proposed: Accept Minutes of previous meeting
<AndreaPerego> 0 (was not there)
<PWinstanley> -0 (not there)
<riccardoAlbertoni> +0 ( i was not there)
0 (was not there)
Resolved: Accept Minutes of previous meeting
PWinstanley: we will skip the Open Action Items - all subgroup stuff
PWinstanley: do we make every occurence of 'profile' specific for 'data profile'?
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to state at the beginning and then use profile
<annette_g> +1 to clarifying at the beginning and using the simpler form in most places
PWinstanley: do people have views on this? My own view is that it could be mentioned as a statement of convention at the beginning (that 'data profile' == 'profile')
PWinstanley: can people present views?
<kcoyle> +1 with what annette says
+1 to state at the beginning and then use profile
PWinstanley: let's place something at the beginning - when we say 'profile' we mean 'data profile'
PWinstanley: I haven't been at recent DCAT meetings, can riccardoAlbertoni or AndreaPerego say something?
riccardoAlbertoni: briefly, we have been dealing with feedback & editorial issues, this link lists most issues we want to address before CR
riccardoAlbertoni: most are closed / due for closing
riccardoAlbertoni: any questions?
riccardoAlbertoni: do we need a vote before the submission to W3C?
PWinstanley: it would be prudent, will have to do this next week
AndreaPerego: if people won't attend next week, can they be asked to vote via email?
PWinstanley: yes, I will issue a poll
<kcoyle> +1 for congrats to DCAT group!!
Action: PWinstanley to issue a poll for voting on DCAT - due 2019-07-30
<trackbot> Created ACTION-350 - Issue a poll for voting on dcat [on Peter Winstanley - due 2019-07-30].
<AndreaPerego> Thanks for the congrats!
PWinstanley: we congratulate the DCAT team
PWinstanley: do we need more DCAT implementation evidence?
AndreaPerego: yes, more non-DCAT-AP would be good
PWinstanley: EC community is aware of DCAT rev becoming available
riccardoAlbertoni: considering August break, can we have more than 28 days to collect implementation evidence?
PWinstanley: we can ask Phillipe or present the CR in later Aug. This meeting is not formal - just a status check
<PWinstanley> ncar: we have been meeting for the last few weeks
<PWinstanley> ... for the last couple of months there have been PWD issues - they are not major. We have dealt with the large ones, except for one about service discovery and service representation
<PWinstanley> ... This relates to encountering and querying - the thinking on how to deal with this is still maturing
<PWinstanley> ... but we are close. In 1-2 weeks we will come to the plenary with a solution
<PWinstanley> ... we will then be close to PWD3
<PWinstanley> ... this will be an issue-fixing release, and thereafter it will be (hopefully)editorial
<PWinstanley> kcoyle: we need to ensure that the docs don't have dependencies on other docs that we are working on
<PWinstanley> ncar: the top of the conneg doc refers principally to the IETF doc, and also to the vocabulary (but that isn't normative)
<PWinstanley> ... we do hope finish off the PWD3 and then to circle back to the profiles vocab, and then come back to conneg
<PWinstanley> ... this should help us separate out the potential blurring that there is for comments at present
ncar: From the introduction: "Describing the parts of profiles and their relation to other profiles is the function of the Profiles Vocabulary [PROF], also produced by the DXWG."
<PWinstanley> kcoyle: we need to ensure that at the moment there isn't any reference to docs that don't exist - it is a risk
<PWinstanley> ... then later we can develop, perhaps, a primer
PWinstanley: if there is no further business, I will send out a poll re DCAT putting forward a CR draft
<riccardoAlbertoni> thanks, bye !
PWinstanley: thank you everyone, I wish you all a good week, see you next week
<AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!
Succeeded: s/Resolution: /proposed: /
Succeeded: s/Introduction:/ncar: From the introduction:/
Maybe present: proposed