– DRAFT –
DXWG DCAT subgroup teleconference

method for completing the PR

DaveBrowning: should we just use the spreadsheet from riccardoAlbertoni ?

https://‌docs.google.com/‌spreadsheets/‌d/‌1biOFTFAlF6wd7nhi5MsSusMokfdbwWII9OXSyfAw2iQ/‌edit?ts=5d25ee55#gid=0

DaveBrowning: probably not enought time to complete everything in spreadsheet

DaveBrowning: which are most critical?
… (some of us have tuned out from DCAT recently, ... SimonCox DaveBrowning alejandra )

alejandra: riccardoAlbertoni 's table is a good start.
… several can be pruned/merged/closed
… we never did continuous integration and it would be good to add it so that we get automatic checks on the RDF
… has anyone checked that document and RDF are fully aligned recently?

SimonCox: volunteers needed for 'assigned to' column in spreadsheet

#944 Protege problem with owl:Constraint :-(

Makx: we shouldn't do anything - there is no problem with the vcard issue

riccardoAlbertoni: need to respond to the comment, explaining that we believe the structure is fine, esp with backward compatbility concerns

alejandra: this is the same issue we discussed a long time ago #109 contact point issues - vCard is OK - it is contact details, rather than agent

<AndreaPerego> Can we make a tentative proposal we can vote on?

<alejandra> sounds good

Proposed: respond to renato explaning difference between contact point and agent - leave as is

+1

<DaveBrowning> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1

<Makx> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<alejandra> +1

Action: Makx to draft response to Renato on vCard issue

<trackbot> Created ACTION-344 - Draft response to renato on vcard issue [on Makx Dekkers - due 2019-07-17].

Resolved: respond to renato explaning difference between contact point and agent - leave as is

#935

alejandra: back to #935 - Makx suggested we use the word 'file' in documentation, instead of 'distribution'

<AndreaPerego> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌935

alejandra: elsewhere we use 'distribution' as the noun consistently, e.g. format. It would be inconsistent to change it to 'file' for only these properties related to compression

Makx: votes for consistency

<riccardoAlbertoni> I agree with alejandra, I can remove the PR

alejandra: prefer to revert to 'distribution' rather than 'file' for internal consistency

<AndreaPerego> +1 from me

<Makx> +1 to alejandra

<riccardoAlbertoni> not sure about the changes ..

SimonCox: add nearby clarification 'in many cases a distribution will be packaged as a file' or something similar
… as usage note

Clarify - use 'distribution' in all places.

<riccardoAlbertoni> Yes i can do it

<DaveBrowning> #959

<AndreaPerego> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌959

Makx: this is not a problem with DCAT - it is with Dublin Core - we can't or shouldn't do anything

<AndreaPerego> +1 to Makx

Makx: DC have said they will action, we have to wait for them

+1

<DaveBrowning> 0 (agree with principle)

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<alejandra> +0

No change needed

Action: DaveBrowning to draft response on language tags

<trackbot> Created ACTION-345 - Draft response on language tags [on David Browning - due 2019-07-17].

<riccardoAlbertoni> 970 ?

<DaveBrowning> Yes, https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌970

Use of w3cgeo 'Point' in dct:Location -

SimonCox: explain issue with normative/non-normative status of alternatives
… and too many options are not good for interoperability

AndreaPerego: anyway we don't have explicit UC motivating this
… so agree with SimonCox proposal to remove w3geo from normative recommendation, perhaps leave example

Proposed: remove w3geo Point from normative recommendation for dct:Location

+1

<DaveBrowning> +1

<alejandra> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<alejandra> should we also say that we agree on leaving the example in?

Action: SimonCox to process w3cgeo Point changes

<trackbot> Created ACTION-346 - Process w3cgeo point changes [on Simon Cox - due 2019-07-17].

SimonCox: to add some more words showing how w3cgeo is 'equivalent' but should not be used by itself - only to duplicate the WKT 'centroid' formulation
… in the worked example

<alejandra> yes

DaveBrowning: Steve Richard does raise interesting principle about interoperability, when multiple options are provided.

DaveBrowning: at what point will we have stable document for "Candidate Recommendation"?
… 3 weeks? Need to have responded to all feedback received during consultation.
… (running into northern summer)

riccardoAlbertoni: could we postpone PR to September? Is that an option?

I would prefer not to defer any longer ...

<Makx> Candidate comes before Candidate Recommendation https://‌www.w3.org/‌2004/‌02/‌Process-20040205/‌tr.html#cfi

Whoops

s/Proposed Recommendation/Candidate Recommendation/

s/Proposed Recommendation/Candidate Recommendation/

<AndreaPerego> So we should probably restore our regular weekly meetings to be sure we sort out things quickly

+1 AndreaPerego

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to andrea proposal

<DaveBrowning> +1

<Makx> +1

<alejandra> +1

Resolved: 1. restore weekly meetings 2. push to get CR out before northern summer vacations :-)

<riccardoAlbertoni> what date again ?

PWinstanley: to aim for meeting with Phillipe 31 July
… to progress DCAT to CR

riccardoAlbertoni: will work before holidays and trust the other editors

<Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to say we can close https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌974 following the decision about https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌970

PWinstanley: hold meeting with Phillipe at normal time

<AndreaPerego> Thanks everyone

<Makx> thanks,bye

<riccardoAlbertoni> thanks, bye

<PWinstanley> bye!