+1
<LarsG> +1
<ncar> +1
<LarsG> +1
+1
<ncar> +1
Resolved: approve minutes: https://www.w3.org/2019/05/16-dxwgcneg-minutes
<LarsG> Action-193
<trackbot> Action-193: Rob Atkinson to Move jmeter test suite to within w3c systems -- due 2018-09-05 -- OPEN
<LarsG> roba: made some progress on test suite
roba: progress on test suite finally - using QSA flavour - will check in for review shortly
<LarsG> ... has not yet checked it in
<LarsG> ... one challenge is that the alternates view is specified well enough
<LarsG> ... ncar can look at implementation when it's checked in
ncar: implementing new instance of pyLDA - making 12 instances - looking to implement some common update and consistency in alternates view
<LarsG> roba: in terms of content negotiation we should not worry
<LarsG> ... about the alternates view
<LarsG> larsG: keep action open until code has been checked in and reviewd
action -193 , in train but still open
<trackbot> Error finding '-193'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/users>.
<LarsG> action-327
<trackbot> action-327: Peter Winstanley to Get w3c to announce conneg pwd2 -- due 2019-05-21 -- OPEN
LarsG: Peter has written announcement to comments list
… hasnt been announced wider in W3C
ncar: issue is do we have good enough text?
LarsG: Pwin has been circulating text about conneg and DCAT
<ncar> Here is the wiki page we used for FPWD email drafting: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/wiki/Profiles-Ont-&-Conneg-RFQ-emails
Action: LarsG to poll pwin regarding ACTION-327
<trackbot> Created ACTION-336 - Poll pwin regarding action-327 [on Lars G. Svensson - due 2019-05-30].
will discuss action-328 in main agenda
roba: if 6 months extension then need to clean up and get implementations out ASAP
… i will be aiming to get implemented in OGC next month - need the last few technical details sorted out
LarsG: gives DNB opportunity to make implementation
roba: urges DNB to get feedback ASAP
ncar: have not found difficult - not very complex w.r.t. profile hierarchy.
… some examples in current projects
roba: affects us because they need to point to us or a definition of profiles
ncar: no specific request
roba: ncar can you review suggested draft
… has view that profiles are "downstream" of vocabularies - but then goes on to suggest the more general interpretation we have proposed
"The spec could simply say that content negotiation would "typically" use the URIs of application profiles, in a broad sense that includes Dublin Core Application Profiles, ShEx schemas, SHACL graphs, XML formats... This would not disallow the use of URIs of things that are not commonly considered profiles, such as namespace documents."
suggest improving wording around conformance target
… we dont have a way to specify what type of object a profile returns. at this stage thats a profile description outside of conneg scope
will raise specific issues for improvements in explanations
<ncar> * Yes, silence, I can hear Rob now
<LarsG> roba: new issue #942 talks about profiles. This has been discussed in
<LarsG> ... #662 so we'll refer them to that issue
"relates to #662 - we have attempted to distinguish these issues. If a WFS3 based example around use of outputSchema is available we will consider it as an example of Query String base negotiation - if there is a way to list options."
relates to #662 - we have attempted to distinguish these issues. If a WFS3 based example around use of outputSchema (as opposed to output format) is available we will consider it as an example of Query String base negotiation - if there is a way to list options and schemas wont be further profiled in practice.
Succeeded: s/alternatives/alternates/
Succeeded: s/conned/conneg/
Maybe present: ncar