– DRAFT –
DXWG Plenary Sept 10 2019

<kcoyle> minutes happening here: https://‌www.w3.org/‌2019/‌09/‌10-dxwg-minutes.html

<kcoyle> previous meeting minutes https://‌www.w3.org/‌2019/‌09/‌03-dxwg-minutes

<dsr> scibenick: dsr

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1 to approve them

<TomB_> +1

<kcoyle> +1

<roba> +0

<annette_g> +0 (wasn't there)

<DaveBrowning> 0 (wasn't there)

Resolved: previous meeting minutes approved https://‌www.w3.org/‌2019/‌09/‌03-dxwg-minutes

DCAT CR

<dsr> Karen asks DaveBrowning for an update on where we are on DCAT

<dsr> DaveBrowning: we should be starting the WG review now

<DaveBrowning> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Adcat+milestone%3A%22DCAT+CR%22

<DaveBrowning> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Adcat+label%3Acritical+milestone%3A%22DCAT+CR%22

<dsr> The link shows the 12 open issues.

<dsr> We triaged issues following advice from PLH

<dsr> Karen asks about issues marked critical

<dsr> DaveBrowning: we need to address at least 2 of them during the WG review

<dsr> Karen: if PLH is able to join us we should think what process questions we have for him

<dsr> DaveBrowning: some questions around editorial matters, but nothing serious

<dsr> On 1055, an active conversation there, and pressure to get that it

<dsr> Karen: from the time that you give it to the WG, then the editor’s shouldn’t make substantive changes after that

<dsr> If there are issues that are really substantial then we have a problem …

<riccardoAlbertoni> I agree, I wouldn't open that discussion again, we have some consensus we should preserve :)

<dsr> We need to shut the door on this version of DCAT if we’re to move it to REC

<dsr> Karen: is the DCAT task force meeting tomorrow?

<dsr> DaveBrowning: I am not sure that we need to

<dsr> DaveBrowning: I may send out a pointer to a branch rather than pointing to the editor’s draft

Resolved: DCAT editor's draft as of this moment is the draft the WG will review and vote on

Action: on kcoyle, everyone to review DCAT

<trackbot> Error finding 'on'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌users>.

Action: kcoyle, everyone to review DCAT

<trackbot> Error finding 'kcoyle,'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌users>.

Action: kcoyle to send email to public list with link

<trackbot> Created ACTION-367 - Send email to public list with link [on Karen Coyle - due 2019-09-17].

Action: DaveBrowning send email to public list with any additional instruction or helpful information

<trackbot> Created ACTION-368 - Send email to public list with any additional instruction or helpful information [on David Browning - due 2019-09-17].

Action: kcoyle to ask everyone to review DCAT

<trackbot> Created ACTION-369 - Ask everyone to review dcat [on Karen Coyle - due 2019-09-17].

<dsr> Karen: have you tracked the external feedback you have had so far ?

<dsr> DaveBrowning: yes

Action: kcoyle to ask philippe what proof is needed for wide review

<trackbot> Created ACTION-370 - Ask philippe what proof is needed for wide review [on Karen Coyle - due 2019-09-17].

Karen: DCAT is pretty much wrapped up, that’s really good!

DaveBrowning: CONNEG isn’t quite so far along with 90 open issues

CONNEG

roba: I can speak to this as Nick isn’t available today

Karen: I see the Ruben made a pull request on tokens

roba: yes, and we ended up agreeing on a mechanism that doesn’t interfere with the IETF draft by using a different header

roba: I need to agree to the pull request, but don’t forsee a problem

Karen: we need a final version by next Tuesday to go to the WG for wide review

I will ask PLH for just what is meant by wide review

Getting CONNEG to CR is going to be tough
… given the time limitations for the charter

roba: there’s been quite a lot of clean up in response to external feedback
… but it hasb’

hasn’t changed substantively

roba: I think we’ve dealt with all the critical issues in the last few months

As an implementor I am reasonably happy with the spec

Karen: I don’t recall a wide public review recently

roba: that depends on what you mean by that

Karen: we need to show that the wider W3C community has looked at it

If PLH doesn’t make it to this call, I will contact him separately

PROF

Karen: please let the CONNEG team know that the DXWG main group needs a version to review to sign off on.

Karen asks roba for an status report on PROF

roba: the main issue is the naming of roles and whether these should be left to the future

No substantive changes to the vocabulary itself

Karen: I see 76 open issues, a few of which are marked as editorial

roba: only one critical issue …

many of the issues are rambling discussions

Karen recommends getting back to the people who make comments to see that their issues have been addressed properly

roba: we indeed have been doing so

Karen: you have one week to produce the version for the group as a whole to review

we need evidence on the contact with the external reviewers to show how their feedback was handled

Minor editorial changes can be made later, even after it has gone to CR

Karen refers to the AC review following exiting from CR

<TomB_> no comment!

roba: profile guidance is by its nature guidance and hence should be a WG Note

<annette_g> +1

Karen: the full group still needs to sign off on WG Notes

Karen: any other business? [no]

we will chat again next week

<annette_g> thanks all!

<riccardoAlbertoni> Thanks, bye

please look out for emails on review deadlines.

<roba> bye

<TomB_> thanks all