20:00:55 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dxwg
20:00:55 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/07/09-dxwg-irc
20:01:01 <kcoyle> rrsagent, make logs public
20:01:03 <PWinstanley> rrsagent, make logs public
20:01:11 <PWinstanley> chair: PWinstanley
20:01:13 <PWinstanley> present+
20:01:32 <DavveBrowning> DavveBrowning has joined #dxwg
20:01:38 <kcoyle> present+
20:02:16 <DaveBrowning> DaveBrowning has joined #dxwg
20:02:36 <PWinstanley> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2019.07.09
20:02:47 <PWinstanley> meeting: DXWG Plenary
20:02:57 <riccardoAlbertoni> riccardoAlbertoni has joined #dxwg
20:03:08 <annette_g> present+
20:03:23 <riccardoAlbertoni> present+
20:04:28 <alejandra> alejandra has joined #dxwg
20:05:15 <DaveBrowning> present+
20:06:08 <aisaac> aisaac has joined #dxwg
20:06:10 <alejandra> present+
20:06:56 <aisaac> present+
20:07:04 <TomB> present+
20:08:06 <PWinstanley> proposed: accept minutes of https://www.w3.org/2019/07/02-dxwg-minutes
20:08:09 <TomB> scribenick: TomB
20:08:30 <TomB> +1 approve minutes
20:08:33 <alejandra> +1
20:08:34 <PWinstanley> +1
20:08:36 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
20:08:40 <DaveBrowning> +1
20:08:50 <annette_g> +1
20:08:54 <PWinstanley> resolved: accept minutes of https://www.w3.org/2019/07/02-dxwg-minutes
20:09:31 <TomB> Peter: Meeting today will continue ongoing discussion of "profile"
20:09:39 <TomB> ... Kicking off next few DCAT meetings
20:09:52 <riccardoAlbertoni> +q
20:09:55 <TomB> ... And CONNEG status
20:10:05 <riccardoAlbertoni> q-
20:10:24 <TomB> ... Given that we have extension - confirm that people not going to TPAC for meeting?
20:10:32 <riccardoAlbertoni> q+
20:10:33 <TomB> Topic: DCAT
20:10:51 <TomB> Peter: Dave, Alejandra: planning over next week or so?
20:11:06 <TomB> ... Should we set up meeting with Philippe circa July 17?
20:11:13 <riccardoAlbertoni> q-
20:11:18 <TomB> Dave: Partial agenda for DCAT meeting tomorrow.
20:11:36 <TomB> ... Behind on reviewing comments.  Do not know what we might
20:11:44 <TomB> SCRIBE JUST LOST AUDIO
20:12:03 <kcoyle> scribenick: kcoyle
20:12:16 <riccardoAlbertoni> q+
20:12:26 <kcoyle> DaveBrowning: may need more time before meeting with philippe
20:12:33 <alejandra> +1 to have more time
20:12:45 <kcoyle> ... there is work to be done before
20:13:15 <alejandra> +q
20:13:18 <kcoyle> ... question for tomorrow's meeting: is what we have to concern ourselves with is the blackout period around TPAC?
20:13:34 <kcoyle> PWinstanley: I'll ask Philippe about that
20:13:47 <PWinstanley> ack riccardoAlbertoni
20:14:06 <AndreaPerego> AndreaPerego has joined #dxwg
20:14:12 <kcoyle> riccardoAlbertoni: agree that we need more time because of amount of feedback
20:14:20 <AndreaPerego> present+
20:14:25 <kcoyle> ... need to do some planning
20:14:26 <PWinstanley> ack alejandra
20:14:38 <kcoyle> alejandra: also agree to push meeting back
20:14:59 <kcoyle> ... in DCAT group we don't have a way to connect unless Simon sets up a webex
20:15:15 <kcoyle> ... since Simon isn't in the call do we have another option?
20:15:30 <kcoyle> DaveBrowning: looks like the meeting is still scheduled on webex
20:15:45 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
20:15:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/07/09-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
20:15:50 <kcoyle> alejandra: is there an agenda?
20:16:05 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, make logs world
20:16:09 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
20:16:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/07/09-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
20:16:11 <kcoyle> DaveBrowning: a draft agenda, yes. It's on the wiki
20:16:40 <kcoyle> topic: Profile definition and new use case
20:17:05 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
20:17:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/07/09-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
20:17:34 <kcoyle> PWinstanley: lots of conversation so far. No one here today from S Hemisphere, but are there other comments?
20:17:37 <aisaac> q+
20:17:42 <PWinstanley> ack aisaac
20:17:51 <TomB> SCRIBE IS BACK
20:18:03 <kcoyle> aisaac: I'd like to get rid of Rob's use case from the discussion
20:18:14 <kcoyle> scribenick: tomB
20:18:25 <TomB> Antoine: Notion of profiles that play different roles.
20:18:37 <TomB> ... For the guidance and PROF vocabulary - centered around this notion.
20:18:58 <TomB> Peter: You propose whether to accept the use case?
20:19:12 <annette_g> q+
20:19:16 <kcoyle> q+
20:19:23 <AndreaPerego> Can we add the link to the proposed UC here?
20:19:25 <TomB> Antoine: It needs tidying.
20:19:25 <PWinstanley> ack annette_g
20:19:43 <TomB> Annette: Just needs to have example added.
20:19:56 <TomB> ... I could not vote for it in current form.
20:20:05 <aisaac> q+
20:20:17 <TomB> Peter: Propose that we include pending tidying up.
20:20:26 <TomB> ... If we can agree it is something we can work on.
20:20:34 <TomB> ... Otherwise still hanging around.
20:20:43 <TomB> Annette: Oddities about how it is written
20:20:55 <TomB> +1 Annette - needs more clarity
20:21:03 <PWinstanley> ack kcoyle
20:21:14 <AndreaPerego> Proposed UC: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/978
20:21:41 <TomB> Karen: More sceptical.  Tautology here: specs that have certain qualities in them.
20:21:57 <TomB> ... Am pretty sure there are existing profiles that could not be described this way.
20:22:20 <PWinstanley> ack aisaac
20:22:25 <TomB> ... If not based on particular standard... A particular style of profiles.
20:22:41 <kcoyle> q+
20:22:48 <TomB> Antoine: Maybe does not capture everything, but captures several cases we want to answer.
20:23:20 <TomB> ... Terminological issues - essential problems around "specification roles" - needs to be cleaned.
20:23:33 <PWinstanley> ack kcoyle
20:23:40 <TomB> ... Ready to accept that more work needed - more than "tidying up".
20:24:00 <TomB> Karen: Someone will pick an example that meets this use case, but not examples that do not.
20:24:07 <aisaac> q+
20:24:14 <AndreaPerego> q+
20:24:27 <PWinstanley> ack aisaac
20:24:42 <TomB> ... One example is not enough - need broader view.  Not universal enough to fit in our work.  More like a long-tail sort of thing.  Relevant for specific communities.
20:25:31 <TomB> Antoine: Agree in theory - alot of what UC focuses on should not happen.  We know this is not always be the case.  Relevant to definition of specific component.  No one-to-one re: roles.
20:25:34 <kcoyle> q+
20:26:02 <PWinstanley> ack AndreaPerego
20:26:03 <TomB> ... Would hope we would not have to address the case of representation - confusing in real world - good to be ready.  Would prefer Rob to elaborate.
20:26:52 <kcoyle> "Documents that perform multiple roles, such as multiple discrete sets of requirements, suggestions etc need provide stable identifiers for each logical grouping of specifications."
20:27:01 <TomB> Andrea: Unsure about this UC. What is missing is problem statement.  There was some discussion on GH about multiple roles.  But issue that derives from our view of profiles - that they have "roles"
20:27:18 <TomB> ... But reader of UC document might have no clue what the problem is.
20:27:45 <PWinstanley> ack kcoyle
20:27:48 <TomB> ... Difficult for people not involved in this discussion.
20:28:34 <TomB> Karen: Posted (above): "documents that perform multiple roles" - and we all recognize that there may - "discrete sets of requirements" - "each logical grouping of specifications".
20:28:34 <AndreaPerego> q+
20:28:38 <TomB> q+
20:28:51 <aisaac> q+
20:29:05 <TomB> ... It is not a database but a specification document.
20:29:22 <TomB> ... I don't like calling them roles.
20:29:55 <TomB> ... The part about identifying different parts makes no sense.
20:30:19 <TomB> ... Fine if you have grouped things this way, but what about DCAT?  Must address.
20:30:26 <PWinstanley> ack AndreaPerego
20:31:16 <TomB> Andrea: Fact that we have multiple roles - a matter of fact.  Why do we need a UC?  Or can we simply state it?
20:31:26 <PWinstanley> ack TomB
20:31:41 <PWinstanley> TomB: The more I hear about this UC the less I like it
20:32:17 <PWinstanley> ... it sounds to me like - I don't like the idea of looking at things as roles, and looking at a profile as though it has discrete sets of anything
20:32:37 <PWinstanley> ... I know that machine-ready profiles would have units
20:33:00 <PWinstanley> ... are we talking about what profiles *are* or on what they should be?
20:34:11 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
20:34:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/07/09-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
20:34:19 <annette_g> q+
20:34:22 <PWinstanley> ... This WG has yet to take a decision on whether to continue work on the profiles vocab.  There are requirements for DCAT and CONNEG on what profiles *are* but the vocab is looking at what profiles *should be* - and we might not have the time for this
20:34:28 <PWinstanley> ack aisaac
20:35:09 <kcoyle> q+
20:35:17 <TomB> Antoine: Re: what profiles should be - but we can accept a use case - hint that it is a possibility.
20:35:21 <PWinstanley> ack annette_g
20:35:58 <TomB> Annette: This is helpful if we think of single documents that break into parts, but collection of expressions of profiles.
20:36:20 <TomB> ... Someone might publish guidance: machine-readable + plain text + images...
20:36:36 <TomB> ... When you have a collection of guidance along with machine-readable schema.
20:37:13 <TomB> ... Feel like rather than saying "profiles" negotation, but "schema" negotiation - the machine-readable part.
20:37:53 <TomB> ... We need to sort this out because it is important.  Agreed definition that works would be a big contribution.
20:37:55 <aisaac> annette_g said it's not only about the machine-readable part (I really want this to appear as it's important ;-) )
20:38:10 <TomB> Peter: Caught up in words? Venn diagram approach better?
20:38:38 <TomB> Annette: Everyone has pieces that they are important.
20:38:57 <TomB> Peter: Enterprise Architecture has "viewpoints" - define specific VPs?
20:39:15 <PWinstanley> ack kcoyle
20:39:17 <TomB> Annette: Approach this afresh.  Agree on concepts before we agree on wording.
20:39:39 <TomB> Karen: Can we put action on Rob or someone to make this profile-specific, not specification-specific.
20:39:41 <aisaac> q+
20:39:52 <PWinstanley> ack aisaac
20:39:52 <TomB> ... If it defines profiles, needs to be about profiles.
20:40:04 <annette_g> s/of single documents/not of single documents/
20:40:37 <kcoyle> so then it may be out of scope
20:40:46 <TomB> Antoine: Reluctant to ask Rob to do this.  Understand need for generality, but if profiles based on other things - but Rob suggesting something more general.
20:41:06 <kcoyle> q+
20:41:13 <TomB> ... If we ask him to focus on profile.  Thisis not about things based on other things.
20:41:22 <PWinstanley> ack kcoyle
20:41:30 <aisaac> q+
20:41:54 <PWinstanley> ack aisaac
20:42:09 <AndreaPerego> s/Thisis/This is/
20:42:18 <TomB> Karen: If it is not about profiles, it is out of scope.  We are not about defining specifications.  Could be useful to help clarify, but.
20:42:31 <TomB> Antoine: Rob's use case applies to things that are [].
20:42:43 <TomB> Karen: You say it applies to CONNEG but not DCAT?
20:43:05 <TomB> Antoine: Depends on what we call profiles.  GUIDANCE could have been about both points.
20:43:19 <TomB> ... I see Rob's UC applying to CONNEG.
20:43:22 <AndreaPerego> q+
20:43:33 <kcoyle> q+
20:43:38 <TomB> Peter: But only to the bit that applies to specifications about specifications - not atomic specs?
20:44:04 <TomB> Antoine: No, because CONNEG does.
20:44:21 <TomB> Karen: Labels of the use case are about "profiles".
20:44:58 <TomB> Antoine: Then we need to clarify. But in description of UC, talks about things about other things.
20:44:59 <kcoyle> q-
20:45:19 <PWinstanley> ack AndreaPerego
20:46:19 <TomB> []: Sometimes we go around and around.  When I see title of UC, assume it is about profiles.
20:46:48 <aisaac> s/[]/AndreaPerego
20:46:55 <TomB> ... Still confused: not clear what we had decided about profiles.  Just semantics, not syntax?  As long as we do not clarify at this level, discussions never ending.
20:47:24 <TomB> Peter: Talking in circles for half an hour.
20:47:37 <TomB> ... We are still pretty confused about profiles.
20:47:41 <TomB> q+
20:48:12 <TomB> ... I think we can park this.  We have not yet decided what to do about PROF vocabulary.
20:48:13 <PWinstanley> ack TomB
20:49:39 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
20:49:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/07/09-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
20:50:01 <kcoyle> +1 to TomB
20:50:15 <aisaac> +1 the problem is that we can't agree on words...
20:50:23 <PWinstanley> proposed: to defer discussion of the UC and focus on definitions of profile as the *are now* for the conneg and dcat docs
20:50:38 <kcoyle> s/the/they
20:50:49 <kcoyle> +1
20:50:51 <TomB> Peter: Propose to focus on definition of profile as they are now for CONNEG and DCAT (agreeing with Tom's point).
20:50:54 <TomB> +1
20:50:56 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
20:51:03 <PWinstanley> +1
20:51:03 <AndreaPerego> +1
20:51:05 <DaveBrowning> +1
20:51:11 <aisaac> +1 it's a pity but if it can help the discussion
20:51:26 <aisaac> q+
20:51:26 <annette_g> +1 for now
20:51:44 <aisaac> q-
20:51:44 <TomB> Peter: we need to recognize that time is running - we need to complete CONNEG and DCAT
20:51:58 <aisaac> q+
20:52:28 <PWinstanley> ack aisaac
20:52:32 <TomB> ... If we do that, will be in position to decide whether we need a Note - would be a pity not to nail it after all the work.
20:53:00 <PWinstanley> resolved: to defer discussion of the UC and focus on definitions of profile as the *are now* for the conneg and dcat docs
20:54:06 <TomB> Antoine: Very much recognize problem.  If we do not give it space, will resurface.
20:54:19 <TomB> Peter: Clarify part w.r.t. roles.
20:54:38 <TomB> Antoine: If we can be strict about not considering "roles"...
20:55:02 <TomB> ... PROPOSE that we use Rob's UC to discuss what roles can be played with respect to specifications, and park issues there.
20:55:37 <aisaac> proposed: that use case #??? shall be used for discussions on the roles played by profile "representations" and that discussions about these matters should not interfere in other discussion spaces
20:55:52 <AndreaPerego> +1
20:55:54 <TomB> q+
20:55:57 <aisaac> s/???/978
20:56:00 <PWinstanley> ack TomB
20:56:28 <kcoyle> -1 if we call them "roles"
20:56:30 <PWinstanley> TomB: Are you saying that the discussion about the UC will continue, but on a separate track?
20:56:39 <PWinstanley> aisaac: yes
20:56:58 <PWinstanley> +1
20:57:00 <TomB> +1 that the discussion be on a different track from defining "profile" for CONNEG and DCAT
20:57:09 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
20:57:11 <DaveBrowning> +1
20:57:14 <annette_g> +1
20:57:26 <aisaac> +1
20:58:03 <TomB> Karen: I really need something more specific that "roles".
20:58:13 <TomB> q+
20:58:26 <PWinstanley> ack TomB
20:59:13 <PWinstanley> TomB: I also don't like the term 'role' but agreed with the essence of the proposal that it moves to a track that is separate from the conneg and dcat discussion of profiles
20:59:44 <TomB> Karen: I would like to see the resolution change to say...
21:00:12 <aisaac> q+
21:00:22 <AndreaPerego> s/more specific that/more specific than/
21:00:32 <aisaac> q-
21:00:37 <aisaac> q+
21:00:39 <aisaac> q-
21:00:46 <TomB> ... Rob does not use the word "role" here, in that sense.  He talks about requirements - requirements embedded in documents.
21:01:19 <TomB> ... I would like to see us talk about something other than "roles" - "functionalities"?  Documents do not have roles - as a desirable.
21:01:42 <TomB> Peter: You agree that this is only partly parked, and we can pull parts of out as needed.
21:01:58 <TomB> Karen: Would like to have it wholly parked.  I'm all for parking.
21:02:21 <TomB> Peter: So where are we w.r.t. to Antoine's - pick at it if helpful for discussion - rather than totally parking.
21:02:52 <alejandra> +q
21:02:57 <TomB> Karen: This idea that it is going to be used for discussions on "roles" - unclear how they fit into CONNEG and DCAT.
21:02:59 <PWinstanley> ack alejandra
21:03:33 <TomB> Alejandra: [ scribe did not catch ]
21:04:21 <kcoyle> alejandra said we maybe should have waited for Rob to discuss this
21:04:30 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
21:04:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/07/09-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
21:04:44 <TomB> Peter: We are clear on finishing requirements for CONNEG and DCAT - think we need to reject proposal until we have another discussion.
21:04:48 <TomB> ... Antoine?
21:05:23 <riccardoAlbertoni> can we vote it saying we will change the word  role
21:05:29 <TomB> Antoine: Maybe something more precise next week?
21:05:53 <TomB> Karen: Alejandra is right - we need to clarify with Rob how UC fits with CONNEG and DCAT.
21:06:10 <TomB> Peter: We are parking this until clarify rel to CONNEG/DCAT
21:06:13 <TomB> +1
21:06:15 <AndreaPerego> Can we have a proposal?
21:06:16 <kcoyle> +1 park until we clarify vis a vis conneg and dcat
21:06:57 <TomB> Peter: We just park the resolution.  Thank you all for a very engaging conversation.
21:07:11 <TomB> ... It is bringing us closer to what we need for CONNEG and DCAT.
21:07:34 <TomB> ... Hard to see wood for the trees, but at some point we will have to deliver.
21:07:47 <TomB> q+ to ask when CONNEG will come up for its next transition
21:07:53 <PWinstanley> ack TomB
21:07:53 <Zakim> TomB, you wanted to ask when CONNEG will come up for its next transition
21:08:32 <TomB> Peter: Will need to find out next week.
21:08:43 <riccardoAlbertoni> Thanks, bye
21:08:46 <annette_g> thanks all!
21:08:52 <PWinstanley> bye!
21:08:55 <TomB> ... Next week, same time, thank you all for very active conversation.
21:08:55 <AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye
21:09:02 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
21:09:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/07/09-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
21:09:03 <PWinstanley> rrsagent, create minutes v2
21:09:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/07/09-dxwg-minutes.html PWinstanley
21:09:03 <kcoyle> rrsagent, generate minutes v2
21:09:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/07/09-dxwg-minutes.html kcoyle
21:23:18 <annette_g1> annette_g1 has joined #dxwg