– DRAFT –
DXWG DCAT subgroup teleconference 10 April 2019 20:00 UTC

<AndreaPerego> +1

<riccardoalbertoni> +1

Admin

proposed: approve minutes

<DaveBrowning> Approve minutes from previous meetings - https://‌www.w3.org/‌2019/‌03/‌27-dxwgdcat-minutes

<AndreaPerego> +1

+1

<riccardoalbertoni> +1

Resolved: approve minutes

<DaveBrowning> +1

How we capture work in progress for future work?

DaveBrowning: there are diverse branches that we might want to keep - do people agree and how should we do this?

riccardoalbertoni: we have organised 2 milestones, and a CR that includes critical issues that we have to address
… Is the question what do we do with the future work, the backlog?

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?

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

DaveBrowning: I'm asking because I have the same thoughts

<DaveBrowning> PWinstanley: Priorities might change, and a badly done organisation may mislead readers

<AndreaPerego> Agree with 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

Milestone 14

<DaveBrowning> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌milestone/‌14

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

<DaveBrowning> PRs at https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3A%22DCAT+CR%22

DaveBrowning: The other relevant thing is PRs for DCAT at the above URL
… these are open and under active development
… There is one that Alejandra still has to give an opinion on, and the other 4 we can hold fire

<riccardoalbertoni> +1 to move it on the future /backlog

DaveBrowning: There are some about coverage and summary statistics that we can perhaps demote. Do people agree?

<AndreaPerego> +1 to merge Alejandra's PR

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

DaveBrowning: I think we can hold off making a decision

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
… there is no change in the expression of information, just a change in the properties
… also coordinates, rather than a geographical name
… Using them would be simple and because the community that found the gap raised it, it should be easy to find implementation evidence

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

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

<riccardoalbertoni> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2019/‌Process-20190301/#candidate-rec

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
… the issues of spatial and temporal coverage have been identified alreasy by the community so need to be dealt with

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'
… we are not sure if there will be enough implementation evidence

<AndreaPerego> Thanks for the pointer, riccardoalbertoni . Makes sense to me.

riccardoalbertoni: I think that the 'feature at risk' is something we should consider

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

<AndreaPerego> +1

+1

<riccardoalbertoni> +1

<DaveBrowning> +1

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

AndreaPerego: thanks riccardoalbertoni . I missed that point

<riccardoalbertoni> I agree

AndreaPerego: 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
… but with others there might be. so we need to be aware and ensure that we don't break the model

<riccardoalbertoni> I agree ...

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
… thanks for pointing out the potential risk

<DaveBrowning> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌765

issue about Organisation and Person - issue #765

DaveBrowning: what are your thoughts AndreaPerego ?

AndreaPerego: we can be relaxed - Org was released at about the same time as DCAT 1. Some people overlapped

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'
… I will edit and then we can defer the rest of it to future work

DaveBrowning: I will reach out to volunteers for the dcat.ttl and ask them to proceed with translations

riccardoalbertoni: we need to ensure that we only ask them when the dcat.ttl is absolutely ready

AndreaPerego: I'm not able to say what has been changed, so wait until we have stable text and do the translations after.
… this can be done whilst CR is being considered

riccardoalbertoni: do we need an extra milestone for after CR that includes things like the blank errata page, the translations, etc

DaveBrowning: yes, but I'm checking what other groups have done so that we can ensure we don't miss anything

<Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to comment on https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌886

<riccardoalbertoni> https://‌docs.google.com/‌spreadsheets/‌d/‌1uLYKUTWIJvoW2vDkVVyzpZ6oztHSITlPLgAAI9IAmek/‌edit#gid=600021730

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

DaveBrowning: I agree with doing this

+1

DaveBrowning: the only thing that crossed my mind is that there is c. 50 people

riccardoalbertoni: I've collected the names - in this link
… there are also a number of people who contributed issues

Action: PWinstanley to ask W3C's advice about IPR, GDPR etc with acknowledgements

<trackbot> Created ACTION-323 - Ask w3c's advice about ipr, gdpr etc with acknowledgements [on Peter Winstanley - due 2019-04-17].

<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.

AndreaPerego: acknowledgements - should we prepare and await the results of the action 323?

<riccardoalbertoni> +1 to have pr and face the music

<DaveBrowning> +1