proposed: accept minutes of last week
<TomB> +1 to accept minutes
<annette_g> +1
<Makx_> 0
<kcoyle> +1
+1
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
<ncar> 0
<roba> +0
Resolved: accept minutes of last week
<kcoyle> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2019.09.17
<kcoyle> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99375/DCAT_to_CR/
kcoyle: Still have some people to vote
<annette_g> done
<roba> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/881#issuecomment-532267514
<kcoyle> DaveBrowning: #881 pull request, no change to the namespace; will be done at point of transition; not normative
<kcoyle> ... follow current practice and point to links in html, but if you ask for .ttl you will get that back
<kcoyle> roba: when you follow link and import seems strange; implementation behavior is not normative
<kcoyle> ... what happens when I import this, what do I get?
<kcoyle> comment: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/881#issuecomment-516859294
<kcoyle> DaveBrowning: not part of the normative document that is under review
<kcoyle> roba: if implementation level stays ok, I guess that's ok
<kcoyle> DaveBrowning: ttl files and json-ld are not normative, so a secondary task
<kcoyle> ... depends on w3c practice on namespaces
<kcoyle> roba: cardinality issues with format
<kcoyle> ... dct:format
<kcoyle> DaveBrowning: don't remember that one
<AndreaPerego> Probably roba refers to https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1055
<kcoyle> DaveBrowning: we touched on this; discussed last week; will defer for future work
<kcoyle> DaveBrowning: will say: have put together a draft transition request - https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/wiki/DCAT:-Draft-Transition-Request-to-CR
<kcoyle> ... will need to make some things clearer in github to show disposition of milestones and future work
<riccardoAlbertoni> yes i think 1055 need to be moved in the future development
ncar: draft includes all the changes
kcoyle: open for review now, with poll at end
<ncar> Conneg is ready at https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/conneg-by-ap/
kcoyle: so we keep changes to just editorial
kcoyle: will ask people to vote yes/no/abstain
… guidance to be sent out with poll announcement
ncar: document good to go, no planned conneg sub-group meeting during vote
… then move to implementation report
… using test tool to measure what features/risk
kcoyle: state of open issues?
ncar: not many - some marked nofix
<roba> fewer issues than DCAT - nothing substantive
roba: probably put DCAT profile in primer or similar
… major 'at risk' is the http/ietf approach
… perhaps need to de-scope format/profile example
kcoyle: Any questions for conneg before we start review/vote?
<PWinstanley> qa+
PWinstanley: Nothing wrong with marking at risk since it saves time later if a risk occurs
… If there is anything 'weak' then best to mark
annette_g: Question about the feature at risk - is it the whole concept of http negotiation?
roba: No, its really just the alignment with ietf
<Zakim> DaveBrowning, you wanted to discuss at risk options
<ncar> I have created the "Transition to CR" doc draft for Conneg: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/wiki/Conneg:-Draft-Transition-Request-to-CR
ncar: Its not a requirement to use tokens in headers but its not mandatory...
annette_g: actually, question was on what the rationale on why
ncar: query string functionality needed something for discovery
kcoyle: there is a good discussion written down, perhaps publicise
<ncar> token discussion in Conneg linked to from here: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1064
kcoyle: end time for vote will be next Tuesday
<annette_g> @ncar, that doesn't appear to be the right link
roba: Profiles vocab has been handling comments but there is a broad lack of understanding of exchange (vs discovery)
… has meant many open issues
… that don't really impact the vocabulary
<ncar> PROF ED is at https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/prof/
roba: This suggests it would be better to call it a note rather than a rec
… rather than reduce what's in the actual document as it stands.
… spec is complete but there are many issues that need to be handled.
… so suggest that it moves as a note
<kcoyle> PROPOSED: Profiles vocabulary to be moved forward as a potential working group note
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
<PWinstanley> +1
<annette_g> +1
<Makx_> +1
+1
<antoine> +1
<TomB> +1
<roba> +1
kcoyle: will still need to be voted on but have much more time
<kcoyle> +1
Resolved: Profiles vocabulary to be moved forward as a potential working group note
<ncar> 0
kcoyle: since effort on DCAT, conneg should drop off, it should create time to discuss profiles vocab in more depth across the WG
<Zakim> TomB, you wanted to ask why the PROF Editors' Draft https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profilesont/ no longer resolves
<ncar> PROF ED is at https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/prof/
<Makx_> works for me
roba: should be a re-direct but doesnt seem to work
kc
kcoyle: if someone (roba/ncar) could contact dsr cc chairs.....
<kcoyle> PROPOSED: All Working Group review Conneg for CR status, with final decision September 24
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
<TomB> link to Conneg?
<PWinstanley> +1
<Makx_> +1
<ncar> +1
<ncar> https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/conneg-by-ap/
+1
<kcoyle> +1
<roba> +1
<annette_g> does this mean any ongoing concerns won't get addressed?
<TomB> Is that stable enough to print out for a long flight coming up?
<TomB> +1
<ncar> yes
<TomB> thanks
<antoine> +1
<annette_g> -1
annette_g: Think there are open conversations issues - is there no scope to address
kcoyle: there is no time left. So if there are critical issues then it would be a 'no' vote
roba: what is process
<TomB> One possible vote is "abstain" if there is doubt, correct?
kcoyle: any doubts/issues could be put on github, or talk offline and record appropriately
<annette_g> 0
<PWinstanley> +1 to TomB
kcoyle: abstain is important, to show involvement (if that's applicable)
Resolved: All Working Group review Conneg for CR status, with final decision September 24
<riccardoAlbertoni> thanks all, bye!
<Makx_> ok bye
<annette_g> bye
<roba> bye
<PWinstanley> bye
<TomB> bye all
<antoine> bye
Succeeded: s/chnages/changes/
Maybe present: proposed