IRC log of dxwgdcat on 2019-04-10

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:48:25 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dxwgdcat
19:48:25 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/04/10-dxwgdcat-irc
19:48:27 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
19:48:27 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #dxwgdcat
19:48:29 [trackbot]
Meeting: Dataset Exchange Working Group Teleconference
19:48:29 [trackbot]
Date: 10 April 2019
19:48:52 [DaveBrowning]
Meeting: DXWG DCAT subgroup teleconference 10 April 2019 20:00 UTC
19:49:34 [DaveBrowning]
regrets: Alasdair Gray, Erik Mannens, Thomas D'Haenens, Lars Svensson, Makx
19:49:45 [DaveBrowning]
chair: DaveBrowning
19:50:04 [DaveBrowning]
agenda: https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:DCAT-Telecon2019.04.10
19:50:20 [DaveBrowning]
rrsagent, draft minutes v2
19:50:20 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/04/10-dxwgdcat-minutes.html DaveBrowning
19:51:23 [DaveBrowning]
present+
19:57:26 [PWinstanley]
PWinstanley has joined #dxwgdcat
20:02:40 [AndreaPerego]
AndreaPerego has joined #dxwgdcat
20:02:46 [AndreaPerego]
present+
20:04:10 [riccardoalbertoni]
riccardoalbertoni has joined #dxwgdcat
20:04:50 [riccardoalbertoni]
present+
20:05:59 [PWinstanley]
present+
20:07:14 [PWinstanley]
scribenick: PWinstanley
20:07:39 [DaveBrowning]
agenda - https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:DCAT-Telecon2019.04.10
20:08:01 [AndreaPerego]
+1
20:08:02 [riccardoalbertoni]
*q
20:08:06 [riccardoalbertoni]
+1
20:08:14 [AndreaPerego]
s/*q//
20:08:22 [PWinstanley]
regrets+ SimonCox
20:08:39 [AndreaPerego]
RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
20:08:39 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/04/10-dxwgdcat-minutes.html AndreaPerego
20:08:46 [AndreaPerego]
regrets+ Alejandra
20:08:48 [PWinstanley]
Topic: Admin
20:08:56 [PWinstanley]
proposed: approve minutes
20:09:02 [DaveBrowning]
Approve minutes from previous meetings - https://www.w3.org/2019/03/27-dxwgdcat-minutes
20:09:13 [AndreaPerego]
+1
20:09:18 [PWinstanley]
+1
20:09:23 [riccardoalbertoni]
+1
20:09:32 [PWinstanley]
resolved: approve minutes
20:09:33 [DaveBrowning]
+1
20:09:37 [AndreaPerego]
RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
20:09:37 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/04/10-dxwgdcat-minutes.html AndreaPerego
20:10:11 [AndreaPerego]
topic: How we capture work in progress for future work - branches, issues, PRs etc
20:10:22 [PWinstanley]
Topic: How we capture work in progress for future work?
20:10:58 [AndreaPerego]
s/topic: How we capture work in progress for future work - branches, issues, PRs etc//
20:11:12 [PWinstanley]
DaveBrowning: there are diverse branches that we might want to keep - do people agree and how should we do this?
20:11:36 [riccardoalbertoni]
+q
20:11:44 [DaveBrowning]
ack riccardoalbertoni
20:12:10 [PWinstanley]
riccardoalbertoni: we have organised 2 milestones, and a CR that includes critical issues that we have to address
20:12:39 [PWinstanley]
... Is the question what do we do with the future work, the backlog?
20:13:16 [riccardoalbertoni]
+q
20:13:21 [PWinstanley]
DaveBrowning: yes. when we prepare the CR we will point to the milestone and also to the work we weren't able to complete. Do we do some housekeeping to organise this, or not?
20:13:24 [DaveBrowning]
ack riccardoalbertoni
20:14:36 [PWinstanley]
riccardoalbertoni: I've proposed that we have a link to the future priorities. Where we have issues we could point to an editorial note, but this is time-consuming and would result in a doc with lots of notes
20:14:53 [PWinstanley]
DaveBrowning: I'm asking because I have the same thoughts
20:14:55 [PWinstanley]
q+
20:15:22 [DaveBrowning]
ack PWinstanley
20:16:56 [DaveBrowning]
PWinstanley: Priorities might change, and a badly done organisation may mislead readers
20:17:01 [AndreaPerego]
Agree with PWinstanley
20:19:32 [PWinstanley]
DaveBrowning: I think the consensus is that we don't impose on the future and simply ensure that what is left isn't erroneous
20:19:51 [AndreaPerego]
RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
20:19:51 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/04/10-dxwgdcat-minutes.html AndreaPerego
20:19:56 [PWinstanley]
Topic: Milestone 14
20:19:59 [DaveBrowning]
https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/milestone/14
20:21:09 [PWinstanley]
DaveBrowning: can we look at the ones that are not critical to see if they need to be included at this point or moved to future
20:22:02 [DaveBrowning]
PRs at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3A%22DCAT+CR%22
20:22:10 [PWinstanley]
... The other relevant thing is PRs for DCAT at the above URL
20:22:21 [PWinstanley]
... these are open and under active development
20:23:07 [PWinstanley]
... There is one that Alejandra still has to give an opinion on, and the other 4 we can hold fire
20:23:27 [riccardoalbertoni]
+1 to move it on the future /backlog
20:23:33 [PWinstanley]
... There are some about coverage and summary statistics that we can perhaps demote. Do people agree?
20:23:35 [AndreaPerego]
+1 to merge Alejandra's PR
20:23:38 [AndreaPerego]
q+
20:23:46 [DaveBrowning]
ack AndreaPerego
20:24:44 [PWinstanley]
AndreaPerego: my understanding is that this was created before we realised we have to publish quickly. I don't know if feedback was limited. It would be nice to include, so perhaps we can see who can review. Let's put in the agenda for the next DCAT call
20:24:55 [PWinstanley]
DaveBrowning: I think we can hold off making a decision
20:26:16 [PWinstanley]
AndreaPerego: there is the one of the temporal coverage - this is reflecting the DCAT-AP solution. There is a gap in the current DCAT. In the previous one there was limited scope for covering temporal cover. We are thinking of replacing schema.org properties
20:26:32 [PWinstanley]
... there is no change in the expression of information, just a change in the properties
20:26:50 [PWinstanley]
... also coordinates, rather than a geographical name
20:27:24 [PWinstanley]
... Using them would be simple and because the community that found the gap raised it, it should be easy to find implementation evidence
20:29:23 [riccardoalbertoni]
+q
20:29:33 [DaveBrowning]
ack riccardoalbertoni
20:29:34 [PWinstanley]
DaveBrowning: I think that helps understand your perspective. I agree with your concerns, but at the moment I think they can be retained in the CR and marked as non-critical. We are a reduced team at present. Decisions about what goes in can be made at the end of the month
20:30:47 [PWinstanley]
riccardoalbertoni: I was going to put them in as critical, but a solution might be to put them in the CR and mark them at risk - then if there are problems we can retract them
20:30:56 [PWinstanley]
q+
20:31:10 [DaveBrowning]
ack PWinstanley
20:31:38 [riccardoalbertoni]
+q
20:32:21 [riccardoalbertoni]
q-
20:32:22 [DaveBrowning]
q?
20:34:48 [riccardoalbertoni]
https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#candidate-rec
20:35:12 [riccardoalbertoni]
+q
20:35:14 [PWinstanley]
AndreaPerego: if there is the possibility of releasing another issue shortly after this version 2, then there isn't an issue - but the critical question is how long this interval might be
20:35:24 [DaveBrowning]
q?
20:35:39 [DaveBrowning]
ack riccardoalbertoni
20:35:46 [PWinstanley]
... the issues of spatial and temporal coverage have been identified alreasy by the community so need to be dealt with
20:36:25 [PWinstanley]
riccardoalbertoni: I have provided the link to the procedure - it seems that one of the items includes items in the document that are 'at risk'
20:36:42 [PWinstanley]
... we are not sure if there will be enough implementation evidence
20:36:48 [AndreaPerego]
Thanks for the pointer, riccardoalbertoni . Makes sense to me.
20:37:21 [PWinstanley]
riccardoalbertoni: I think that the 'feature at risk' is something we should consider
20:38:44 [PWinstanley]
proposed: we should consider using the 'feature at risk' annotation and at some point involve the plenary, but till then the DCAT editors should consider where it is appropriate to implement
20:38:50 [AndreaPerego]
+1
20:38:52 [PWinstanley]
+1
20:38:53 [riccardoalbertoni]
+1
20:38:53 [DaveBrowning]
+1
20:39:15 [PWinstanley]
resolved: we should consider using the 'feature at risk' annotation and at some point involve the plenary, but till then the DCAT editors should consider where it is appropriate to implement
20:39:16 [AndreaPerego]
q+
20:39:34 [DaveBrowning]
q?
20:39:38 [PWinstanley]
AndreaPerego: thanks riccardoalbertoni . I missed that point
20:39:39 [DaveBrowning]
ack AndreaPerego
20:40:03 [riccardoalbertoni]
I agree
20:40:39 [PWinstanley]
... I want to raise a caveat - it is true that they can be dropped, but the consequences, the impact of dropping one 'at risk' with others might be problematic. with the spatial there are unlikely to be side effecte
20:41:04 [PWinstanley]
... but with others there might be. so we need to be aware and ensure that we don't break the model
20:41:17 [riccardoalbertoni]
I agree ...
20:41:55 [PWinstanley]
DaveBrowning: I agree, but what I'm suggesting is that we follow the process and involve the plenary in agreeing to the overall game plan
20:42:27 [AndreaPerego]
RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
20:42:27 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/04/10-dxwgdcat-minutes.html AndreaPerego
20:42:31 [PWinstanley]
... thanks for pointing out the potential risk
20:43:01 [DaveBrowning]
https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/765
20:43:12 [PWinstanley]
Topic: issue about Organisation and Person - issue #765
20:43:25 [PWinstanley]
DaveBrowning: what are your thoughts AndreaPerego ?
20:44:23 [PWinstanley]
AndreaPerego: we can be relaxed - Org was released at about the same time as DCAT 1. Some people overlapped
20:45:15 [PWinstanley]
DaveBrowning: the question crossing my mind is whether Makx's comment about foaf having 'sufficient properties' to describe these entities is accurate and that we might drop 'sufficient'
20:45:41 [PWinstanley]
... I will edit and then we can defer the rest of it to future work
20:46:02 [riccardoalbertoni]
+q
20:46:12 [DaveBrowning]
ack riccardoalbertoni
20:46:16 [PWinstanley]
DaveBrowning: I will reach out to volunteers for the dcat.ttl and ask them to proceed with translations
20:46:52 [PWinstanley]
riccardoalbertoni: we need to ensure that we only ask them when the dcat.ttl is absolutely ready
20:46:55 [AndreaPerego]
q+
20:47:05 [DaveBrowning]
ack AndreaPerego
20:47:35 [PWinstanley]
AndreaPerego: I'm not able to say what has been changed, so wait until we have stable text and do the translations after.
20:47:51 [PWinstanley]
... this can be done whilst CR is being considered
20:48:48 [riccardoalbertoni]
+q
20:49:27 [DaveBrowning]
ack riccardoalbertoni
20:50:09 [PWinstanley]
riccardoalbertoni: do we need an extra milestone for after CR that includes things like the blank errata page, the translations, etc
20:50:37 [PWinstanley]
DaveBrowning: yes, but I'm checking what other groups have done so that we can ensure we don't miss anything
20:51:14 [AndreaPerego]
q+ to comment on https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/886
20:51:18 [PWinstanley]
rrsagent, create minutes v2
20:51:18 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/04/10-dxwgdcat-minutes.html PWinstanley
20:51:41 [AndreaPerego]
q?
20:52:07 [DaveBrowning]
ack AndreaPerego
20:52:07 [Zakim]
AndreaPerego, you wanted to comment on https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/886
20:52:13 [riccardoalbertoni]
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uLYKUTWIJvoW2vDkVVyzpZ6oztHSITlPLgAAI9IAmek/edit#gid=600021730
20:52:17 [riccardoalbertoni]
+q
20:53:10 [PWinstanley]
AndreaPerego: ack section - we should try to include as many people as possible, I have made a suggestion to include others outside the WG who have contributed. riccardoalbertoni is picking up the names
20:53:18 [PWinstanley]
DaveBrowning: I agree with doing this
20:53:20 [PWinstanley]
+1
20:53:50 [PWinstanley]
DaveBrowning: the only thing that crossed my mind is that there is c. 50 people
20:53:52 [PWinstanley]
q+
20:54:52 [DaveBrowning]
ack riccardoalbertoni
20:55:09 [PWinstanley]
riccardoalbertoni: I've collected the names - in this link
20:55:29 [PWinstanley]
... there are also a number of people who contributed issues
20:55:56 [DaveBrowning]
ack PWinstanley
20:56:36 [riccardoalbertoni]
+q
20:56:49 [DaveBrowning]
q?
20:58:19 [DaveBrowning]
ack riccardoalbertoni
20:58:49 [PWinstanley]
action: PWinstanley to ask W3C's advice about IPR, GDPR etc with acknowledgements
20:58:50 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-323 - Ask w3c's advice about ipr, gdpr etc with acknowledgements [on Peter Winstanley - due 2019-04-17].
20:59:28 [PWinstanley]
rrsagent, create minutes v2
20:59:28 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/04/10-dxwgdcat-minutes.html PWinstanley
21:00:09 [AndreaPerego]
q+
21:00:30 [AndreaPerego]
q-
21:02:16 [AndreaPerego]
AndreaPerego: Besides the need to review it more properly, my concern is that it may be questionable to add alignments only for some vocabularies and not others.
21:02:24 [PWinstanley]
rrsagent, create minutes v2
21:02:24 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/04/10-dxwgdcat-minutes.html PWinstanley
21:02:53 [PWinstanley]
AndreaPerego: acknowledgements - should we prepare and await the results of the action 323?
21:03:23 [riccardoalbertoni]
+1 to have pr and face the music
21:03:29 [DaveBrowning]
+1
21:03:38 [PWinstanley]
rrsagent, create minutes v2
21:03:38 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/04/10-dxwgdcat-minutes.html PWinstanley