– DRAFT –
DXWG Plenary

Admin

<kcoyle> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2019/‌10/‌01-dxwg-minutes

proposed: approve last week's minutes

<kcoyle> +1

+1

<TomB> +1

<DaveBrowning> 0 (not there)

<roba> 0

Resolved: approve last week's minutes

kcoyle: not many open action items, skipping

<kcoyle> https://‌docs.google.com/‌spreadsheets/‌d/‌1Jo8pMcYbJBl8jNezeHTml7HfeqO8fnTnc3swVXEiS3I/‌edit#gid=0

kcoyle: can someone give an idea of what this spreadsheet represents?

kcoyle: not sure which deliverables it is about

antoine: it looks at least 80% conneg

kcoyle: I'll drop that down to the conneg area then.

kcoyle: where are we with DCAT? DaveBrowning?

DaveBrowning: I think we're regathering our energy. we're in listening mode.

DaveBrowning: We've had a few comments, one issue pointing out an error in an example.

DaveBrowning: we've provisionally discussed meeting next week some time, still under discussion. We aim to have the implementation report by the end of the month.

kcoyle: how is the implementation report looking?

AndreaPerego: we started collecting implementation evidence in a Google doc spreadsheet. The classes and properties that were added, and the ones from other vocabularies. We don't need evidence for what was in the original version of DCAT.

AndreaPerego: about the new things, we decided to exclude some, like DCAT resource, as that class is not supposed to be used by itself. It's an extension point to create subclasses for support in profiles or extensions.

AndreaPerego: we are pretty stable now. We need to convert it into a document. Probably it will be mostly a table, but also some explanation. We looked at profiles of DCAT and also platforms like CKAN, existing data catalogs. We just have to put it all together in a consistent way with a nice narrative to explain how the new version is supported by the evidence.

kcoyle: so how is it looking? are there features still at risk?

AndreaPerego: In some cases, features at risk are about new properties. Feedback was on the development of DCAT profiles. In some cases, the selected property was not generic. The new classes and properties are filling those gaps, so they are likely to be adopted. The table shows which are already implemented and which are yet to be.

kcoyle: any questions?

kcoyle: we hope everything will be clear by the end of the month.

AndreaPerego: fingers crossed

conneg

roba: nothing to announce, except some useful copyediting (thank you Karen). I guess it comes down to the nature of the process of rechartering.

kcoyle: we still have the question about functional profiles.

<kcoyle> annette: functional profiles issue not resolved

<kcoyle> roba: not sure how to resolve; none are mandatory

<kcoyle> annette_g: may have a difference of opinion as to what is required

<kcoyle> roba: abstract model is the only required part; none of the profiles are required

<kcoyle> annette_g: the way it is written it sounds like one or the other is required until a more specific profile is created

<kcoyle> roba: let's look at text

kcoyle: I think it just needs to be said more clearly. It needs to explain the relationship between the abstract model and the models that are presented, maybe just more clearly. It needs to say here are two profiles and you can use them, but they aren't the only way.

kcoyle: can someone post the github link, and I'll add a suggestion.

kcoyle: other things: it would be good to look at the issues raised in the poll. We could also use a round-up of what issues are outstanding. DCAT has done a cleanup off all issues. I don't know if you've done that in conneg. We need to show that it's in a completed state.

kcoyle: I did post one other email about the .ttl files.

roba: they're not normative or referenced as normative anywhere.

kcoyle: we'll have to talk to Philippe.

kcoyle: I'm just going through looking for anything that might be a red flag. We'll check on that.

kcoyle: I think that's it for conneg. We still don't have a target date.

roba: we need to meet and finalize those things.

roba: we need to hear back from Rob Sanderson.

rechartering

kcoyle: I talked to Philippe, but I have to wait for Peter to get back and talk with Philippe again. We haven't had a chance to hash it over. It's due at the end of the month.

kcoyle: we're chartering for evergreen.

Any other topics people want to cover?

antoine: clarification about the new charter. Does it mean we should not review too much the one that Peter suggested?

kcoyle: yes. I'll send out a note to people to hold off on that.

kcoyle: Philippe has gotten me a bit confused, so we need to discuss some things.

kcoyle: Let's see if we can get people really digging into conneg to see if we've found all the little nits that might trip us up. Let's get this wording done that satisfies Annette's concerns.

Anything else?

<riccardoAlbertoni> thanks, bye