19:55:43 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dxwgdcat
19:55:43 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/10/21-dxwgdcat-irc
19:55:45 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
19:55:45 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dxwgdcat
19:55:47 <trackbot> Meeting: Dataset Exchange Working Group Teleconference
19:55:47 <trackbot> Date: 21 October 2019
19:56:16 <AndreaPerego> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:DCAT-Telecon2019.10.21
19:56:39 <AndreaPerego> regrets+ Makx, PWinstanley
19:57:05 <AndreaPerego> meeting: DXWG DCAT subgroup teleconference
19:57:12 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, make logs world
19:57:24 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
19:57:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/10/21-dxwgdcat-minutes.html AndreaPerego
19:58:28 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
19:58:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/10/21-dxwgdcat-minutes.html AndreaPerego
20:02:22 <riccardoAlbertoni> riccardoAlbertoni has joined #dxwgdcat
20:02:52 <alejandra> alejandra has joined #dxwgdcat
20:05:49 <SimonCox> SimonCox has joined #dxwgdcat
20:06:48 <alejandra> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/dxwg/andrea-perego-dcat-implementation-report/dcat-implementation-report/index.html
20:08:32 <AndreaPerego> chair: AndreaPerego
20:08:38 <AndreaPerego> scribenick: alejandra
20:08:42 <alejandra> scribenick: alejandra
20:10:15 <AndreaPerego> topic: approva agenda
20:10:20 <AndreaPerego> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:DCAT-Telecon2019.10.21
20:10:42 <alejandra> alejandra has joined #dxwgdcat
20:10:51 <riccardoAlbertoni> I am happy with the agenda
20:10:56 <alejandra> AndreaPerego: are you happy with the agenda?
20:11:10 <alejandra> AndreaPerego: a few issues for DCAT2 ratification that need some discussion
20:11:17 <alejandra> ... perhaps we can sort them out
20:11:29 <alejandra> ... Peter wrote to me adding another agenda item
20:11:42 <alejandra> ... pointing to the poll considering the re-charter
20:12:03 <alejandra> ... if we are happy with it, we need to submit the re-charter by 31st October
20:12:17 <alejandra> ... the final decision should be made tomorrow
20:12:27 <alejandra> ... there are a few more editorial changes, but they are not so critical
20:12:34 <alejandra> ... how scope is formulated, and so on
20:12:57 <alejandra> SimonCox: I raised the issue about the evergreen standard before
20:13:17 <alejandra> ... Philippe said that the evergreen process isn't ready yet
20:13:24 <alejandra> ... I'm not totally happy about that
20:13:25 <alejandra> +q
20:13:42 <alejandra> ... as undermines the principle of the way we are expecting to work on the DCAT work
20:14:07 <alejandra> ... I'd like to have some confirmation of that
20:14:18 <alejandra> ... I'm not interested in going through another waterfall style process
20:14:28 <alejandra> ... if we are expected to go through that
20:14:34 <alejandra> ... I'm not interested in it
20:14:50 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1 not to have the waterfall again for DCAT
20:15:02 <AndreaPerego> ack alejandra
20:15:57 <AndreaPerego> alejandra: I also raised the issue about the fact that we have already users' stories.
20:16:02 <SimonCox> For an 'evergreen' process, I would expect to see us work primarily on issues, rather than develop new UR document as first step
20:16:14 <SimonCox> s/UR/UCR/
20:16:27 <SimonCox> ... we already have an issue backlog to clear
20:17:00 <AndreaPerego> ... PWinstanley replied saying that the deadlines is only about the deliverables.
20:17:19 <SimonCox> alejandra: for evergreen process, do very frequent working drafts, each targetting a specific issue, which gets us 'evergreen' in practice,
20:17:35 <AndreaPerego> q+
20:17:49 <AndreaPerego> ack AndreaPerego
20:18:13 <alejandra> AndreaPerego: what I saw in the new document, the explicit deliverables are DCAT and conneg
20:18:25 <alejandra> ... but the UCR is listed among the documents that may be published
20:19:03 <alejandra> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/dxwg/e21356361acccddc45472349fd443bbc3954ceb9/charter/index.html
20:19:33 <AndreaPerego> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/dxwg/recharter_2/charter/
20:19:53 <alejandra> this was my comment: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/1116#issuecomment-538311708
20:20:47 <SimonCox> I would expect to see 'GitHub issue backlog' as one of the inputs to the DCAT3 work
20:21:37 <SimonCox> and remove UCR deliverable for DCAT
20:21:47 <alejandra> indeed, and there shouldn't be a requirement to include the UCR
20:21:51 <alejandra> happy with agenda too
20:22:00 <AndreaPerego> [agenda approved]
20:22:27 <AndreaPerego> topic: approve last meeting minutes https://www.w3.org/2019/09/25-dxwgdcat-minutes
20:22:36 <AndreaPerego> +1
20:22:37 <SimonCox> (Still on re-charter - I'm also a bit uncomfortable seeing 'DCAT3' listed - for evergreen it shoudl be DCAT4, DCAT5, DCAT6 ...)
20:22:42 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
20:22:46 <alejandra> +0 (wasn't there)
20:23:00 <SimonCox> 0 (wasn't there)
20:23:11 <alejandra> minutes approved
20:23:35 <AndreaPerego> s/minutes approved/resolved: last meeting minutes approved/
20:23:45 <AndreaPerego> topic: implementation report
20:23:59 <AndreaPerego> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/dxwg/andrea-perego-dcat-implementation-report/dcat-implementation-report/index.html
20:24:23 <alejandra> AndreaPerego: summary of the structure
20:24:33 <alejandra> ... started with Data on the web best practices
20:24:39 <alejandra> ... and removed the non-relevant parts
20:24:47 <alejandra> ... used the evidence that we have on the spreadsheet
20:24:55 <alejandra> ... and tried to clarify the methodology at the beginning
20:24:58 <alejandra> ... what we've done
20:25:13 <alejandra> ... we are not listing all that is included in DCAT2
20:25:26 <alejandra> ... but only the revisions that need to be verified in terms of implementation evidence
20:25:33 <alejandra> ... there is a table with a full list of revisions
20:26:05 <alejandra> ... and that section explains that we are not including dcat:Resource and some of the properties as it is an 'abstract' class
20:26:32 <alejandra> ... first point is vocabularies using DCAT and DCAT2
20:26:39 <alejandra> ... same thing about data catalogues
20:27:29 <alejandra> ... for the implementation evidence, for each revision there is the list of implementations as well as possible future implementations
20:27:40 <alejandra> ... such as DCAT-AP that is being revised to align to DCAT2
20:27:58 <alejandra> ... but also other situations, such as other profiles of DCAT (such as geoDCAT-AP) that have services
20:28:05 <alejandra> ... but use a different implementation
20:28:18 <alejandra> ... in these cases it is likely that they will be revised to include what is in DCAT2
20:28:45 <riccardoAlbertoni> q+
20:28:48 <alejandra> +q
20:29:01 <alejandra> AndreaPerego: I still need to find out if possible future implementations can be counted
20:29:10 <alejandra> ... if they have a high degree of probability
20:29:18 <alejandra> ... we have the figures and the summary of the results
20:29:54 <alejandra> ... 81 revisions and at least an implementation and a possible future implementation
20:30:59 <alejandra> AndreaPerego: if we look at the charter, we don't need to have all the implementations
20:31:23 <AndreaPerego> From the charter: "In order to advance to Proposed Recommendation, the WG should show that each term in the revised version of DCAT is used in multiple catalogs and related systems. As a minimum, evidence will be adduced that each term has been published and consumed independently at least once, although a higher number is expected for the majority of terms."
20:31:58 <alejandra> ack ;-)
20:32:35 <alejandra> AndreaPerego: 38 revisions out of 81 have at least 2 existing implementations.
20:32:48 <alejandra> ...32 revisions out of the remaining 43 have at least 2 implementations, counting both the existing and the future possible implementations.
20:33:01 <alejandra> ... The remaining 11 revisions have 1 future possible implementation, but no existing implementations.
20:33:16 <riccardoAlbertoni> and dct:rights
20:34:07 <alejandra> AndreaPerego: only 11 properties not complying with the requirement
20:34:13 <AndreaPerego> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/dxwg/andrea-perego-dcat-implementation-report/dcat-implementation-report/index.html#analysis
20:36:54 <alejandra> AndreaPerego: properties inherited and the most critical issue is for those properties that are not inherited
20:37:08 <SimonCox> q?
20:37:15 <AndreaPerego> ack riccardoAlbertoni
20:37:48 <alejandra> riccardoAlbertoni: about the implementation that we have to provide, I'd first check the properties that are more critical
20:37:59 <alejandra> ... that we didn't mark as 'at risk'
20:38:43 <alejandra> ... the three properties dct:rights
20:38:55 <AndreaPerego> REV32	dcat:Dataset	dct:rights
20:39:06 <alejandra> ... dct:PeriodOfTime
20:39:15 <AndreaPerego> REV77	dct:PeriodOfTime	time:hasBeginning
20:39:20 <AndreaPerego> REV78	dct:PeriodOfTime	time:hasEnd
20:39:21 <alejandra> ... REV77 and REV78
20:40:15 <alejandra> riccardoAlbertoni: if future implementations can be counted or not, it depends on the committment of the future implementation
20:41:01 <alejandra> ... are you the editor of any of those future implementations?
20:41:03 <alejandra> AndreaPerego: no
20:42:43 <alejandra> ... for services, GeoDCAT-AP there weren't classes
20:43:00 <alejandra> ... but we can point to the issues in their repository on github
20:44:48 <AndreaPerego> ack alejandra
20:44:48 <alejandra> ... they are not going to finish this work before the end of this month
20:46:19 <AndreaPerego> List of issues about the alignment of DCAT-AP with DCAT2: https://github.com/SEMICeu/DCAT-AP/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22dcat+2%22
20:46:31 <alejandra> alejandra: given that some of the profiles are showing their work in progress by moving to DCAT2, that should be quite convincing
20:46:59 <alejandra> alejandra: I was also wondering if you added the implementation reported at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1115
20:47:18 <alejandra> ... even if they are work in progress, we might check if they are dealing with the properties that riccardoAlbertoni mentioned
20:47:39 <alejandra> AndreaPerego: all the national extensions in Europe may end up being automatically aligned with DCAT2
20:48:35 <alejandra> AndreaPerego: it'd be good if Philippe joins the call tomorrow
20:48:48 <alejandra> ... to ask about these future implementations
20:50:04 <alejandra> the linkedDataPipes are not addressing the 11 properties
20:51:22 <alejandra> AndreaPerego: we are not listing all the (future) implementations that we know of
20:52:22 <SimonCox> maybe change the wording from 'future possible implementation' to 'planned implementation'
20:52:24 <alejandra> this is Simon's endpoint I think: https://gnafld.net/2016-05/
20:53:00 <alejandra> +q
20:53:50 <alejandra> AndreaPerego: all the European catalogues use DCAT-AP, but we are only listing the European Data Portal
20:56:04 <alejandra> alejandra: will send a PR to your branch with a few editorial changes
20:56:05 <SimonCox> The ones marked 'at risk' can be changed to 'non-normative'
20:56:13 <SimonCox> q+
20:56:16 <alejandra> ... what is the process if we don't find implementation of those marked at risk?
20:56:24 <alejandra> AndreaPerego: yes, they need to be removed
20:56:43 <alejandra> ... if future possible implementations can count as existing ones, then we are safe
20:56:45 <SimonCox> Or marked 'non-normative' but left in the document.
20:56:57 <alejandra> ack alejandra
20:56:58 <riccardoAlbertoni> +q
20:57:21 <AndreaPerego> ack SimonCox
20:57:39 <alejandra> SimonCox: wording... change to planned implementation
20:58:10 <alejandra> ... the things we don't have sufficient implementation evidence that we're marked at risk, I think it is ok to mark them as non-normative and leave them in the document
20:58:28 <alejandra> AndreaPerego: where do we move them?
20:58:56 <alejandra> SimonCox: leave them where they are but putting non-normative
20:59:13 <alejandra> AndreaPerego: when they are inherited, they are listed in the super-class
20:59:16 <alejandra> ... only
21:00:25 <SimonCox> and change text from 'is recommended for use' to 'is available for use' for the non-normative properties
21:02:13 <riccardoAlbertoni> "available for use" instead of "recommended" sounds good for me
21:02:17 <riccardoAlbertoni> q-
21:03:50 <SimonCox> My sense is that it is OK for items that were 'at risk' to be changed to 'non-normative' and 'available' (rather than 'recommended') within the spirit of the at-risk warning.
21:04:26 <SimonCox> present+
21:04:33 <riccardoAlbertoni> present+
21:04:36 <AndreaPerego> present+
21:05:17 <SimonCox> RRSAgent: generate minutes v2
21:05:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/10/21-dxwgdcat-minutes.html SimonCox
21:05:18 <AndreaPerego> [meeting adjourned+
21:05:34 <AndreaPerego> s/[meeting adjourned+/[meeting adjourned]/
21:05:42 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
21:05:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/10/21-dxwgdcat-minutes.html AndreaPerego