– DRAFT –
DXWG DCAT subgroup teleconference 15 May 2019 20:00 UTC

approve agenda

https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌wiki/‌Meetings:DCAT-Telecon2019.05.15

<SimonCox> +1

+1

<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1

<DaveBrowning> +1

approve minutes

https://‌www.w3.org/‌2019/‌05/‌08-dxwgdcat-minutes

+1

<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1

<DaveBrowning> +1

<SimonCox> +1

Resolved: last meeting minutes approved

Last night meeting

DaveBrowning: There was some discussion on transition request, but I don't think there's anything to be discussed today.
… For transition, according to the guidelines there's some paperwork to be done.
… One of the req is to include the editors' W3C ID in the config.js file.
… Better sooner than later.

progress on dcat cr : https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌milestone/‌14

DaveBrowning: Looking at the PRs, there's the editorial one by AndreaPerego, there are other editorial ones, but minor.
… There's the one about dcat.ttl...

RiccardoAlbertoni: My understanding is that we are waiting for the vote before asking for translations - also to have the very final one.

SimonCox: Valid point. We cannot ask people to do twice the same work.

AndreaPerego: Makes perfect sense to me as well.

RiccardoAlbertoni: E.g., we have the Italian translation that needs to be revised. So, do you confirm that we can wait?

DaveBrowning: Yes.

DaveBrowning: Can we discuss https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌pull/‌919 ?

AndreaPerego: One of the points is about splitting the namespace table. Is this table just meant to give the prefix to URI mapping, or to give the list of specifications used in DCAT and those used in the example.

SimonCox: I think we can go for the 2nd option. We have also a section about the use of other vocs in DCAT, but it is not normative.

DaveBrowning: I would be in favour of that.
… It can be helpful for readers as well.

RiccardoAlbertoni: I am not sure I understand what we mean with normative vocabulary. E.g., DQV is only used in the guidance: is this normative or not?

DaveBrowning: I think we should include only in the vocs in Section 6.

RiccardoAlbertoni: Yes, but also the ones we use for DCAT terms, are just used partially.

<SimonCox> I would suggest only including vocabularies mentioned in Chapter 6 as normative

AndreaPerego: I don't think there's a requirement to re-use a whole voc to be included as a normative ref.

https://‌raw.githack.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌andrea-perego-dcat-ed-rev/‌dcat/‌index.html

<SimonCox> +1

<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1

<DaveBrowning> +1

https://‌services.w3.org/‌htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fdxwg%2Fdcat%2Findex.html&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fraw.githack.com%2Fw3c%2Fdxwg%2Fandrea-perego-dcat-ed-rev%2Fdcat%2Findex.html#Class:Catalog

AndreaPerego: The other point is about the change not for class catalog, which should be reviewed. Also, I'm unsure which are the relevant issues.

SimonCox: I am not sure we have specific issues for them. It could be an outcome of discussion from a f2f

AndreaPerego: I will check the minutes then.

<RiccardoAlbertoni> No lets merge ...

<RiccardoAlbertoni> I agree with andrea these PRs are about editorial and I do not see much problems in merging

DaveBrowning: Should we wait to merge until the PR poll is closed?

AndreaPerego: These are just editorial changes, so we shouldn't be subject to the vote.

<RiccardoAlbertoni> i agree ... let merge as soon as possible

<SimonCox> Yes - editorial changes, but the section ordering are significant changes to the loook of the document.

<SimonCox> so need to merge soon soon

DaveBrowning: Should we discuss anything else?

SimonCox: Can the diagrams be pushed?

DaveBrowning: Yep.

<SimonCox> bye

[meeting adjourned]