– DRAFT –
DXWG Plenary

<ncar> agenda:

https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌wiki/‌Meetings:Telecon2019.08.06

<PWinstanley> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌blob/‌dcat-tr-to-pr/‌dcat/‌dcat-tr-to-pr

<PWinstanley> proposed: accept https://‌www.w3.org/‌2019/‌10/‌29-dxwg-minutes

<roba> +1

<SimonCox> 0 wasn't there

<riccardoAlbertoni> +0 ( i was not there)

0 wasn't there

<PWinstanley> +1

Resolved: accept https://‌www.w3.org/‌2019/‌10/‌29-dxwg-minutes

transition request

SimonCox: I've approved and merged it

<SimonCox> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌pull/‌1159/‌files

roba: I am approving

<PWinstanley> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌blob/‌gh-pages/‌dcat/‌dcat-tr-to-pr.md

PWinstanley: we must acknowledge outcome of DCAT to PR poll

<PWinstanley> proposed: ratify the poll result https://‌www.w3.org/‌2002/‌09/‌wbs/‌99375/‌dcat-to-pr/‌results

+1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<SimonCox> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

<roba> +1

<PWinstanley> resolveded: ratify the poll result https://‌www.w3.org/‌2002/‌09/‌wbs/‌99375/‌dcat-to-pr/‌results

Resolved: ratify the poll result https://‌www.w3.org/‌2002/‌09/‌wbs/‌99375/‌dcat-to-pr/‌results

PWinstanley: we have 15-0 in favour of publication in the poll

Resolved: ratify the poll result https://‌www.w3.org/‌2002/‌09/‌wbs/‌99375/‌dcat-to-pr/‌results

<PWinstanley> is everyone content with the transition request doc https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌blob/‌gh-pages/‌dcat/‌dcat-tr-to-pr.md

<SimonCox> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

+1

<PWinstanley> proposed: content with the transition doc https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌blob/‌gh-pages/‌dcat/‌dcat-tr-to-pr.md

Resolved: content with the transition doc https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌blob/‌gh-pages/‌dcat/‌dcat-tr-to-pr.md

PWinstanley: I will sent results to Philipe for publication

riccardoAlbertoni: we have feedback from Antoine and I think 2 issues are open

PWinstanley: ensure they are tagged for "future work"

<riccardoAlbertoni> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Adcat+no%3Amilestone

PWinstanley: discussion on the doc and outstanding issues is allowed to continue

<PWinstanley> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌blob/‌gh-pages/‌dcat/‌dcat-tr-to-pr.md

Re-charter

PWinstanley: last week we made request to Advisory Committee for a recharter, response from them expected in a few days

Conneg

PWinstanley: recharter means things will "roll along" - we can keep on with work on Rec trac for the doc

PWinstanley: possibility is to put out a next Public Working Draft within this current charter

PWinstanley: Re-charter means a seamless operating continuation

PWinstanley: PROF work is in the same vein but varied- it's not in the charter so needs continued WG charter

PWinstanley: we should deal with this when we have a larger WG attendance

<PWinstanley> ncar: notes on connef - it seems appropriate to put out a 3rd PWD

<PWinstanley> ... there is a meeting scheduled later today, so this subgroup will propose for this soon

<PWinstanley> ... On the matter of recent discussions on conneg there is non-normative material linking PROF and Conneg and this might form the material for garnering continued support from the WG for PROF

PWinstanley: we've been doing lots of work on GitHub, should we consider splitting our giant repo into individual repos?

use of GitHub

PWinstanley: this might keep things cleaner but there is a cost- forking, moving issues etc

PWinstanley: please think about GitHub splitting

PWinstanley: we can discuss ways to operate at a later meeting which involves both GitHub work and meeting schedules etc

PWinstanley: we can re-assess the meeting times to see what times suite active members

roba: cleaning up GitHub is necessary but we need to enforce a better dicipline with Issues as some Issues proved impossible for us to close due to open-ended nature of discussions in them

roba: we are using gitHub as a record of discussion, not an Issue tracker

PWinstanley: these are the discussions we need to have so we can move forward more efficiently

DaveBrowning: I agree with roba's view- more clarity in use dicipline would be useful

<SimonCox> We really need a repo per product! its chaos otherwise

DaveBrowning: discussion a month ago was about how could Use Cases / Requirements be split between deliverables

<SimonCox> Have a separate repo for use-cases if necessary

DaveBrowning: we need a story about how to manage the UCR, I don't think it should be in a separate repo from other products

PWinstanley: early in the recharter we do have to consolidate & take a new view on the UCR doc and link UCs to multiple strands of work to show how multiple products address them

PWinstanley: we could also change UCR into a wiki doc (not a repo) and look back to those from GitHub Issues

PWinstanley: we have a range of tools but are using GitHub (Issues) for everything

<PWinstanley> ncar: for people who won't be attending the conneg call

<PWinstanley> ... there arae 2.5 implementations with published outcomes and positive feedback

<PWinstanley> ... there will be an example implementation that delivers DCAT v1 and v2

<PWinstanley> ... code bases are in Python and PHP

riccardoAlbertoni: can we have a resolution to move Issues to Future Work since we can't deal with feedback now

riccardoAlbertoni: for Issues in general, to indicate we are not ignoring feedback but can't deal with it right now

<PWinstanley> proposed: that all open issues in the DCAT discussion are marked as 'future work' and dealt with in the coming months

+1

<roba> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

<DaveBrowning> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<SimonCox> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1

Resolved: that all open issues in the DCAT discussion are marked as 'future work' and dealt with in the coming months

<PWinstanley> proposed: that all open issues in the DCAT discussion are marked as 'future work' and dealt with in the coming months

AndreaPerego: q about transition request. Previous one added as Issue with questions but this is a doc. What is the process?

PWinstanley: are there things you (Andrea) we need to do?

AndreaPerego: Philpe/W3C will likely provide feedback

<roba> Can we close all old pending review actions: https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌pendingreview (NB All action owners are here now!)

PWinstanley: I will have to raise an issue for it for W3C processing anyway

<PWinstanley> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌open

PWinstanley: we need to identify Actions that need closing, then close

https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌pendingreview

<DaveBrowning> 361 is long done

proposed: close all Actions marked as "pending review" in the Action tracker

<roba> +1

<DaveBrowning> +1

Action 89, 168, 169, 177, 197, 277, 311, 339, 346, 361, 376

<trackbot> Error finding '89,'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌users>.

<PWinstanley> these issues are all stale, supervened by circumstances, or complete but not documented as such

<PWinstanley> +1

<SimonCox> +1

+1

<AndreaPerego> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

Resolved: close all Actions marked as "pending review" in the Action tracker

<riccardoAlbertoni> Thank you all...

Thanks to volunteers, Meeting closed 07:49

Bye

<AndreaPerego> Thanks, bye bye

<riccardoAlbertoni> see you bye

<PWinstanley> bye

<roba> Bye