– DRAFT –
DXWG DCAT subgroup teleconference 4 September 2019 20:00 UTC

Approve last meeting minutes https://‌www.w3.org/‌2019/‌07/‌31-dxwgdcat-minutes

<riccardoAlbertoni> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2019/‌07/‌31-dxwgdcat-minutes

+1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +0 ( i was not there )

<DaveBrowning> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

Resolved: Approve last meeting minutes https://‌www.w3.org/‌2019/‌07/‌31-dxwgdcat-minutes

Plenary poll?

DaveBrowning: AndreaPerego, riccardoAlbertoni, you were at the plenary yesterday. Did this topic come up?

riccardoAlbertoni: This was somehow implied, although not explicitly discussed.

DaveBrowning: The main point in last week plenary was about what we marked as features at risk, and why.

PWinstanley: We already had a poll to go to CR.

DaveBrowning: Yes, but in the last meeting the idea of an additional poll was raised.

PWinstanley: I can take care of set it up.

What we need to address before we are ready to go

<riccardoAlbertoni> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌wiki/‌Steps-to-Recommendation-2019

DaveBrowning: plh mentioned editing some metadata, but I don't remember precisely what this is about.
… The question is whether there are substantial steps we have to go through.

riccardoAlbertoni: I don't think we are going to have substantial changes, as new classes/properties.
… About issues in ttl files, are they to be considered as substantial?
… As only the spec is considered normative, this shouldn't be the case.

DaveBrowning: Yes, the ttl files are not normative.
… So, we can work on them even after we go CR with the spec.
… About ttl files, the issue is rather the URLs of the new and original DCAT ttl files.
… Said all that, when we make the transition request what we have needs to be "professional".

<riccardoAlbertoni> which one you are looking at

<riccardoAlbertoni> ?

<DaveBrowning> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌pull/‌1034

DaveBrowning: The issue above is about comments/definitions in the ttl files.

riccardoAlbertoni: I am also worried about that issue.
… The suggestion includes the idea of splitting the DCAT ttl file in two different files.
… I can try and contact SimonCox about this.
… I'm for merging the current PR in order to avoid to lose content such as translations and that get the consensum about skos:definition or whatever

DaveBrowning: I would also be in favour of that.

Action: riccardoAlbertoni to contact SimonCox about the proposal of splitting the DCAT ttl file

<trackbot> Created ACTION-364 - Contact simoncox about the proposal of splitting the dcat ttl file [on Riccardo Albertoni - due 2019-09-11].

DaveBrowning: Do we all think that this is main issue we have to address before the transition request?
… There were also some broken links, if I am not mistaken.
… I encourage everyone to look at the current PRs and see if there's anything to be done.
… From my side I'll try tomorrow to summarise the open issues.
… We need to make it clear what we postpone to a new version.

<Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to ask whether we have replied to / addressed all comments

AndreaPerego: I wonder whether we addressed all comments - as Lars's one.

<DaveBrowning> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Afeedback+label%3Adcat

DaveBrowning: All the comments we got are listed in the issues from the above link.
… If they are open, they are not addressed.
… Some have been partially addressed.
… There's also the one about the JSON example and we need to decide what to do.

DaveBrowning: riccardoAlbertoni, could you summarise the status of the google doc?

riccardoAlbertoni: There are some issues that can be marked for future work.

<riccardoAlbertoni> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌806

riccardoAlbertoni: [lists issues to be finalised]

DaveBrowning: So, let's use the google doc to ensure we replied to all comments.

DaveBrowning: Meanwhile, I'll prepare a draft of the transition request.
… Do you all agree with the proposal?

<Makx> +1

+1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

Action: DaveBrowning to prepare a draft of the transition request and associated document, pointing to evidence that all the comments have been addressed

<trackbot> Created ACTION-365 - Prepare a draft of the transition request and associated document, pointing to evidence that all the comments have been addressed [on David Browning - due 2019-09-11].

DaveBrowning: Any suggestion / point anybody would like to make?

riccardoAlbertoni: Just trying to understand the timeframe.

PWinstanley: are we thinking that there will be a version for WG review by 10-12 Sept?

riccardoAlbertoni: My question was also about some issues for alejandra and SimonCox, and I wonder they have time in this period to take care of them.

DaveBrowning: Good point. Maybe we can have an additional week.

PWinstanley: I think that the timetable from Philippe doesnt give enough time to remedy anything that the WG review might raise

DaveBrowning: riccardoAlbertoni maybe when you talk with SimonCox you can also point him to those open issues.
… BTW, I think what we have to do is editorial only - right?

<riccardoAlbertoni> i think everything was editorial except "the put at risk"

DaveBrowning: If this is the case, it shouldn't be a problem to have the poll in time.

<Makx> +1 good plan

<riccardoAlbertoni> fine to me

+1

<Makx> thanks and bye!

<riccardoAlbertoni> thanks all, bye !!

<PWinstanley> Bye all

DaveBrowning: Thanks everyone. We can close the meeting.

[meeting adjourned]