <PWinstanley> q+
21:22:14 <antoine> kcoyle: this requirements is not about constraints
21:22:25 <kcoyle> ack PWinstanley
21:22:27 <antoine> (requirement #275)
21:24:09 <roba> +1 that the language used actually has no meaning without context..
21:24:24 <alejandra_> alejandra_ has joined #profgui
21:24:37 <alejandra__> alejandra__ has joined #profgui
21:24:46 <antoine> PWinstanley: it's formal, but we should try to have a introduction
21:25:02 <roba> q+
21:25:17 <alejandra_> +q
21:25:41 <antoine> q+
21:26:11 <kcoyle> q?
21:27:12 <alejandra__> q?
21:28:18 <kcoyle> ack roba
21:28:31 <kcoyle> ack alejandra__
21:28:45 <kcoyle> ack antoine
21:29:32 <roba> if we are not talking about "named graphs" then we need to define all the connecting words in terms of the agreed definition of a profile - not introduce new terminology
21:30:22 <roba> "collection of properties" needs to have a meaning w.r.t. to the definition - and its not obvious or defensible as is
21:30:34 <antoine> Action: PWinstanley will rewrite the beginning of 2.1
21:30:34 <trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
21:31:30 <antoine> q+
21:31:32 <roba> remove "status of Standard" - we are based on the very loose dct:Standard which has no requirement for a formally defined status ..
21:32:18 <roba> q+
21:32:20 <antoine> kcoyle: discussing the second paragraph with "Distribution:
21:32:22 <kcoyle> ack antoine
21:33:09 <PWinstanley> antoine: I think I was the one writing it - the paragraph was to be a guide to this document - there would be hyperlinks to different sections
21:33:57 <antoine> https://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/#secsimple
21:35:05 <alejandra__> +q
21:35:51 <alejandra__> q-
21:40:35 <roba> q+
21:40:56 <kcoyle> ack roba
21:41:12 <antoine> kcoyle: ok we move it back up
21:41:46 <antoine> kcoyle: section 2.2 (multiple) base specifications
21:41:57 <antoine> roba: specification is strightforward
21:41:57 <alejandra__> +q
21:42:07 <antoine> ... this paragraph is quite RDF: the re-use of elements
21:42:17 <antoine> kcoyle: it's also XML
21:42:55 <antoine> roba: ok but it's also more than re-using vocabularies
21:43:14 <antoine> q+
21:44:17 <roba> +1
21:44:19 <antoine> alejandra__: yes having first a general wording is good and then we can go into an example like the RDF and XML one
21:44:20 <antoine> +1
21:44:35 <kcoyle> ack antoine
21:44:41 <kcoyle> ack alejandra__
21:45:07 <kcoyle> ack roba
21:45:14 <antoine> Action: alejandra will re-word the intro for 2.2 and issue 268
21:45:14 <trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
21:45:50 <alejandra__> +q
21:45:59 <alejandra__> q-
21:46:11 <antoine> q+
21:46:14 <roba> q+
21:46:16 <ncar> q+
21:46:56 <antoine> q-
21:47:04 <ncar> q-
21:47:10 <antoine> alejandra__: have we kept "base specification"?
21:47:18 <kcoyle> ack roba
21:47:34 <antoine> roba: yes we've removed it as a class in PROF (as it was more a role) but we've kept the wording.
21:47:51 <antoine> kcoyle: 2.3 profiles or profiles
21:48:02 <roba> q+
21:48:07 <antoine> q+
21:48:15 <kcoyle> ack roba
21:48:49 <antoine> roba: we've introduced "level" but there might not be anything as a "level of profile"
21:49:03 <antoine> ... we could remove the first line
21:49:12 <antoine> q+
21:49:26 <roba> what is being left open?
21:50:59 <roba> q+
21:51:48 <kcoyle> ack roba
21:52:11 <antoine> q+
21:52:51 <antoine> antoine: issue 270 is really about saying that it;'s ok to have several levels
21:53:02 <antoine> ... the other paragraph is about a more general issue
21:54:24 <alejandra__> +q
21:55:17 <kcoyle> ack alejandra__
21:55:38 <ncar> q+
21:55:50 <antoine> q+
21:56:00 <roba> q+
21:56:06 <kcoyle> ack ncar
21:57:18 <kcoyle> ack ncar
21:57:55 <roba> yes!
21:58:03 <kcoyle> ack antoine
21:59:35 <kcoyle> ack roba
22:00:11 <antoine> [discussion on mutliple base specifications and hierarchical profiling. We agree and need a diagram]
22:00:40 <alejandra__> +1 to DAG
22:01:21 <antoine> q+
22:01:53 <kcoyle> ack antoine
22:02:04 <PWinstanley> antoine: I was volunteering for diagram duty
22:02:15 <alejandra__> +1 to add the diagram in the document
22:02:22 <PWinstanley> +1 to non-technial
22:02:31 <antoine> Action: Antoine to create diagram(s) for the different possiblilty for profiles, on 2.2 and 2.3
22:02:31 <trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
22:02:37 <roba> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/641
22:02:37 <PWinstanley> I need my friends to be able to understand it
22:03:05 <PWinstanley> s/non-technial/non-technical/
22:03:33 <roba> q+
22:03:49 <antoine> kcoyle: profile inheritance (2.4)
22:04:17 <kcoyle> ack roba
22:04:21 <antoine> ... it connects to ODRL
22:05:39 <antoine> roba: can we say that profile should indicate how formal semantics are inherited?
22:05:48 <antoine> kcoyle: it comes from external comments.
22:05:50 <antoine> q+
22:05:58 <kcoyle> ack antoine
22:06:12 <ncar> q+
22:06:21 <PWinstanley> antoine: at this stage let's put it as an open issue and return to it
22:06:31 <roba> q+
22:06:42 <antoine> q+
22:06:51 <kcoyle> ack roba
22:06:57 <ncar> I was first!
22:07:38 <ncar> * no, other relevant comment about procedure of Issues
22:07:50 <alejandra_> +1 to roba comment's about inheritance
22:09:49 <kcoyle> ack ncar
22:11:18 <antoine> ncar: the discussion on inheritance relates to a PR for PROF, on examples of inheritance
22:11:48 <kcoyle> ack antoine
22:11:58 <antoine> ... if it's accepted people will see
22:13:03 <PWinstanley> antoine: reacting to ncar , having been involved in the discussion, the example deserves some improvement, but there should be a proper issue for the requirement [github issue is missing]. I gree wiht roba , and if he can open an issue for the explanation of inheritance it would be great
22:13:21 <PWinstanley> s/gree wiht/agree with/
22:13:54 <antoine> Action: roba to create a requirement issue for inheritance
22:13:54 <trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
22:14:21 <PWinstanley> rrsagent, create minutes v2
22:14:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/02/14-profgui-minutes.html PWinstanley
22:14:49 <antoine> Action: Antoine to relate other issues from external comments on inheritance to Rob's requirement, after he has created it
22:14:49 <trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
22:15:02 <PWinstanley> Meeting: Profile Guidance doc St Valentines Day Sprint
22:15:07 <PWinstanley> rrsagent, create minutes v2
22:15:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/02/14-profgui-minutes.html PWinstanley
22:15:43 <antoine> kcoyle: Data publication according to different profiles
22:15:43 <roba> dcat
22:15:51 <antoine> ... my take is that it's conneg
22:15:51 <roba> q+
22:16:11 <kcoyle> ack roba
22:16:28 <antoine> roba: it's a requirement for DCAT expressivity
22:16:35 <antoine> ... provide a mechanism to express it
22:16:45 <antoine> q+
22:17:42 <roba> q+
22:18:09 <antoine> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/608
22:18:10 <kcoyle> ack antoine
22:19:42 <kcoyle> ack roba
22:19:44 <PWinstanley> antoine: pasting a link to the requirement that indicates that we decided to create it as a general fork of something else, in the profile category.  It illustrates the need for expressivity - a mechanism in conneg shows that there can be many satisfying profiles and one can be chosen.  We want this to be a general feature
22:20:00 <PWinstanley> ... and I would prefer that not all examples come from DCAT
22:20:33 <antoine> roba: the documents are not disjoint, and the guidance can be the place where things are put together
22:20:47 <antoine> ... so DCAT can be one mechanism, but there can be others.
22:21:02 <ncar> q+
22:21:03 <alejandra__> +q
22:21:09 <alejandra__> nick alejandra
22:21:10 <antoine> kcoyle: we don't say how data relate to profiles
22:21:15 <kcoyle> ack ncar
22:21:22 <alejandra> s/nick alejandra/
22:21:30 <antoine> ncar: we had feedback on this from external comments
22:22:11 <antoine> ... there are examples that we have to align with
22:22:19 <kcoyle> ack alejandra
22:22:29 <antoine> alejandra: I agree it makes sense to put it in the guidance
22:22:37 <antoine> ... it's about linking profiles to data
22:22:45 <antoine> kcoyle: 2.5 and 2.6 are very similar
22:23:14 <roba> q+
22:23:16 <antoine> ... it seems we need to make a single section about data and profiles
22:23:25 <kcoyle> ack roba
22:23:31 <antoine> roba: I can see the difference but not in the wording
22:24:06 <antoine> ... difference between conformance of the data and the access to the data
22:24:16 <antoine> q+
22:25:11 <kcoyle> ack antoine
22:25:50 <PWinstanley> antoine: I'm fine if roba  starts it.  I'll check that what he writes fits with  #274 ... schema.org and DCAT compatibilty
22:26:16 <PWinstanley> ... data according to two profiles in one distribution
22:28:25 <antoine> kcoyle: there are notes that can be useful
22:28:39 <antoine> ... and then a part on validation. We can see where it belongs, in the end.
22:28:57 <antoine> q+
22:29:12 <kcoyle> ack antoine
22:29:21 <PWinstanley> antoine: should we try to go to the suggestions for section 1
22:29:24 <alejandra> +q
22:29:25 <PWinstanley> ...?
22:29:43 <kcoyle> ack alejandra
22:29:45 <alejandra> q-
22:31:21 <antoine> q+
22:31:30 <roba> q+
22:31:56 <kcoyle> ack antoine
22:32:25 <PWinstanley> antoine: it reads well, but do you want it as an editorial note?  Both sentences?  or as a regular paragraph?
22:32:39 <kcoyle> ack roba
22:32:57 <antoine> q+
22:33:33 <alejandra> +q
22:35:13 <PWinstanley> q+      to discuss the proposed edit of s.2.1
22:35:53 <kcoyle> q?
22:35:56 <kcoyle> ?q
22:36:01 <kcoyle> ack antoine
22:36:21 <PWinstanley> antoine: no pull requests now please.
22:36:50 <PWinstanley> ... I agree with roba original comment on a base specification and a profile.
22:38:21 <alejandra> q-
22:38:33 <kcoyle> ack PWinstanley
22:39:09 <PWinstanley> q+       to introduce the Baltimore classification  - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_classification
22:40:22 <roba> * what are we looking at Peter? the edits to section 1?
22:43:16 <antoine> [discussion on merging 2.2 and 2.3. we agree to wait until next time - and the diagrams]
22:43:32 <antoine> PWinstanley: [introduces his proposal for 2.1]
22:44:31 <antoine> PWinstanley: the Baltimore classification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_classification could be used as a guide
22:44:39 <antoine> ... it tells the rules to compose and match DNA
22:44:54 <antoine> kcoyle: feel free to make suggestions
22:45:58 <antoine> PWinstanley: it's about patterns/strategies
22:47:24 <antoine> rrsagent, please draft minutes
22:47:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/02/14-profgui-minutes.html antoine
22:49:37 <roba> +1 for these edits..
23:03:22 <PWinstanley> rrsagent, create minutes v2
23:03:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/02/14-profgui-minutes.html PWinstanley