20:49:17 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dxwg
20:49:17 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/03/05-dxwg-irc
20:49:24 <kcoyle> rrsagent, make logs public
20:49:29 <dsr> dsr has joined #dxwg
20:50:08 <dsr> dsr has left #dxwg
20:50:36 <dsr> dsr has joined #dxwg
20:54:49 <kcoyle> meeting: dxwg plenary March 5 2019
20:54:55 <kcoyle> chair: Karen Coyle
20:55:07 <kcoyle> regrets+ Antoine , SimonCox
20:55:13 <kcoyle> present+
20:55:37 <PWinstanley> PWinstanley has joined #dxwg
20:57:17 <PWinstanley> present+
20:57:44 <Makx> Makx has joined #dxwg
20:58:08 <ncar> ncar has joined #dxwg
20:58:31 <ncar> present+
21:00:07 <roba> roba has joined #dxwg
21:03:01 <Makx> presenr+
21:03:14 <Makx> present+
21:03:37 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dxwg
21:05:01 <PWinstanley> scribenick: PWinstanley
21:05:08 <dsr> present+
21:05:16 <kcoyle> https://www.w3.org/2019/02/26-dxwg-minutes
21:05:18 <alejandra> alejandra has joined #dxwg
21:05:25 <PWinstanley> meeting: DXWG Plenary
21:05:42 <PWinstanley> topic: Admin
21:05:42 <alejandra> present+
21:05:53 <kcoyle> proposed: accept minues of Feb 26
21:06:08 <kcoyle> +1
21:06:11 <PWinstanley> +1
21:06:38 <ncar> +1
21:06:47 <alejandra> +1
21:07:17 <kcoyle> resolved: accept minutes of Feb 26
21:07:45 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: Open Actions
21:07:50 <roba> +1
21:08:06 <AndreaPerego> AndreaPerego has joined #dxwg
21:08:12 <AndreaPerego> present+
21:08:21 <annette_g> sorry, I'm going to have to miss today's meeting.
21:08:30 <PWinstanley> ... there are actions from the conneg work that are open
21:08:32 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, make logs world
21:08:54 <ncar> q+
21:08:59 <PWinstanley> ... we still have the gap analysis for the guidance doc, but we need to wait until that doc is further forward
21:09:02 <kcoyle> ack ncar
21:09:26 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
21:09:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/03/05-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
21:09:30 <PWinstanley> ncar: that gap analysis is long-standing, but will only be done when there is more of a doc
21:09:30 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, make logs world
21:09:40 <PWinstanley> ...I have completed #305
21:09:56 <AndreaPerego> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2019.03.05
21:09:58 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
21:09:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/03/05-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
21:10:06 <PWinstanley> ... we ran a sprint and pulled together text that is now in the draft
21:10:28 <PWinstanley> ... following agreement from roba and LarsG
21:11:14 <kcoyle> regrets+ annette_g
21:11:40 <kcoyle> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Jo8pMcYbJBl8jNezeHTml7HfeqO8fnTnc3swVXEiS3I/edit#gid=0
21:12:11 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: For keeping track of all the feedback, PWinstanley began a google sheet that is far from complete.  Do people think this is useful?
21:13:03 <ncar> q+
21:13:10 <kcoyle> ack ncar
21:13:20 <PWinstanley> ... the complication is the discussion in github, which is being labelled as feedback, but is often part of a complicated thread where the comment might come in somewhere deepeer in thread
21:13:38 <alejandra> +q
21:13:47 <AndreaPerego> Just to note that PROF and ODRL profiles were discussed in today's ODRL CG call: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-odrl/2019Mar/0002.html
21:14:20 <PWinstanley> ncar: we are getting good contributions that we can respond to that are entirely related to conneg
21:14:36 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: what is the w3c position for github comments?
21:15:27 <PWinstanley> dsr: are they coming in as issues?  using the labels would help,but I'm not aware of any W3C formal approach.  we are still evaluating github and this can feed into that
21:15:51 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> Jaroslav_Pullmann has joined #dxwg
21:15:57 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> present+
21:16:15 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: github has been very fruitful, but is harder for discussion and also tracking that the response is to the satisfaction of the commenter
21:16:47 <PWinstanley> ncar: we ask the other people who comment on the mailing list to look at the issue when we transfer it to github
21:17:15 <ncar> I've emailed Annette re ACTION-306 so please can that ACTION be closed here?
21:17:43 <PWinstanley> dsr: the disposition of comments will mention the comment and its resolution in a document
21:18:18 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: this could be incorporated into the spreadsheet if we add columns for resolution and the agreement that it is satisfactory
21:18:57 <PWinstanley> Topic: subgroup reports
21:19:10 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: how close are we with DCAT to another draft?
21:19:13 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
21:19:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/03/05-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
21:19:34 <PWinstanley> alejandra: re: issues and comments, we encourage people to put things in issues
21:20:03 <PWinstanley> alejandra: re: DCAT, we are trying to define a date and will then guillotine
21:20:36 <PWinstanley> ... dsr can perhaps guide on the implementation report.  Does it need to be complete when going to CR?
21:21:05 <PWinstanley> ... according to the calculator that PWinstanley guided us to , we need to stop in mid March.
21:22:02 <PWinstanley> ... there are many things we still need to complete.  Given this is an update of an existing implementation, do we only need to provide evidence on the gaps that we have filled?
21:22:18 <PWinstanley> dsr: I'll ask Phillipe
21:22:48 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: can alejandra say something about the importance of things that might not be included?  anything vital?
21:23:26 <PWinstanley> alejandra: we haven't included versioning.  There is a PR from riccardo, and Jaro is preparing some material.  I think it is an important area
21:23:47 <PWinstanley> ... other things are more detailed
21:24:18 <roba> q+
21:24:24 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: if we feel there are essential things we don't have time for we can ask for an extension, but we need to know what we are wanting to do
21:24:34 <PWinstanley> roba:
21:24:36 <kcoyle> ack alejandra
21:25:04 <kcoyle> ack roba
21:25:33 <PWinstanley> roba:  the profiles ont - questions on attaching metadata props.  we have an alignment to DCAT and we might make it a subClass of dcat:Resource
21:25:43 <PWinstanley> ...is this helpful as an implementation?
21:26:03 <alejandra> +q
21:26:20 <kcoyle> ack alejandra
21:27:06 <PWinstanley> alejandra:  I don't have the answer, but it would be helpful since we  think of dcat:Resource as an abstract class , an extension point
21:27:27 <PWinstanley> dsr: I will try to formulate the question and ask
21:27:52 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: we need a drop-dead date for DCAT and then a gap analysis to determine if we need an extension
21:28:13 <PWinstanley> ... we are well organised re: DCAT
21:28:28 <AndreaPerego> topic: Profile Vocabulary
21:28:30 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
21:28:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/03/05-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
21:28:30 <PWinstanley> ...profiles vocab has some significant issues still.
21:29:02 <PWinstanley> ... the addition of roles, which we voted on, and fixing definitions (makx referred to some time back)
21:29:31 <PWinstanley> ... we can use this issue to discuss it
21:29:51 <kcoyle> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/755
21:30:22 <PWinstanley> ... these are 2 things we would like to get into the next draft as they will be explanatory.  How do we do it?
21:30:27 <ncar> q+
21:30:36 <kcoyle> ack ncar
21:31:03 <roba> q+
21:31:17 <PWinstanley> ncar: we are poised to add the roles to the doc, we just need to determine which ones we put in the doc.  we are still determining the names for roles
21:31:44 <roba> istribution, not resource
21:32:03 <PWinstanley> ... we need to work through the implications of making a profile a subClass of dcat:Resource
21:32:19 <PWinstanley> ... we are trying to work out if we can reuse more than we did in the past
21:32:49 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: the question is how we do this - it needs plenty of discussion with the largest group possible.  Github?
21:33:15 <PWinstanley> ncar: that is a good idea.  The other option is a discussion within a drafting sprint
21:33:16 <kcoyle> ack roba
21:33:44 <ncar> * I've put a Doodle Poll up for a sprint
21:34:22 <PWinstanley> roba: I asked ncar if we can have a sprint, and we can include this discussion in that.  We can use the googledoc mode, but if people can't join that then the github issues are there and people can contribute to that if they cannot manage to be in the sprint
21:35:02 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: we need a clean github issue without other stuff, ideally
21:35:29 <PWinstanley> roba: we have decided to do that
21:35:48 <ncar> q+
21:35:51 <alejandra> About the spreadsheet for comments (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Jo8pMcYbJBl8jNezeHTml7HfeqO8fnTnc3swVXEiS3I/edit#gid=0), I think it should include a column with the document they refer to (DCAT, PROF Voc, ProfGui, Conneg)
21:35:59 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: we only decided that we include the roles, but we haven't discussed the specifics of which roles to include
21:36:02 <kcoyle> ack ncar
21:36:23 <PWinstanley> ncar: that is exactly what we need to discuss.
21:36:30 <roba> ok make a clean issue for the roles definitions
21:36:42 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: these are roles that ncar and roba have discussed, but have others?
21:36:57 <PWinstanley> ncar: simon cox has contributed,
21:37:00 <roba> roles have been exposed in examples in FPWD
21:37:11 <roba> will make the issue now
21:37:52 <PWinstanley> actiion: roba to open new issue seeded with list of roles and definitions and ask for comment
21:38:00 <PWinstanley> action: roba to open new issue seeded with list of roles and definitions and ask for comment
21:38:01 <trackbot> Created ACTION-307 - Open new issue seeded with list of roles and definitions and ask for comment [on Rob Atkinson - due 2019-03-12].
21:38:25 <PWinstanley> ncar: other roles can be added later
21:38:42 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: we can mention OWA in the doc in context of roles
21:38:58 <PWinstanley> ... we don't need to define the extension mechanism
21:40:20 <PWinstanley> ncar: this is the issue I have been against, why I've thought we needed an explicit roles definition so that people look elsewhere for them.  I've been trying to encourage people to use their own roles rather than just relying on what is included
21:40:47 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: we want the roles in the next draft to elicit comments, not to include them in the vocab.
21:41:03 <PWinstanley> ... they can be just a bullet list in the HTML doc
21:41:26 <PWinstanley> ... We have done that in other docs.  e.g. DCAT with examples of mappings
21:41:52 <ncar> q+
21:41:59 <PWinstanley> ... we give a taster in the doc, purely to stimulate the reader to go and look at the full piece (which is elsewhere)
21:43:20 <PWinstanley> ... there are other substantial comments about the profiles vocab, including that it might be formally aligned with DCAT.  So there is a lot to do.  At what point do we have sufficient issues resolved and how do we show that we have addressed the issues, even if we haven't resolved them all?
21:43:37 <kcoyle> ack ncar
21:44:01 <PWinstanley> ncar: we have tagged 34 open issues with 2ndPWD.  we are unlikely to get through those soon
21:44:43 <PWinstanley> ... makx issue #755 serves as a listing of all the definitions made elsewhere.  If we do that and the roles issue, then that is a good 2ndPWD candidate
21:44:47 <ncar> PROF 2PWD Issue list: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A%22PROF+2PWD%22
21:45:16 <PWinstanley> dsr: why are these things not concluded?
21:45:30 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: there is plenty of discussion but we didn't act on them
21:45:32 <roba> i think the vast majority of issues are easy to resolve.
21:45:35 <roba> q+
21:45:55 <PWinstanley> ... we haven't determined how substantial they are, though some look like they are
21:46:27 <PWinstanley> roba: we made 1 change to the model, but the rest is about explanation, packaging, naming of properties, etc.
21:46:51 <PWinstanley> ... many issues come down to style, editorial clean-up etc.
21:47:11 <PWinstanley> ... formalising the alignment to DCAT might resolve issues
21:48:03 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: I disagree in that i see many substantive issues.  if they are simple they should be resolved asap
21:48:22 <PWinstanley> roba: I think many are editorial and a sprint will help
21:48:50 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: many comments are on the content of the diags.  e.g. ShEx community comments
21:49:25 <ncar> q+
21:49:30 <PWinstanley> ... PWinstanley and kcoyle  sent a list of issues that need attention
21:49:38 <kcoyle> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/572
21:49:48 <PWinstanley> roba: ncar  generated a list of issues
21:50:08 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: if they are easy then please get them sorted quickly
21:51:42 <PWinstanley> ncar: we have agreed in this meeting an approach for roles, and in an email last night I provided an approach to the comments in that email from PWinstanley  and kcoyle
21:52:23 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: they are small issues, so complete them . we can't move forward with 82 issues being open
21:53:06 <PWinstanley> ... List the 'substantial' issues to ensure that we get these covered
21:54:09 <PWinstanley> ... we need a list to ensure that we can track the issues individually
21:54:37 <PWinstanley> q+
21:55:21 <PWinstanley> roba: there is the ontology, the formalism.
21:55:51 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: which of the 82 github issues are 'substantial', not just a small editorial effort?
21:56:48 <roba> ok will add issue numbers to sprint agenda
21:57:26 <PWinstanley> dsr: this is where having everything on a spreadsheet makes life easier to manage
21:57:53 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: we will need to add to the spreadsheet issues brought up by WG members
21:58:20 <roba> feel free to give us a list of issue numbers
21:58:32 <PWinstanley> ... they are not all externally generated.  The external ones have a specific requirement to be answered formally
21:58:43 <alejandra> +q
21:58:58 <PWinstanley> q-
21:59:01 <kcoyle> ack roba
21:59:01 <alejandra> q-
21:59:36 <kcoyle> ack ncar
22:00:49 <PWinstanley> ncar: one source of confusion was that in the orginal email from Tom Baker have many points that were converted into github issues.  They are all there, afaik.  Please can others double check
22:01:02 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: that is detailed in the email from PWinstanley and kcoyle
22:01:41 <PWinstanley> ... I will check this against the issues and let you know if there are any gaps.
22:02:23 <roba> i responded to your email of 4 march agreeing - and those issues are the focus of the sprint - its hard to see wjat else we can do..
22:02:24 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: there are lots of meetings - it is difficult for people, but if you can manage to join in the profiles vocab then please do
22:02:35 <kcoyle> rrsagent, please create minutes v2
22:02:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/03/05-dxwg-minutes.html kcoyle
22:02:47 <Makx> bye
22:02:48 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> bye!
22:02:51 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> present-
22:02:52 <AndreaPerego> Bye
22:02:54 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
22:02:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/03/05-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego