– DRAFT –
DXWG main telecon

<PWinstanley> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2019/‌07/‌23-dxwg-minutes

approve last meeting minutes

<DaveBrowning> 0 (not present)

<AndreaPerego> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

<ncar> +1

<kcoyle> +1

Resolved: last meeting minutes approved

definitions of profiles

PWinstanley: what editorial changes are needed, what issues have been raised in respect to the Conneg document

ncar: we definitely have some questions around profiles.

we had to rewrite some of the introduction

I think we are okay now

PWinstanley: any comments?

[no]

PWinstanley: please continue with the update on Conneg

ncar: if you implemented a pure HTTP conneg, that’s great, but this isn’t the case for other protocols

we want to sweep up a number of legacy systems

we’ve been working with this idea of recording …

the specification has ideas for how to conform to profiles …

kcoyle: how does this relate to the IETF document?

ncar: we require an additional aspect in relation to query strings

kcoyle: my other question - we’ve defined profiles very broadly - I worry about defining profiles about profiles

ncar: it is pretty clear that we are talking about …

kcoyle: I did see a reference to the prof profile

ncar: I’ve removed all references to prof in the pull request

kcoyle: maybe I was looking at the wrong github branch

making non normative references to future work may be a red flag …

we could ask PLH

PWinstanley: we need positive guidance

we’re running fairly close to our charter deadline

Action: PWinstanley to ask PLH about non-normative references

<trackbot> Created ACTION-352 - Ask plh about non-normative references [on Peter Winstanley - due 2019-08-06].

DCAT

PWinstanley asks DaveBrowning for an update

DaveBrowning: we should update PLH about the feedback we have had

we also need some advice on interplay between RDF files and old versions

we should ask about the timing for the implementation report

there are a few pull requests that need review

<alejandra> I think that's a good summary

<Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to ask about the DCAT CR poll

<AndreaPerego> DCAT CR poll results: https://‌www.w3.org/‌2002/‌09/‌wbs/‌99375/‌dcat2cr/‌results

AndreaPerego: I wanted to ask about the DCAT CR poll

PWinstanley: a bunch of positives …

<alejandra> 12 positive responses

PWinstanley: there was 100% of 12 respondents for the DCAT subgroup in their own time to put forward the draft for CR

AndreaPerego: I can talk to Annette on the small issues

Action: AndreaPerego to ask annette_g about the small concerns she mentions in her reply to the DCAT CR poll

<trackbot> Created ACTION-353 - Ask annette_g about the small concerns she mentions in her reply to the dcat cr poll [on Andrea Perego - due 2019-08-06].

PWinstanley: any other updates in respect to conneg?

conneg

<annette_g> Re DCAT, my concerns were not specific, just that I've been seeing pull requests go through and it seemed it was still being edited.

ncar: we’re closing out an issue in respect to discovery
… in respect to discovering end points

PWinstanley: what is the time frame?

ncar: we’re close to being ready at the end of July for a 3rd PWD

kcoyle: I’m wondering at what point we can have the full DXWG review?

<annette_g> There really is nothing to look at, AndreaPerego.

The WG needs to review the spec before it is published, we don’t want to delay publication

PWinstanley: we want to schedule the review as soon as practical

<annette_g> I read the DCAT doc through again the other day and am happy with it.

ncar: when the current pull request has been processed, perhaps another week

ncar: probably no more than 2 weeks

<annette_g> yes, AndreaPerego

PWinstanley: any other things for today? [no]

<AndreaPerego> close action-353

<trackbot> Closed action-353.

<AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!

PWinstanley: next meeting same time next week

<annette_g> :)

<annette_g> bye!