DaveBrowning: should we just use the spreadsheet from riccardoAlbertoni ?
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!
Succeeded: s/never did continuous integration/we never did continuous integration and it would be good to add it so that we get automatic checks on the RDF
Succeeded: s/#954//
Succeeded: s/Clrify/Clarify/
Succeeded: s/scribe SimonCox/scribe: SimonCox/
Succeeded: s/Proposed Recommendation/Candidate Recommendation/
Succeeded: s/Proposed Recommendation/Candidate Recommendation/
Failed: s/Proposed Recommendation/Candidate Recommendation/
Failed: s/Proposed Recommendation/Candidate Recommendation/
Maybe present: Proposed