proposed: accept https://www.w3.org/2019/09/04-dxwgdcat-minutes
+1
<DaveBrowning> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
Resolved: accept https://www.w3.org/2019/09/04-dxwgdcat-minutes
DaveBrowning: the basic purpose is to be able to raise the transition request . for this everything in github needs to be tidy
… we are pretty much there, but need to go through the topics
<AndreaPerego> +1 to agenda
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to agenda
+1 to agenda
AndreaPerego: perhaps we can move the topics - before going to CR we need to add the link to the implementation record
DaveBrowning: at present we are using a google spreadsheet for collecting evidence,
AndreaPerego: yes, and I'm working on an implementation record. The spreadsheet is to act as a check
… implementation evidence could be a table or more, depending on time. We might also use either a github HTML page, or use the wiki
<AndreaPerego> Spreadsheet collecting implementation evidence: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eEVUuPFAGO2GjS5ocxylY8T1AlpqlwnOTc3er_Mhcv4/edit#gid=1108132380
AndreaPerego: implementation evidence is for the new classes and properties (excluding dcat:Resource, which is just an abstract class useful as an extension point)
… for the new properties, they have been created on use cases developed from e.g. gaps in existing profiles
… so these will be very likely adopted in these profiles, substituting for the fillers that are currently being used.
plh: no need to give implementation evidence for things like dcat:Resource, and for existing v1. add an explanatory note to the spreadsheet. any time within the next month. we could make a generic statement about the exclusion criteria for implementation evidence
… you can put in wiki/github (not in google doc, because of accessibility in all countries)
… I can help if needed
AndreaPerego: we can link from the spec to the companion document, which can then link to wherever the spreadsheet is.
plh: we need to be clear about what we are demonstrating up front.
DaveBrowning: the only class that we are not giving implementation evidence for is dcat:Resource
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to me
DaveBrowning: proposed: a companion doc on the github/wiki that has information about exclusions (dcat:Resource etc) and link to doc with the implementation evidence
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
<DaveBrowning> +1
+1
<AndreaPerego> +1
DaveBrowning: resolved: a companion doc on the github/wiki that has information about exclusions (dcat:Resource etc) and link to doc with the implementation evidence
proposed: a companion doc on the github/wiki that has information about exclusions (dcat:Resource etc) and link to doc with the implementation evidence
Resolved: a companion doc on the github/wiki that has information about exclusions (dcat:Resource etc) and link to doc with the implementation evidence
<DaveBrowning> transition request https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/wiki/DCAT:-Draft-Transition-Request-to-CR
AndreaPerego: thanks to plh for recent additions. I think that it is clear to go if we can sort out the evidence
plh: I'm concerned about the tallying of issues
… what does it mean 'open'?
DaveBrowning: 77 are open for future work. I'll confirm numbers
… we have 107 closed, so we need to tidy this up, but despite over 100 being closed, there are still some that are remaining for future work. the ambiguity will be sorted in the next few days
plh: ok. what about issue #959?
… this one is going to be part of the conversation
<plh> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/959
DaveBrowning: there was some sense in the discussion of softening of the DC attitude, we also thought there was a moving target, esp of backward compatibility. We are open to the idea, but equally we are not sure that the time is right. So it is in the dcat future work milestone
plh: I'll need an explicit answer from Addison on this
DaveBrowning: any others?
… there was feedback around geospatial; permissions and entitlements; but nothing that came back was directive. We responded to all, but sometimes didn't get a response.
s/Dyson/Addison/
<plh> https://github.com/w3c/transitions/issues/169
plh: I've copied the TR to the correct place
… the numbers are indicative
… If new information arrives then just add it
… questions will come on github
… updates will come into that issue
… don't be surprised if nothing gets changed in the first day or two. it will be done in time for the publication on Thursday
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to dcat ratification
<AndreaPerego> +1
DaveBrowning: Agenda 4.1 - a new milestone to be used for issues that are supporting dcat ratification. we can include other stuff too, but this is the main content
… we also have an implementation evidence milestone
… comments?
AndreaPerego: happy with this, just reiterating about the implementation evidence milestone
riccardoAlbertoni: this ratification is collecting stuff to be completed within the month - things like translation etc. Another issue is from splitting the ttl file and one axiom was deleted and this brings problems when loading in protege.
AndreaPerego: the ratification is implementation, editorial, etc?
DaveBrowning: I thought the implementation evidence milestone was fine - leave as is
DaveBrowning: this is to support ratification
DaveBrowning: Last week we started using the future work tag
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 tp keep both
DaveBrowning: This, along the use of the future work milestone, helps people understand that.
+1 from me
riccardoAlbertoni: +1 from me. I would keep both the tag and the milestone, as the milestone allows people have the list of issues.
DaveBrowning: PLH also said not to have issues marked as critical, as people will wonder what this would actually mean.
DaveBrowning: Coming to the other two items in the agenda
… https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/430 and https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/393 may need some attention.
… Probably the should be under PROF, and not DCAT.
riccardoAlbertoni: #430 can be moved elsewhere (possibly to future work), whereas #393 is not about DCAT.
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to andrea #430 is out of the dcat radar.. can we drop the dcat label ?
DaveBrowning: Not sure we can drop the dcat label, as dcat is in the title.
… But indeed the question about conformance and DCAT profiles is something going beyond the scope of DCAT.
riccardoAlbertoni: Probably the easiest thing is to put it under future work.
+1
<riccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A"DCAT+CR"+-label%3A"due+for+closing"
DaveBrowning: Coming now to the next item, this is about unresolved issues in the DCAT CR milestone.
riccardoAlbertoni: #969 should be under the ratification milestone.
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to me
<riccardoAlbertoni> s\+1 to me\+1 from me
AndreaPerego: To solve https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1065 , only editorial changes are needed, IMO. So, it may go under the ratification milestone.
riccardoAlbertoni: I agree.
DaveBrowning: I also agree this is just editorial.
riccardoAlbertoni: Should we add the future work tag also to the ratification milestone?
DaveBrowning: I would not use it.
DaveBrowning: The next is https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/763
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to put it on future work
AndreaPerego: This is not only editorial, as it is about provide guidance on the use of semantically overlapping properties, so I would move it to future work.
DaveBrowning: I agree we can move it to future work.
<DaveBrowning> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1089
DaveBrowning: About this one is going to be closed in the next days.
<DaveBrowning> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/144
DaveBrowning: This was very old.
<DaveBrowning> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/144
<DaveBrowning> https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/#RDF-representation
DaveBrowning: This section is also talking about DCAT profiles.
riccardoAlbertoni: Maybe we can drop the profiles line, or point to the old version of DCAT.
DaveBrowning: I tend to agree. We intended to do that, but we eventually didn't.
riccardoAlbertoni: The other option is just to say in point 3 that the folder includes the 2014 version of DCAT, and we actually need to add the file.
DaveBrowning: I agree.
+1
Action: riccardoAlbertoni to revise point 3 of section RDF representation, and add the DCAT 2014 ttl file
<trackbot> Created ACTION-378 - Revise point 3 of section rdf representation, and add the dcat 2014 ttl file [on Riccardo Albertoni - due 2019-10-02].
<riccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-desc+label%3Adcat+no%3Amilestone+-label%3A"due+for+closing"+-label%3Afuture-work+-label%3Aucr
AndreaPerego: About the last 2 issue there
… what we do?
DaveBrowning: I asked Stephen if the issue is closed.
AndreaPerego: But since is about the RDF representation, maybe we can put it into the ratification milestone.
DaveBrowning: My feeling this is a problem for the software tool, so it should not impact DCAT.
<PWinstanley> https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Adcat
PWinstanley: Switching to the i18n comments, there are still some open issues, and an option is to join the i18n meeting.
… I'll go back to PLH and tell him that we responded to those issues.
<DaveBrowning> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/175
AndreaPerego: I would move it not to the ratification milestone, and then we have time to sort it out.
DaveBrowning: The other one https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/175
… This is about a bug in DCAT 2014.
riccardoAlbertoni: I'm not sure we should be concerned with publishing errata for DCAT 2014 as we are publishing the new version.
AndreaPerego: We can move it to the future work milestone, as it is not affecting at all the new version of DCAT.
riccardoAlbertoni: +1 from me.
AndreaPerego: About https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/393 probably we can close it, as we don't have in DCAT any alignment with PROF.
riccardoAlbertoni: About https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/430 , I think we decided to move it to future work.
DaveBrowning: Done #430. I'll update #393 accordingly and close it.
[meeting adjourned]
Succeeded: s/proposedd/topic/
Succeeded: s/Spredsheet/Spreadsheet/
Failed: s/Dyson/Addison/
Succeeded: s/Dysan/Addison/
Succeeded: s/430/393/
Succeeded: s/Done #393. I'll update #430 accordingly and close it./Done #430. I'll update #393 accordingly and close it./
Maybe present: plh, proposed