proposed: agree minutes https://www.w3.org/2019/04/17-dxwgdcat-minutes
<alejandra> 0 (was absent)
<SimonCox> Sorry - regrets on that one - 0
<SimonCox> minutes https://www.w3.org/2019/04/17-dxwgdcat-minutes
Resolved: agree minutes https://www.w3.org/2019/04/17-dxwgdcat-minutes
proposed: agree minutes https://www.w3.org/2019/05/01-dxwgdcat-minutes
0 - not there
<riccardoAlbertoni_> +0 (I was not there)
Resolved: agree minutes https://www.w3.org/2019/05/01-dxwgdcat-minutes
DaveBrowning: are we finished yet?
<SimonCox> SHould remove NOTE in Section 4
DaveBrowning: there are a few editorial fixes needed, but apart from that we had addressed everything yesterday
… We probably need to make a statement of how we proceed
<Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to note there's alejandra's draft PR: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/803
<SimonCox> Editors note in https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/#RDF-representation is not correct anymore
AndreaPerego: There is a draft PR made by alejandra for linking datasets within a publicaiton - is this going to be merged? there is no negative feedback
<SimonCox> Remove note https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/#conformance
alejandra: I think that if people are happy it would be useful to include this and I can spend time in the next week to address is. The PR is incomplete, we need to look across the document to see consequentials. Can people wait?
DaveBrowning: I think we need to be ready by the end of the month. It would be good to get it included
AndreaPerego: for me the addition is uncontroversial
… I also think we can easily find implementation evidence
alejandra: in addition to this by the end of the month we need the doc reviewed by the plenary/ But what about evidence of implementation?
<alejandra> also note the new issue by Lars on editorial issues: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/922
DaveBrowning: according to the form, if you have it then it should be included, but there wasn't much detail
AndreaPerego: that is my understanding too - we don't need the implementation evidence doc at the point we submit for CR
DaveBrowning: that sounds like we have some flexibility. We have to give the plenary some time to consider this - so we need to ensure that there will only be pure editorial work after that. The sooner we can get the plenary to look at the final content the better
<SimonCox> I've just scrolled through the ED and I see no problems with sending this to the plenary. I do still see editorial issues, primarily consistency in the notes, but nothing embarrassing.
<riccardoAlbertoni_> I agree with SimonCox
<SimonCox> ... modulo ALejandra contribution on citations?
<SimonCox> is alejandra's contribution 'normative'?
alejandra: hopefully there won't be any conflicts. People already agree with its inclusion - so it should be OK
<AndreaPerego> This is also how I see it. I don't see particular issues in merging it.
alejandra: I guess we can make the decision about whether it is normative. What do people think?
AndreaPerego: I think that if it is added then it will be in the vocab spec and so will be normative
SimonCox: alejandra, in an earlier phase we added treatment of relationships - dct:relation and qualified relations. There may need to have a note relating to these
alejandra: do you mean that the relationship to publication could be a qualified relation?
SimonCox: dct:isReferencedBy is also mentioned already. Your addition is just adding to the idea mentioned there
SimonCox: looking back at that usage note in the description of qualified relations, how many of these do you want to reference explicitly?
alejandra: we could argue that it isn't necessary to add it separately
SimonCox: depends on priorities. My normative/non-normative point was really wondering if we can handle the dct:isReferencedBy with an example and an explanation rather than a separate section?
alejandra: it makes sense to add a separate section because the relationship in this case of publicaitons is special, strong, and needed across many domains
AndreaPerego: +1 to alejandra - it is worth having this prop in the spec
… my experience with the JRC data catalogue - documenting data from multiple disciplines, the ability to link dataset to publication was commonplace
<SimonCox> OK - I'm cool with this because of the formal requirement from a key application community.
<alejandra> So, my action item includes adding a comment about qualified relation in that section
<SimonCox> I just wanted to draw attention to general consistency (which was already there!)
DaveBrowning: alejandra please pursue quickly
alejandra: I'll also cover the point about qualified relations
DaveBrowning: PWinstanley please send out to plenary about Monday
<SimonCox> could alejandra also include an RDF example fragment for this
<SimonCox> +1 no domain, just 'recommended for use in the this context'
<AndreaPerego> +1 to dropping the domain
proposed: to include the points alejandra will include about the link between dataset and publication and drop the domain constraint
Resolved: to include the points alejandra will include about the link between dataset and publication and drop the domain constraint
<riccardoAlbertoni_> That is a good point
AndreaPerego: should the property be listed under dcat:Resource rather than dcat:Dataset?
<alejandra> +1 to Andrea's point
<alejandra> services also have associated publications
<riccardoAlbertoni_> +1 to Andrea's point
<DaveBrowning> +1 to dcat:Resource
+1 to the dcat:Resource point
DaveBrowning: it looks like people are happy about this proposal
alejandra: to agree and say that if we think of profiles as a catalogable resource then they will have associated publications
proposed: we recommend the plenary to review and approve the plenary with a vote in 2-3 weeks
<alejandra> approve the draft...
proposed: we recommend the plenary to review and approve the draft with a vote by the plenary in 2-3 weeks
proposed: we recommend the plenary to review and approve the draft with a vote by the plenary in 2 weeks
Resolved: we recommend the plenary to review and approve the draft with a vote by the plenary in 2 weeks
DaveBrowning: we have discussed what the evidence should include given that we are re-using vocabularies
… it is not clear-cut
… apart from, perhaps, Nick's work
… So we need to think about what this evidence should comprise
<Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to mention the draft at https://raw.githack.com/w3c/dxwg/andrea-perego-dcat-implementation-report/ir-vocab-dcat-2/index.html
AndreaPerego: the link shows an incomplete doc that is based on DWBP
… we need to complete this
… for the vocabs we already have a list.
… we just need to review the info on platforms to see what provides the best support
DaveBrowning: this is just the sort of framework I was imagining
SimonCox: that is the most elaborate implementaiton report I've seen
… I can provide some alternative models
DaveBrowning: it would be useful to have some options
DaveBrowning: End of meeting
Succeeded: s/be linked to/be listed under/
Succeeded: s/DaveBrowning: Topic: implementation evidence//
No scribenick or scribe found. Guessed: pwinstanley
Maybe present: proposed