11:50:05 RRSAgent has joined #dxwgcneg 11:50:05 logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/09/12-dxwgcneg-irc 11:50:07 RRSAgent, make logs public 11:50:07 Zakim has joined #dxwgcneg 11:50:09 Meeting: Dataset Exchange Working Group Teleconference 11:50:09 Date: 12 September 2019 11:50:25 Meeting: DXWG CNEG Subgroup Telecon 11:50:37 RRSAgent, please make logs public 11:50:46 present+ 11:50:58 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 11:50:58 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/12-dxwgcneg-minutes.html LarsG 12:02:53 roba has joined #dxwgcneg 12:07:58 * i dont think so... we could switch to skype or hangouts? 12:11:50 * Nick is on a plane i think and dont think we can resolve this easily. 12:14:24 * i was able to dial in the the australian number so the meeting itself is valid 12:18:48 * ok coming up 12:20:26 * try this https://hangouts.google.com/call/MbTSvGuKXd1X73Rv4C81AEEM?no_rd 12:22:58 * you show up but i cant hear anything 12:25:44 * OK 12:26:21 Topic: Confirm Agenda 12:26:37 (it's pretty full, let's see how far we get) 12:26:43 https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:CNEG-Telecon2019.09.12 12:26:50 +1 (I wrote it...) 12:26:58 +1 12:27:07 RESOLVED: Agenda confirmed 12:27:16 Topic: Approve minutes from last meeting 12:27:23 https://www.w3.org/2019/08/29-dxwgcneg-minutes 12:27:35 +1 12:27:43 +1 12:27:54 RESOLVED: Minutes from last meeting approved 12:28:09 Topic: Check list of open action items 12:28:16 https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/products/4 12:28:28 Action-193? 12:28:28 Action-193 -- Rob Atkinson to Move jmeter test suite to within w3c systems -- due 2018-09-05 -- OPEN 12:28:28 https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/193 12:28:44 Can you say anything about that, roba? 12:29:56 both still open - though 358 probably moot now - I'll coordinate with Nick during implementation when I have choices to make - we can provide any changes needed back as comments. 12:30:11 OK 12:30:31 Topic: Discussion of schedule for moving to REC before end-of-year 12:30:43 See steps to recommendation https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/wiki/Steps-to-Recommendation-2019 12:30:46 the last PR frees me up to complete the HTTP part of the implementation I'm doing 12:31:34 which is the last PR, roba? 12:32:03 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/1066 12:32:36 OK, fine. 12:32:50 Ready to move on to the next topic? 12:32:57 ok 12:32:59 Topic: Discussion of schedule for moving to REC before end-of-year 12:33:07 See steps to recommendation https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/wiki/Steps-to-Recommendation-2019 12:33:46 We need to ask the group for review and possibly other communities, too 12:34:14 ... Do you know if Nick is available tomorrow? 12:34:56 Yep - OGC can be wider than the CSW spec WG - I'm about to present on the benefits of it to a session at OGC in a couple of hours, and I have a contact at the US NGA interested I will urge to look at it. 12:35:39 ... possibly - he arrives back in the afternoon apparently 12:36:34 LarsG has joined #dxwgcneg 12:37:10 Can you add those to the list in today's agenda? 12:37:15 Obviously we need a final editorial clean up to flag "features at risk" 12:37:26 ok - edit agenda? 12:37:39 Which features would you see as "at risk"? 12:38:34 IETF and the registration of the headers itself I guess as we dont fully control that.. 12:39:45 That's an interesting point. Do we need to show implementation evidence 12:39:59 ... or do we need to show that they have been standardised? 12:40:01 This community has little idea what they mean by profiles but conneg makes it clear what the implications are so that should be an issue - if they cant define conformance maybe they cant use this spec, but that doesnt invalidate the spec 12:40:20 we do - but not till end of Oct I think 12:40:33 When you say "this community" do you mean "IETF"? 12:41:07 no, DXWG 12:42:18 OK, so let's mark the http stuff as "feature at risk" 12:42:31 ... I can take an action on that 12:42:37 I cant see how to avoid it.. 12:43:10 ACTION: LarsG to mark http implementation as "feature-at-risk" since we don't know what IETF will say about it 12:43:11 Created ACTION-371 - Mark http implementation as "feature-at-risk" since we don't know what ietf will say about it [on Lars G. Svensson - due 2019-09-19]. 12:43:40 If we implement the rest, and we have no counter-proposals active for an alternative (or proof it wont work) then I say its not at-risk 12:44:39 OK, so are you confident there will be two indenpendent implementations of QSA? 12:44:39 ...as there are no external dependencies. Functionally its a very light spec. 12:45:26 Yep Nicks Australian Government Linked Data stuff and my OGC stuff - using different code bases and strategies. 12:45:38 Great 12:46:58 Regarding review, I can offer to contact IETF, DCMI, Europeana, DCAT-AP. 12:47:48 Shall we ping Nick that he contact OAI-PMH, ODRL and tool makers? 12:49:24 12:49:25 there was a comment on issue https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1055 where people are saying that DCAT-AP doesnt support content-negotiation for data distributions (in general) - claiming DCAT specifies this 12:49:51 Yes, but is that an issue for our spec? 12:50:09 but its incorrect as it clearly states it supports access via API and the cardinality of dc:format is not restricted. 12:50:54 So no - i think its an issue for DCAT-AP - but if they really do hold that position then this spec isnt relevant to them. 12:51:17 (it makes no difference to this spec) 12:51:54 OK, but we can ask them through Andrea anyway. I think he knows enough of the context 12:51:55 I suspect its just misinterpretation and some slightly inconsistent wording in DCAT. 12:52:10 +1 12:52:25 I'd like to move on to review of the public comments list. OK? 12:52:36 Andrea will care about other APIs like OGC Web Feature Server which serve multiple formats.. 12:52:51 OK 12:52:53 Topic: Review of comments on the public comments list 12:53:03 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-comments/ 12:53:13 Are there any open comments we need to address? 12:53:51 There is https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-comments/2019Aug/0004.html from TomB 12:54:55 did you get a response from Tom after answering all his questions? 12:54:56 ... this is repeated in #1017 where Nick has asked (https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1017#issuecomment-526164813) TomB and Karen if they are fine with the response 12:55:04 ... no comments so far 12:55:29 ... so no, I haven't got a response from TomB 12:55:47 ... I'll ping them on the comments list 12:56:15 Action: LarsG to ping Karen and TomB regarding the answer listed in https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1017#issuecomment-526164813 12:56:15 Created ACTION-372 - Ping karen and tomb regarding the answer listed in https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1017#issuecomment-526164813 [on Lars G. Svensson - due 2019-09-19]. 12:57:05 I think that apart from that we have no open comments we need to respond to 12:57:16 At some point these conversations drift off into lack of clarity about what they mean by profiles and the conformance implications - which are not actually relevant to this spec - so how do we draw a line under these threads 12:57:53 That's difficult. We need to show that we have addressed all original questions coming in through the comments list 12:58:33 ... Questions and comments coming through GitHub are solved when we're allowed to tag them as "due-for-closing" 12:59:26 Can we move on to open GH issues? 12:59:29 ok 12:59:40 Topic: Open GitHub Issues 12:59:42 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A%22Conneg+3PWD%22 12:59:55 7 open... 13:00:13 ... in this milestone 13:00:54 ... 19 as a whole: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Aprofile-negotiation 13:01:12 Let's start from the bottom 13:01:23 #290 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/290 13:01:31 well 1031 - PR has now been done it can be closed 13:02:13 i dont have that im my list of 7 ? 13:02:39 There is emerging consensus on #290 (three +1 votes), if you add yours, it's four 13:02:50 (no it's in the list of 19) 13:03:28 done - its a requirement issue anyway - just a check off its covered. 13:03:53 #389 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/389 what can we say about the OGC implementation? 13:04:22 in progress - been wiating for finalisation of HTTP token mappings which are necessary 13:04:42 OK, then you should be ready to go now! 13:04:54 387 can be closed - I'm ready to go.. 13:05:41 #505 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/505 13:06:36 We haven't reached consensus there yet 13:07:14 ... perhaps we cannot give normative advice 13:07:31 i dont think there are any arguments for HTTP to take precedence over QSA are there? 13:07:50 so IMHO we just need to check its clear 13:08:10 No there isn't. In my view the URL trumps any http header. 13:08:29 ... can you make a text proposal? 13:08:41 (needs to be merged by Monday...) 13:08:57 OK 13:09:40 ACTION: roba to provide text for order of precedence (#505) 13:09:41 Created ACTION-373 - Provide text for order of precedence (#505) [on Rob Atkinson - due 2019-09-19]. 13:10:26 #546 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/546 RobS hasn't answered to Nick's comment 13:11:36 We're well past the hour... How long can you hang on? 13:12:10 as long as you wish 13:12:26 this issue is moot as list tokenbs was removed long ago.. 13:12:34 OK, then let's continue! 13:13:14 #548 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/548 Nick needs to look at that one. I'll ping him 13:14:25 #549 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/549 I can check with RobS on that one 13:14:48 Actually also #548 also solved by PR 1031 13:16:23 Oh good! I'll add that. 13:16:29 #575 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/575 13:17:17 Here there's still work to do (listed in https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/575#issuecomment-530362099) 13:17:43 - sorry just catching up on 549 - its a "nice to have" we might leave as an open issue pending availability of a canonical representation? 13:18:07 Can you take care of Antoine's issue 15 since it's about 303 redirects? 13:18:47 Yes, we can tag #549 as "profile-negotiation future work" 13:19:24 PROPOSED: Tag GH #549 as "profile-negotiation future work" 13:19:48 +1 13:19:54 +1 13:20:12 RESOLVED: Tag GH #549 as "profile-negotiation future work" 13:20:36 I'll ask RobS if that's fine with him 13:21:22 #678 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/678 13:21:28 I think we need to have an action on editorial for #575 - but I dont see any substantial changes are required - just better examples and explanation (we've updated several examples to use http-range14 friendly options anyway) 13:21:57 OK, can you take that action? 13:22:47 I've been hammered by deadlines this week - will try to find some time on weekend 13:22:57 ACTION: roba to perform final editorial changes from #575 (https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/575#issuecomment-530362099) 13:22:58 Created ACTION-374 - Perform final editorial changes from #575 (https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/575#issuecomment-530362099) [on Rob Atkinson - due 2019-09-19]. 13:23:11 Thanks, roba! 13:24:16 OK, back to #678. Kam hasn't responded to Nicks question. We should ping him again. I'll do that 13:24:44 yep nothing to do otherwise 13:25:01 #976 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/976 13:26:32 I cannot determine of this issue is resolved yet. We should ask antoine about that. 13:27:54 ... pinged him in the issue. 13:28:02 Its another rambly discussion that doesnt seem to have any effect on the spec - communities can decide what they call profiles and make up any conformance rules - conneg just provides a means to deliver what they ask for.. 13:28:55 #1002 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1002 13:31:50 I've pinged antoine if the issue has been discussed to satisfaction 13:32:07 again - its just exploratory questions - not a concrete issue 13:32:37 OK, and it's not tagged for the milestone 13:33:04 #1017 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1017 we had that one further above with a corresponding action 13:33:17 #1022 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1022 13:35:13 Antoine has re-opened saying that "the current text (especially the hyperlinks) do blur the differentiation between functional and data profiles." 13:35:19 OK antoine has said this a "potential showstopper" 13:36:09 Yes, but that seems to be partly terminology. IIUC it could be fine to call the document "Content Negotiation by Data Profile" 13:37:15 It could be fine - but its actually fairly obvious. "content negotiation" implies data 13:38:07 True, although not all content is data... 13:38:21 ... depends on your definition of "data" of course 13:39:43 #1031 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1031 13:40:12 There is a description and examples in the document, so perhaps we can mark this as due-for-closing 13:40:37 yep PR was merged 13:41:38 1041 is dealkt with - Nick Raised it so needs a statement from him it addressed. 13:43:56 1064 is an editorial cleanup we can close when PR removes note. 13:44:44 I can take care of #1064 now that #1063 has been merged 13:44:50 +1 13:45:13 which leaves #1042 13:45:13 OK, done with issues 13:45:44 Topic: Who updates the changelog in the document? 13:45:49 I can do that 13:46:01 Action: LarsG to update changelog in ED 13:46:02 Created ACTION-375 - Update changelog in ed [on Lars G. Svensson - due 2019-09-19]. 13:46:08 Topic: AOB 13:46:13 AOB? 13:46:48 13:46:54 can we discuss #1042 - I think it might address the issue Antoine has by showing how its necessary in practice 13:47:10 is resolve 1022 ? 13:47:18 s/is/i.e/ 13:48:32 ... i.e. how and why data and functional profiles are necessary in the grand scheme of things - as well as provide guidance for how to describe a service offering conneg-by-ap 13:49:20 I'll create a PR and ask Antoine to review ? 13:49:46 Yes please, and I'd like to review, too (then perhaps I understand what's meant...) 13:50:10 of cource you and Nick must review too! 13:50:42 ACTION: roba to create PR to resolve #1042 by showing how data and functional profiles work together 13:50:43 Created ACTION-376 - Create pr to resolve #1042 by showing how data and functional profiles work together [on Rob Atkinson - due 2019-09-19]. 13:50:58 its not a feature, so informative appendix - but perhaps might cut through the abstractness 13:51:02 Zakim has left #dxwgcneg 13:51:21 zakim says we're done! 13:51:42 OK, so it wouldn't be normative content (i.e. it's editorial)? 13:52:06 hmm - open minded on that - its significant example 13:52:25 The point is that it's important for the review process 13:52:35 yep 13:52:46 (IMHO) 13:52:56 ... if it changes or adds normative content, we must highlight that 13:54:03 no its example DCAT metadata illustrating use of (and nature of) the idenfied functional profiles, not a requirement 13:54:38 OK. 13:54:48 So shall we call it a day? 13:54:52 (if we cant get the PR through we just dont provide an example) 13:55:03 yep - good work - thanks! 13:55:22 Thank you! Sleep well 13:55:25 Bye 13:55:35 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 13:55:35 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/12-dxwgcneg-minutes.html LarsG 13:57:15 Chair: LarsG 13:57:25 Scribe: roba, LarsG 13:57:29 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 13:57:29 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/12-dxwgcneg-minutes.html LarsG 13:58:03 regrets+ ncar 13:58:05 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 13:58:05 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/12-dxwgcneg-minutes.html LarsG