– DRAFT –
DXWG Plenary

<roba> * bo

kcoyle: we we approve the minutes of June 4?
… any objecttions?

<antoine> +0 (was absent)

<roba> +0

<DaveBrowning> +1

kcoyle: [no]

Resolved: approve minutes of June 4, 2019

<DaveBrowning> s/probelems/problems

<PWinstanley> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌wiki/‌Meetings:Telecon2019.06.11

<PWinstanley> Simon

pull requests

kcoyle: Any pull requests this week, that we need to be alerted to?

<TomB> Tom present+

DaveBrowning: some editorial references updated
… Anything marked for closing that we should be interested in?
… There were some open actions, not sure …
… Peter did you do the conneg announcements?

PWinstanley: I have drafted a blog post which should be broadcast this week
… Rob was due to make a contact …

kcoyle: let’s keep that one open until we have a response
… Now we have the question of a six month extension

PWinstanley: PLH says we’re good having made the resolution to request the extension
… We should plan on the assumption that we will get the extension
… We need to sort out the definition of what we mean by a profile …

kcoyle: we need to work on profile guidance

antoine: we need to homogenise the text
… I am a bit less concerned about the profile document

roba: you’re absolutely correct Karen, my agenda is to ensure that the definition of profile is consistent across our work
… There is a question of how deep our definitions need to go

<roba> "conformance"

TomB: ifa profile is defined in terms of constraints then we need a definition of constraints
… We don’t need to get hung up on the definition of profile though

<roba> for conneg, the issue is the distinction between profile and specification - and if its useful

<roba> constraint = requirement that must be met - but a specific type of requirement that references another requirement ?

PWinstanley: I emailed ODRL, Michael Steiner said …

antoine: I wanted to react to Tom, not about the constraints, …
… at least having an agreement within the group would be good, if we can fully align with ODRL that would be good

<PWinstanley> a note in an email relating to the wide review of the DCAT v2 thought that the "profile" referenced in the DCAT v2 doc didn't look like the use cases for 'profile' as in the profile vocabulary doc

roba: I partly agree with antoine’s perspective, it’s up to the community to define what we mean by profile
… in respect to conneg, we found it hard to separate profile from specification
… we need to discuss edge cases and avoid pain through a shared understanding

<roba> "of course its not a profile" ?

kcoyle: do we want to broaden the concept of profile to support conneg or …

antoine: I will insist we don’t discuss this right now, the way I would put it is in terms of the definition in Dublin Core

kcoyle: how do you think we should go about resolving this

antoine: probaly by relating existing definitions

antoine: may be by asking the task groups for their input

<Zakim> TomB, you wanted to suggest that a general definition may be good enough for CONNEG and DCAT

TomB: a general definition is probably sufficient
… not really convinced any more is needed

roba: the way we’ve done this in the past is through functional requirements
… there will be many groups with narrower definitions for their context
… their governence model …
… we won’t get too much trouble if we take a functional approach

kcoyle: I seem to remember that we didn’t get much from the use cases

roba: the requirements comes down to interop requirments

kcoyle: can you either find this in the use case requirement or find us somewhere else for a starting point

<antoine> https://‌w3c.github.io/‌dxwg/‌ucr/#ProfileNegotiationRequirements

kcoyle: it needs to be something the group agreed on

<Zakim> PWinstanley, you wanted to say that I think we need co-creation around a google doc for the first cut

PWinstanley: (v. distorted) I think we need co-creation around a google doc for the first cut

kcoyle: it appears that the requirements vary so how do we go about this

<roba> no i did _not_ argue conneg is broader than UCR or existing definition

antoine: I am reacting to roba, …

roba: I did not argue that conneg is broader than UCR or existing definition
… I am happy to discuss this further

kcoyle: so we have a definition, you’re saying we just need a better explanation, right?

<antoine> I'm not sure roba said " conneg is broader than UCR or existing definition"

roba: the process has been adequate so far, if we can improve it great

kcoyle: I am having a little difficulty understanding what people are asking for

AndreaPerego: for conneg we are talking about media types

roba: media types aren’t sufficient

<roba> distinction between profile and media-type was explicitly handled : https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌662 - we have gone to more effort to distinguish in text having agreed there are distinct

AndreaPerego: having something that is sufficient for all needs is impractical and people need to define additional constraints for their own requirements

<TomB> +1 agree with AndreaPerego point re: different use of "profile" in CONNEG versus other specs and that we should acknowledge this

kcoyle: people may read only one spec, so each spec needs to be clear on its own

roba: conneg relates to media types, but goes further

<TomB> +1 agree with Karen that specs need to stand on their own for the sake of users

annette_g: may be there is a term that would cover both specs

<roba> +1 if we can find it :-)

annette_g: e.g. schema negotiation, and define profile more narrowly

<Zakim> annette_g, you wanted to offer a crazy solution

<TomB> +1 agree with Annette w.r.t. possibly finding a better word

antoine: I am willing to take an action to make sure that our definition is referred to from the profile guidance spec

kcoyle: we could do that as an action

Action: Antoine to handle definition in 662 re profiles and media types

<trackbot> Created ACTION-338 - Handle definition in 662 re profiles and media types [on Antoine Isaac - due 2019-06-18].

<roba> +1

kcoyle: anyone support PWinstanley’s suggestion of a Google doc?

roba: sounds good

<annette_g> +1 to starting fresh

roba: some discussion of a different document …

antoine: the other was about profile guidance

Action: roba to start google doc and add whatever he thinks will help

<trackbot> Created ACTION-339 - Start google doc and add whatever he thinks will help [on Rob Atkinson - due 2019-06-18].

<TomB> for the record, Tom sees https://‌docs.google.com/‌document/‌d/‌1Y4jP4SGZMnt63EpjTX11-hW6-3mxlaq1i-Lbiw4tx1M/ and https://‌docs.google.com/‌document/‌d/‌1HCBt1m6BSTZcS9-Sjw5pGYn_bode-lKsnhinmNnX91s/‌edit and agrees that another document is needed for this discussion

kcoyle: that’s all we have time for today

kcoyle: asks AndreaPerego to clean up the minutes

<PWinstanley> bye

kcoyle: end of meeting