19:56:12 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dxwg
19:56:12 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/07/02-dxwg-irc
19:56:14 <kcoyle> kcoyle has joined #dxwg
19:56:21 <PWinstanley> rrsagent, make logs public
19:56:29 <PWinstanley> chair: PWinstanley
19:56:47 <PWinstanley> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2019.07.02
19:56:47 <TomB> TomB has joined #dxwg
19:56:53 <PWinstanley> meeting: DXWG Plenary
19:58:20 <PWinstanley> regrets+ AndreaPerego, Roba
19:58:33 <PWinstanley> rrsagent, create minutes v2
19:58:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/07/02-dxwg-minutes.html PWinstanley
20:01:57 <kcoyle> present+
20:01:57 <PWinstanley> present+
20:02:08 <TomB> present+
20:02:18 <DaveBrowning> DaveBrowning has joined #dxwg
20:02:29 <riccardoAlbertoni> riccardoAlbertoni has joined #dxwg
20:06:45 <dsr> present+
20:06:48 <antoine> antoine has joined #dxwg
20:06:55 <antoine> present+ antoine
20:07:08 <TomB> scribenick: TomB
20:07:13 <DaveBrowning> present+
20:07:20 <riccardoAlbertoni> present+
20:07:29 <alejandra> alejandra has joined #dxwg
20:07:31 <PWinstanley> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2019.07.02
20:07:34 <alejandra> present+
20:07:41 <DaveBrowning> rrsagent, draft minutes v2
20:07:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/07/02-dxwg-minutes.html DaveBrowning
20:07:50 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dxwg
20:07:54 <PWinstanley> https://www.w3.org/2019/06/25-dxwg-minutes
20:07:59 <annette_g> present+
20:08:08 <TomB> PROPOSED accept minutes https://www.w3.org/2019/06/25-dxwg-minutes
20:08:12 <PWinstanley> +1
20:08:13 <DaveBrowning> 0 (not there)
20:08:17 <antoine> 0
20:08:18 <TomB> +1
20:08:39 <kcoyle> +1
20:08:41 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
20:08:46 <alejandra> +1
20:08:57 <annette_g> I regretted
20:09:03 <TomB>  RESOLVED approve minutes https://www.w3.org/2019/06/25-dxwg-minutes
20:09:40 <TomB> Peter: Will skip ACTIONs of specific working groups.
20:09:58 <TomB> ... want to double-check re: DCAT that we are good for a meeting with Philippe on the 15th
20:10:10 <TomB> ... sub-group has not met for awhile
20:10:29 <TomB> ... an interesting discussion about "represents" - would like people here to pitch in
20:10:41 <alejandra> +q
20:10:43 <PWinstanley> q?
20:10:46 <PWinstanley> ack alejandra
20:10:48 <TomB> ... Dave, Alejandra - are we good to go - to confirm with Philippe?
20:10:57 <AndreaPerego> AndreaPerego has joined #dxwg
20:11:10 <TomB> Alejandra: We discussed having a pre-meeting first.  Some are not available tomorrow.
20:11:26 <TomB> ... So would be good to have at least one DCAT sub-group meeting to discuss feedback.
20:11:32 <riccardoAlbertoni> +q
20:11:43 <TomB> Peter: Should I push back - after 15th?
20:11:55 <TomB> Alejandra: Depends on this meeting tomorrow.
20:12:03 <TomB> Peter: Meeting on the 10th?
20:12:23 <TomB> Alejandra: In sub-group can discuss if 10th is good.
20:12:27 <PWinstanley> ack riccardoAlbertoni
20:12:46 <TomB> Riccardo: Meeting next week is good. I am available tomorrow.  Wonder about goal of meeting with Philippe.
20:12:56 <TomB> Peter: Make sure ducks are in row for pushing to Rec.
20:12:59 <DaveBrowning> +1 on having a meeting to get our act together (on 10th).
20:13:07 <AndreaPerego> +1 from me to have a meeting on the 10th
20:13:12 <riccardoAlbertoni> +q
20:13:17 <PWinstanley> ack riccardoAlbertoni
20:13:18 <TomB> ... He said it would take at least four weeks - and info on implementation only needed at end.
20:13:45 <TomB> Riccardo: We are receiving alot of feedback - cannot say - depends how it goes.
20:14:03 <TomB> ... Any strong request for having CR before August - or need to discuss?
20:14:15 <alejandra> +q
20:14:24 <PWinstanley> ack alejandra
20:14:25 <TomB> Peter: Will discuss together.
20:14:56 <TomB> Alejandra: Qst about.  We are getting feedback - great.  Give more time, or some time assumed after which no need to wait?
20:15:20 <TomB> Peter: Given that we have feedback, must triage - would anything make a normative change?
20:15:46 <TomB> ... Or editorial?  If so, he is happy for us to deal with it while going thru CR process.
20:16:06 <TomB> ... So need to see if any show-stoppers.  If not, handle during CR process.
20:16:12 <PWinstanley> q?
20:16:53 <TomB> Peter: Discussion on "represents" in https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/966 ?
20:17:05 <TomB> ... A bit loaded, like "profile".
20:17:07 <AndreaPerego> present+
20:17:15 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
20:17:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/07/02-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
20:17:24 <TomB> ... Anyone up for that?
20:17:26 <annette_g> I haven't had a chance to read the thread
20:17:42 <PWinstanley> ack TomB
20:17:53 <TomB> Tom: Gist of that thread?
20:18:29 <DaveBrowning> q+ to check on DCAT meeting suggestion status
20:18:45 <TomB> Peter: Term "represents" has different meanings.  DCAT resource "represents" - used alot - like "it's a profile of"
20:19:22 <PWinstanley> ack DaveBrowning
20:19:22 <Zakim> DaveBrowning, you wanted to check on DCAT meeting suggestion status
20:19:24 <TomB> ... Conversation about "is a".  "Denote" vs "represent" vs "describe", when metadata records are surrogates.
20:20:01 <TomB> Dave: Re: DCAT subgroup meeting - consensus that those interested should get together next week to review status of incoming comments?
20:20:20 <TomB> ... GH commits have been straightforward.
20:20:21 <riccardoAlbertoni> +q
20:20:25 <PWinstanley> ack riccardoAlbertoni
20:20:28 <TomB> Peter: Yes.
20:21:01 <TomB> Riccardo: Try to work with GH - check situation next week.
20:21:49 <TomB> Peter: Re: 966, people closely involved - but helpful to get "naive readers" to flag areas of possible confusion.
20:22:19 <TomB> ... Also, people in DCAT group are mainly in data domain, and as we have discussed: vision is publn of catalogs on Web.
20:22:47 <TomB> ... Important in editorial polishing: remove ambiguities.
20:22:57 <TomB> TOPIC: Profiles Document
20:23:33 <TomB> Peter: Two aspects: use of term "profile" as applied to our documents.
20:23:41 <TomB> ... We have three horses in the race.
20:24:32 <PWinstanley> q?
20:24:44 <TomB> ... There were votes.  Tom's horse appears to be winning: five votes. Karen. Antoine.
20:24:48 <TomB> ... Discussion?
20:24:49 <antoine> q+
20:24:53 <TomB> q+
20:24:57 <PWinstanley> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/963
20:25:00 <PWinstanley> ack antoine
20:25:28 <TomB> Antoine: Several comments on GH about latest version of Tom's definition.
20:25:41 <TomB> ... First would like agreement on fundamental principle that I can live with.
20:25:55 <TomB> ... Agree there should be two definitions.
20:26:01 <TomB> ... Other comments later.
20:26:05 <PWinstanley> ack TomB
20:26:05 <kcoyle> q+
20:26:32 <antoine> TomB: yes I was wondering about that
20:26:41 <antoine> ... it would be good if we have two definitions
20:26:48 <PWinstanley> TomB: responding to antoine  - I was wondering also about 2 definitions, happy with that.  We may want ways of distinguishing them - data profile and something else
20:26:58 <PWinstanley> ack kcoyle
20:27:13 <TomB> Karen: Qst for Antoine: what are the two?
20:27:28 <TomB> Antoine: One would represent something not necessarily based on another specification.
20:27:39 <TomB> ... The other would always be based on something.
20:27:41 <TomB> q+
20:28:45 <TomB> ... Idea to split our current definition. Based on, or not based on.
20:29:47 <antoine> q+
20:30:16 <PWinstanley> TomB: my understanding is that antoine has been highlighting the role of data profiling and JSON/LD profiles, neither of which are based on other specs - they are self-contained and it represents a significant other usage model, whereas DCAT types had a relationship with a base specification
20:30:38 <PWinstanley> ack TomB
20:30:49 <PWinstanley> ack antoine
20:31:00 <PWinstanley> q+
20:31:16 <antoine> q+
20:31:17 <TomB> Antoine: Our current definition can be uncoupled from qst whether based on something else.
20:31:19 <annette_g> q+
20:31:39 <TomB> Peter: Antoine, can these provide the basis for a Type 2 profile?
20:31:41 <TomB> Antoine: Yes.
20:32:44 <TomB> Peter: So situation similar to others? Can first form (JSON-LD, etc) - self-contained - can they be referenced by other profiles as base specification?
20:33:18 <TomB> ... If that were the case, similar to UNCFACT or specs where you have basic and aggregate business information entities.
20:33:30 <TomB> ... Coming back to taxonomies and profiles in other areas?
20:33:47 <PWinstanley> q?
20:33:48 <TomB> Antoine: I would not call the relation that of aggregatn - rather derivatn. But similar pattern.
20:33:51 <PWinstanley> ack PWinstanley
20:33:57 <PWinstanley> ack antoine
20:34:06 <kcoyle> "derivation" is a good term!
20:34:36 <PWinstanley> s/derivatn/derivation/
20:34:45 <TomB> Antoine: Want to remind: one argument for having the "basic" type - keen on having because already there in DCAT and CONNEG - it is already one thing that datasets can conform to - and that one can use for content negotiation.
20:34:49 <PWinstanley> s/aggregatn/aggregation/
20:34:55 <PWinstanley> ack annette_g
20:35:00 <TomB> ... We should probably be careful not to say more than DCAT about these concepts.
20:35:00 <kcoyle> I would appreciate an email that clarifies these two things
20:35:16 <antoine> q+
20:35:24 <PWinstanley> ack antoine
20:35:44 <TomB> Annette: When we first started, JSON-LD seemed like such a different thing that it would be confusing.  Leaning to _not_ include JSON-LD in definition.
20:35:53 <TomB> Peter: How would we distinguish?
20:36:06 <TomB> Annette: JSON-LD is about media types and we are not about media types.
20:36:51 <TomB> Antoine: Annette is right.  JSON-LD profiles are indeed quite different.  In fact not exactly about media types.
20:37:14 <TomB> ... Still about forms of data that are not the same sort of profiling.  We should distinguish.
20:37:37 <kcoyle> q+
20:37:39 <TomB> Peter: But distinction btw self-contained and those that have dependencies or derivations - merit in having that?
20:37:50 <TomB> Antoine: Has nothing to do with JSON-LD notion.
20:37:54 <PWinstanley> ack kcoyle
20:38:38 <TomB> Karen: Getting confused. Would like if someone could write up email clarifying what these are.  Not sure what "self-contained profile" is.
20:38:55 <antoine> q+
20:38:56 <TomB> q+ to ask if if this has to do with usage of "profile" by JSON-LD community?
20:39:00 <PWinstanley> ack antoine
20:39:13 <annette_g> Maybe we disagree on the Venn diagram: (specs   (profiles))  or  (profiles (specs))
20:39:52 <TomB> Antoine: Peter, do you think this is useful?  Understand why Karen is puzzled.  Would like definition of something that may or may not be self-contained.  Not focus too much on things that are self-contained.
20:40:06 <DaveBrowning> rrsagent, draft minutes v2
20:40:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/07/02-dxwg-minutes.html DaveBrowning
20:40:30 <TomB> Peter: Definition of profile for CONNEG document.  Can we agree on one or two?
20:40:52 <antoine> annette_g I think it is (specs   (profiles))
20:41:07 <TomB> ... Or if we are going too deep into rabbit hole - we need to be pulled back: get something "good enough" for job at hand.
20:41:33 <TomB> ... As for voting: Karen was providing a few options that people could vote on - extend this a little but not too much.
20:41:56 <TomB> ... Sometimes we meander in these discussions, circle around.
20:42:26 <TomB> ... Has an effect on membership. Rob standing back until decided.  Need something "good enough" - quickly.
20:42:50 <antoine> q+
20:42:54 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
20:42:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/07/02-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
20:42:56 <PWinstanley> ack TomB
20:42:56 <Zakim> TomB, you wanted to ask if if this has to do with usage of "profile" by JSON-LD community?
20:44:48 <PWinstanley> TomB: I was on a call recently  - ultimately we need definitions that are intelligible for the average reader.  In the JSON/LD there is a group mentioning profiles, and in wikidata there is another group.  They are talking about profiles that are not based on other specs, so we need to say this but in a way that people who are not within these groups can understand
20:44:53 <kcoyle> There may be more than 2 types of profiles - I'd say there are "various" and we can talk about some but not be exhaustive
20:45:05 <PWinstanley> ... we need to formulate definitions clearly
20:45:09 <PWinstanley> q?
20:45:12 <PWinstanley> ack AndreaPerego
20:45:16 <PWinstanley> ack antoine
20:45:24 <antoine> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2019Jun/0106.html
20:46:08 <TomB> Antoine: When we talk about two levels - my original mail from one week ago.  Annette made the point that she is reluctant to call something not derived a "profile".
20:46:19 <TomB> ... Annette, are you comfortable?
20:46:51 <TomB> Annette: Haven't fully grokked distinction.
20:47:02 <TomB> Antoine: But your answer was insightful!
20:47:26 <TomB> ... I have identified two levels and tried to provide a definition that captured both.
20:47:45 <TomB> ... You said: if not based on something else, it is a specification.
20:47:56 <TomB> Annette: Two separate things - two separate terms.
20:48:00 <TomB> q+
20:48:05 <PWinstanley> ack TomB
20:48:29 <PWinstanley> TomB: anyone have ideas on names?  Data Profile and A N Other Profile?
20:48:32 <annette_g> specification and profile
20:48:35 <kcoyle> I like specification v profile
20:49:03 <annette_g> q+
20:49:10 <kcoyle> this is why I'm confused!
20:49:12 <antoine> q+
20:49:20 <PWinstanley> TomB: the JSON/LD use case - if we are calling it a profile then what sort is it?
20:49:44 <PWinstanley> ... I don't have an answer at the moment
20:50:31 <PWinstanley> ... If we can just say that there is a significant CoP that has profiles about data (e.g. JSON/LD) and explain what is meant by profile in their context that would be enough, but we need a nomenclature
20:50:40 <PWinstanley> ack annette_g
20:51:20 <TomB> Annette: Not sure we want to address the JSON-LD thing - a "media-type profile"?  A different type entirely.
20:51:50 <TomB> Peter: Might be helpful even for the JSON-LD community - they will have the same confusion.  Maybe we just need to make the statement.
20:52:11 <TomB> Annette: Make clear that we are not talking about that.
20:52:35 <TomB> Peter: What Tom was saying: smart readers "in the street" need to be able to grok these documents.
20:52:44 <TomB> ... Because everyone impacted.
20:53:19 <TomB> Annette: Totally agree re: understand.  Feel like we are arguing about terms that are pretty well understood.
20:53:31 <PWinstanley> q?
20:53:37 <PWinstanley> ack antoine
20:53:43 <TomB> Peter: If it needs to be separated, with different handles....
20:54:00 <AndreaPerego> regrets- AndreaPerego
20:54:02 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
20:54:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/07/02-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
20:54:03 <antoine> https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/#forms-of-json-ld
20:54:26 <TomB> Antoine: We will not nail all of the ambiguities, but with JSON-LD we are not in a bad situation because "profile" parameter now refers, in the spec, to something they call "forms".
20:54:39 <TomB> ... Forms are more syntactic than what we are interested in.
20:54:48 <TomB> Peter: Work out what to do over next week?
20:55:54 <TomB> ... Need to have clarity on what to put into CONNEG.  We have three horses.  Antoine has a fourth horse, with three heads :-) Helpful if we can all work on this idea of being a small collection of profile types, readily identifiable.
20:55:58 <antoine> q+
20:56:07 <PWinstanley> ack antoine
20:56:10 <TomB> ... Need handle for each.  Something brief that characterizes each.
20:56:24 <TomB> Antoine: I thought we were down to two.
20:56:54 <TomB> Peter: We need to recognize that there are profiles we are not talking about - but we need to acknowledge them and guide them to the types we want to talk about.
20:56:58 <kcoyle> +1 to define in a way that one can recognize what we are talking about
20:57:10 <TomB> ... Given the others a name and a short characterization.
20:57:21 <TomB> Antoine: "Things that are not profile" for us.
20:57:25 <TomB> Peter: Yes.
20:57:36 <TomB> ... Things we are not trying to touch.
20:58:05 <TomB> ... If we put that into GH and have another round of voting and discussion - should be close to sewing up within 7-10 days?
20:58:10 <kcoyle> +1 to different github issue
20:58:20 <TomB> ACTION Antoine to start a fresh GH issue.
20:58:21 <trackbot> Created ACTION-342 - Start a fresh gh issue. [on Antoine Isaac - due 2019-07-09].
20:58:30 <kcoyle> rrsagent, draft minutes v2
20:58:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/07/02-dxwg-minutes.html kcoyle
20:58:49 <riccardoAlbertoni> thanks, bye !!
20:58:52 <alejandra> thanks all, bye
20:58:54 <TomB> Peter: We are making progress!  Thanks for contributions.  Same time next week!
20:58:59 <TomB> [Adjourned]
20:59:26 <PWinstanley> rrsagent, draft minutes v2
20:59:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/07/02-dxwg-minutes.html PWinstanley
21:00:39 <kcoyle> bye!
21:01:28 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
21:01:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/07/02-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
21:05:54 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dxwg
21:47:57 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dxwg