– DRAFT –
DXWG plenary September 17, 2019

admin

minutes of last week

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/

DCAT vote

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

conneg readiness for vote

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

Status of profiles vocab

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