https://www.w3.org/2019/07/10-dxwgdcat-minutes
+1
<alejandra> +1
<DaveBrowning> agenda; https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:DCAT-Telecon2019.07.17
<alejandra> +present
<DaveBrowning> +1
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
Resolved: last meeting minutes approved
https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:DCAT-Telecon2019.07.17
DaveBrowning: If you follow the link from the agenda to the google doc, we can go through those still open.
… I'll close those due for closing Friday morning, to give people the time to chime in.
… Some still open are about fixes to dcat.ttl.
Resolved: confirmed agenda
DaveBrowning: Don't think we have any.
alejandra: The only one if the meeting on the 31st, and be sure we are comfortable with the spec.
DaveBrowning: So, let's go to the google doc.
… We can prioritise the yellow ones.
<DaveBrowning> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/983
DaveBrowning: This is something you raised, riccardoAlbertoni.
riccardoAlbertoni: There are inconsistencies in the properties used for comments in dcat.ttl.
… So, we need to choose one of the two, or use both.
… Any preference?
alejandra: rdfs:comment was used in DCAT 2014, so we may include both.
DaveBrowning: No strong opinion on it.
… So, let's go ahead and use both - if somebody has a strong opinion will shout.
<DaveBrowning> Next issue https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/957
DaveBrowning: This came from the internationalisation review.
… Steve Richard made a suggestion to make the range more explicit.
… I think Steve's comment makes sense. Any opinion / objection?
<riccardoAlbertoni> AndreaPerego: in other communities they use date or just the year, unless the timestamp are generated automatically
DaveBrowning: I have an example about the use of year+month - when data are update quarterly.
<riccardoAlbertoni> no i don't have feeling
DaveBrowning: So, I'll do something about that.
DaveBrowning: The next one - #958 - may need wider conversation - another internationalisation one.
riccardoAlbertoni: I can take care of making a proposal.
<alejandra> AndreaPerego: there is a spec of the language used in the example...
<alejandra> ... the comment is that it does not include language metadata
<alejandra> ... we don't have this
<alejandra> ... we can use DC metadata
<alejandra> ... we follow what DC is doing, and we cannot do otherwise
<alejandra> ... direction metadata means that you need to specify a property for the direction
<DaveBrowning> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/959#issuecomment-509798942
<riccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/959#issuecomment-509699906
riccardoAlbertoni: Maybe we can leave open the possibility of using other vocs as Steve suggest.
… in his comment to #959.
AndreaPerego: I would recommend against support options different from URIs for interoperability. If people need more information, they can use additional properties.
riccardoAlbertoni: I wonder whether there are language URI registries providing this additional information?
AndreaPerego: None I'm aware of.
<DaveBrowning> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/971
DaveBrowning: This is about an explicit JSON example in the text.
alejandra: It would be nice to have, as in other specs, to provide both ttl and json-ld.
DaveBrowning: I don't have a problem, but it's about time.
<alejandra> one example is this: https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-primer/
<alejandra> but there is a nicer example somewhere else
<riccardoAlbertoni> I would leave it as very last thing.. but it would be nice..
alejandra: I agree about timing, but I can have a look at it.
AndreaPerego: If we do this, we need to change the approach we are using: examples need to be loaded from external files, and we need to have a script to created the different serialisations.
alejandra: I agree, but I can try and look at it.
<DaveBrowning> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/973
<alejandra> the examples are in the repository and while they are not read from the files in the specification, we could change that and provide a way to convert to other formats automatically (and relying on continuous integration)
DaveBrowning: Next one is about a useful suggestion to add examples of pkg format, and Steve provided the text.
… riccardoAlbertoni already created a PR for this one.
<alejandra> sounds good to add those examples
DaveBrowning: So, we can go through the normal process, and review the PR.
DaveBrowning: About #975, I would be for AndreaPerego 's suggestion, but I don't know if we want to do that.
… Let's wait until SimonCox comments on that.
… Let's keep it on hold until then.
<DaveBrowning> issue https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/531
<DaveBrowning> next issue https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/531
DaveBrowning: Now, about this one, it's an old one.
… It came out from Clemens, and I think we did respond to it.
<Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to suggest we check with SimonCox about his last comment in the issue.
AndreaPerego: I suggest we check with SimonCox the status of this one.
DaveBrowning: Fine, but I think we don't have to do anything here - including additional guidance would be more for a primer. AOB?
AndreaPerego: Just to mention that we published the JRC profile of DCAT-AP: https://ec-jrc.github.io/dcat-ap-jrc/
<alejandra> https://ec-jrc.github.io/dcat-ap-jrc/
<DaveBrowning> DaveBrowning: This acts as a reminder that we do need to gather evidence of implementation......
<DaveBrowning> alejandra: Are there ideas in here for future requirements
AndreaPerego: We also hosted a workshop with some presentations that could be relevant: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/x/EwS5FQ
<DaveBrowning> AndreaPerego: Includes some additional properties and potential future use cases
<riccardoAlbertoni> Thanks all, good night
Succeeded: s/agenda -/agenda; /
Succeeded: s/I would leave as very last thing../I would leave it as very last thing.. but it would be nice..
Succeeded: s/would be more for a primer./would be more for a primer. AOB?/
Succeeded: s/we published the JRC profile of DCAT-AP//
Succeeded: s/Just to mention: https/Just to mention that we published the JRC profile of DCAT-AP: https/