– DRAFT –
DXWG DCAT subgroup teleconference 17 April 2019 20:00 UTC

<DaveBrowning> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌wiki/‌Meetings:DCAT-Telecon2019.04.17

proposed: accept minutes of last meeting

+

+1

<DaveBrowning> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

Resolved: accept minutes of last meeting

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

look at DCAT CR and immediate workload

DaveBrowning: although there are quite a few things in the milestone I got the sense that we are quickly addressing the critical things
… and that those things are close to completion
… Thanks to riccardoAlbertoni for some finaly tidying up
… PR 838 will be merged
… so pending final checks, the paperwork is done, there are a couple of final issues in the doc that will get closed when the work for them is addressed
… We can look for the tidying up, taking into account Simon's suggestion
… which might include some pushback on figures, but we can talk through that when he returns. Same for the linked data platform - Simon is pro, and I am agnostic
… The one other thing is issue #174 - non English labels and comments, and I'll go back to the people PWinstanley has found after the Easter break when we'll be in a more complete situation.
… All issues that are not marked 'critical' are not critical
… Does all that make sense?

+1

riccardoAlbertoni: looking through the issues, I don't see anything that is critical that isn't marked 'critical'

AndreaPerego: re: #895 . In the different places where this specification is available, they should point to the official version - but as we don't know what that is, it is some editorial work

<AndreaPerego> I think https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌886 and https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌890 can be closed.

DaveBrowning: yes, it would be nice to have is coherent and clean, but I'm tempted to leave it as 'critical' so that we can address it

AndreaPerego: I think we can also close 2 issues. #890 and #886

DaveBrowning: with the process we are following at the moment, they will be closed at the end of the week (Thurs)

<riccardoAlbertoni> we can label "due to close" issues 838

DaveBrowning: because they are in the list given to the plenary and that is the process that allows everyone to see our intentions

AndreaPerego: I'm not sure of the final deadline we are working to

PWinstanley: I will find the calculator and mail this around

DaveBrowning: the major unresolved issue is discussion of the text with Simon and Annette
… and this needs to be addressed before we put to the plenary

PWinstanley: suggest that we bring forward any discussion that might lead to changes in the docs

riccardoAlbertoni: I agree that we wait for Simon to contribute

riccardoAlbertoni: to note that the next week has several public holidays

DaveBrowning: so our timeline might be early May

PWinstanley: to suggest that we can do polls and so on online to cope with the holiday period

riccardoAlbertoni: I noticed that some notes in the doc talk about new property/class and I think we need to identify these new elements in one place (beginning or end, but together)

DaveBrowning: works for me

<riccardoAlbertoni> can I label "due to close" the issues 838?

DaveBrowning: it would be useful to move onto the rest of the agenda
… looking at the open issues
… many of these are either superceded or completed.

AndreaPerego: I was reviewing the specification to see where this can be made - I think the new classes and properties can be done. There is a 'rationale for change' section, and the change log at the end contains these new classes etc, but it contains other stuff that is not part of the normative spec. One option would be to sift these normative ones out and put under section 6
… Another option is to include an appendix and to link that at section 2 (motivation)
… it could be just a table of the new elements
… together with domain/range information on the new properties

<riccardoAlbertoni> https://‌w3c.github.io/‌dxwg/‌dcat/#Property:catalog_hasPart

riccardoAlbertoni: If you look at this link, when we present the different new elements we add an editorial note. Sometimes this note is at the beginning, sometimes at the end. We need to be consistent

<DaveBrowning> and at end https://‌w3c.github.io/‌dxwg/‌dcat/#Property:catalog_hasPart

<DaveBrowning> /w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/#Classs:Resource///w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/#Classs:Resource

riccardoAlbertoni: Having another section that holds just the new features is useful too, but it was this editorial note that I was referring to

<DaveBrowning> /w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/#Property:catalog_hasPart///w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/#Class:Resource

AndreaPerego: I also realised that

DaveBrowning: so back to the open actions

AndreaPerego: I was reviewing them

Open Actions

<AndreaPerego> This one could be closed: https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌270

AndreaPerego: 270 is done
… there are others, like 252 and 286 can be closed - I haven't done this job but the issues have been addressed
… there are others; 134 was an old one,
… 309 and 310 are related PRs [807] which is still a draft,
… this is on hold

DaveBrowning: where do you think the PR is - ready for review or not?

AndreaPerego: I think that in the relevant issue on github I have described the proposals and the PR implements one of them. This is awaiting feedback

DaveBrowning: my suggestion is to mark the PR for review and assign the usual reviewers and see what reaction we get

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to mark it as ready to review

DaveBrowning: if it stimulates discussion we may need to defer, but if people are comfortable then we can perhaps include it

AndreaPerego: do we want to close 270 ?

<AndreaPerego> close action-270

<trackbot> Closed action-270.

PWinstanley: can we close 173 and 174
… these are now in a github issue

<AndreaPerego> PR https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌pull/‌807 marked as ready for review.

https://‌github.com/‌pwin/‌DataPortalAnalysis

This is in relation to Action #246

<riccardoAlbertoni> s/helps full/helpful

<riccardoAlbertoni> s/I think it/I think it is

<AndreaPerego> https://‌raw.githack.com/‌pwin/‌DataPortalAnalysis/‌master/‌Analysis_of_2019-03-14_edp_output.html

AndreaPerego: the work on the statistics is helpful. perhaps we can give a pointer to the final file

DaveBrowning: implementation evidence

AndreaPerego: I started working on this report
… I created a branch

<AndreaPerego> Working draft on implementation evidence: https://‌raw.githack.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌andrea-perego-dcat-implementation-report/‌ir-vocab-dcat-2/‌index.html

AndreaPerego: This is looking at different sorts of evidence, in profiles, documents, etc
… also in the design of platforms (e.g. CKAN)
… I think that we need to use this as effective evidence for implementation

<riccardoAlbertoni> it seems a good start!

DaveBrowning: it is a nice layout - clear

AndreaPerego: we need to look at the detail of the apps to see how they can export metadata and what of DCAT is used

DaveBrowning: AOB?