PWinstanley: minutes of previous meeting
<AndreaPerego> https://www.w3.org/2019/05/28-dxwg-minutes
<PWinstanley> proposed: accept https://www.w3.org/2019/05/28-dxwg-minutes
<alejandra> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<PWinstanley> +1
<DaveBrowning> +1
0 (not here)
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
Resolved: accept https://www.w3.org/2019/05/28-dxwg-minutes
Resolved: accept https://www.w3.org/2019/05/28-dxwg-minutes
alejandra: minutes looked empty - was wrong link
<PWinstanley> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/open
PWinstanley: 314 for Lars; 337 for Rob - can't deal with today
… to subgroups to get rid of open actions if done
PWinstanley: first thing - have put in request for 6 month extension so that we can get DCAT and Conneg completed
… other question, tho', is whether to continue profiles work
… some mandatory work due for profiles because some interaction between conneg and profiles, mainly
… profiles definition
… do we think we could continue on those two without detriment to DCAT and Conneg?
… at least a starter on the profiles recommendation
… this connects with idea of evergreen standards and chartering for smaller amounts of time
… could this be useful?
PWinstanley: chatted to Antoine who agrees that there is an opportunity to do a bit more that will support conneg
… could be a bare bones intro to profiles
annette_g: I agree with idea to put more effort into that because people often have a different idea of what is meant by profile
… we should give our definition
PWinstanley: DCAT for wide review is getting comments about what profile means
DaveBrowning: I agree with Annette; more than the slim line spec would be great. Hard to tell how much more can be done within the time
… concern - how this can be a recommendation. How can we get implementation evidence? And what does that mean?
… kind of working backward, always thinking about what it means to show implementation
… it's a process issue
… assuming this is intended to be a recommendation
alejandra: I agree with those comments, esp. the guidance document. We also need a dcat primer
… We have collected examples for DCAT
<DaveBrowning> +1 on the primer
alejandra: We still have many un-addressed comments for DCAT; perhaps we should work on those? What's the right balance
… between DCAT and these other documents?
<alejandra> kcoyle: I'm wondering if the guidance document could be a note rather than a recommendation
<alejandra> +1 to note
<PWinstanley> kcoyle: I'm wondering if the guidance doc couldn't be a note rather than a recommendation, because we don't have time for implementation evidence
<DaveBrowning> Agree re note.
<AndreaPerego> Same here
riccardoAlbertoni: I agree with kcoyle but it may be better to be safe and limit to a note rather than a recommendation
PWinstanley: we can get enough material for a note from the definition
… we've already talked about this extensively
… that may give time to return to something like versioning in DCAT
riccardoAlbertoni: If we add new features to DCAT that may interfere with candidate recommendation process
… we can take the opportunity
PWinstanley: we've talked about primer, about note for recommendation document;
… we need to firm up what we can do in these 6 months
… we need proposals; but we are thin on membership participation
… could ask for sense of whether folks feel ok about going for a note
annette_g: charter lists that as rec track deliverable
… can we change it to note?
… rec track doesn't seem to be better
… it doesn't seem to be something that is implementable
PWinstanley: discussion with Philippe in past, he goes with how the work looks - it can be a recommendation or a note
… depending on the content
+1 - it seems to be quite flexible
<alejandra> +1 to work on it and decide later
<annette_g> +1
+1
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
+1 to leave it and figure out as we go along
<DaveBrowning> +1 but not too much later....<smile>
PWinstanley: have written to chairs of various international, privacy, shapes groups, etc etc etc
… requesting wide review, preferably by end of June
… have had some acknowledgements; ODRL has already given a response
DaveBrowning: a few things to do for CR but not big stuff, mainly paperwork; this waits on wider feedback
… in implementation evidence space, G spreadsheet where info is being gathered
… not a whole lot of pressure
PWinstanley: remember to log, track and respond to all comments that come in
AndreaPerego: spreadsheet to collect implementation evidence; compares to previous version
… need more people to fill in what they know
PWinstanley: in terms of wide publicity, action on me to check if W3C will automatically publicize the drafts
… but they do not, so with Alejandra and Lars I have put together a small blog post which has been submitted to Philippe
… hard to get folks to comment on working drafts so more publicity may help
link to the spreedsheet andrea was referring to ... https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eEVUuPFAGO2GjS5ocxylY8T1AlpqlwnOTc3er_Mhcv4/
AndreaPerego: W3C used to post a tweet from their account
PWinstanley: W3C replies that there are groups doing draft releases very frequently so they seem to have dropped automatic publicity
… draft has been given to Philippe and DaveR
PWinstanley: Anything else?
… will DCAT group reduce frequency of meetings?
DaveBrowning: Haven't decided that but it will probably happen
PWinstanley: in that case the plenary could take on some of that
riccardoAlbertoni: Yes, agree to opportunity to discuss in plenary as a way to move things along
DaveBrowning: Makes sense, DCAT group can still meet on ad hoc basis
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to DaveBrowning about having DCAT subgroup when we needed to discuss specific issues ..
alejandra: has anyone stepped in for dave for tomorrow?
DaveBrowning: we could move that meeting back if no one can chair
Succeeded: s/q?//