DXWG Plenary

14 January 2020


alejandra, Ana, AndreaPerego, annette_g, antoine, Caroline, plh, PWinstanley, riccardoAlbertoni, roba_, SimonCox
DaveBrowning, Makx

Meeting minutes

scribenick alejandra

<PWinstanley> agenda https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌wiki/‌Meetings:Telecon2020.01.14

PWinstanley: no minutes to look at but catching up with latest stuff from last year
… we'll start off with revision of re-charter
… 13 Support; 3 abstain; 1 against but not by Formal Objection
… the against was peculiar
… [reading comment]
… philippe, have you got any comment?

plh: not everyone needs to like everything
… my approach would be: thanks for your feedback but we need to consider all the comments
… it wasn't a formal objection

PWinstanley: in the last charter, we had a challenge on getting traction on supposedly competing standards
… probably we need to make sure we have better degree of engagement from the start

plh: we have a recommendation
… we have DCAT2 to maintain now
… I'm not going to be answering the question on what is the scope from the consortium

PWinstanley: enagement and giving people a rationale for all that we are doing, it is something we need to keep at the front of our minds
… anyone else want to comment?

roba_: the experience from OGC is that there is a tension between standard process and tooling
… perhaps we haven't done here systematically is work out where the momentum in the community is
… where is the community we want to influence looking
… the technologies that have momentum/adherence
… interoperability

PWinstanley: we have lots of people that signed up to the group, but we've only have a dozen who joins in hte conversion let alone the meetings
… they are from W3C member organisations
… it'd be helpful to get additional points of views
… especially if we move to evergreen standards
… anything else?

Caroline: we talked about that at the office and we're going to try to engage more Brazilians too
… not only that, maybe it would be nice for each of us to try and bring someone else
… brainstorming and think about who to engage
… there might be organizations not even aware of the working group

AndreaPerego: my two cents - we should probably consider that it is a particular situation
… DCAT was already standard and we extended it
… supporting backward compatibility
… people were looking at what we were doing
… when we went to CR we started getting feedback
… on the other side, because DCAT is already implemented, the profiles such as those done in Europe, they just included the new version
… from them we got some feedback at the end of the process
… in a new standard, the situation may be different
… people are seeing what is going to happen

<AndreaPerego> +1

PWinstanley: this conversation can be go on and on, but we should consider it from time to time

AndreaPerego: I cannot see the comments

same problem for me too (Alejandra)

<antoine> I see them

I got a message "Not allowed"

AndreaPerego: before I used to be able to see the comments

plh: this is member only

antoine: about these comments, which I can see, the person who didn't suppor the charter also has some comments on the document licenses and that the charter history is not completely accurate
… I'm seeing the comments but not the charter now

plh: for the charter history, I'll fix it
… for the license, I'd like to discuss with the group
… the question is: DCAT Rec is supposed to use document license
… we unintentionally switched to Software & Doc license
… most of the groups don't use the document license
… but use the new one

<antoine> sounds ok!

plh: which allows the spec to be forked
… we concluded that using the doc license to prevent the spec to being forked
… makes no sense
… most of the specs can be forked nowaways and in practice it doesn't happen now
… my recommendation is to switch to a more open license


<plh> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2019/‌11/‌proposed-dx-wg-charter-2019.html

<plh> https://‌www.w3.org/‌Consortium/‌Legal/‌2015/‌copyright-software-and-document

AndreaPerego: what license we can use?

<PWinstanley> alejandra: when I was editing something on the doc we had a list convo about this - we were looking at the license on the ttl and there is a distinction between the doc and the ontology. Do we use the same, or different?

plh: it is as CC with attributions (not legal comment)

<SimonCox> Note that Wikidata will only use ontologies with CC0 license

plh: I see no reason not to use the same license for the ontology

<PWinstanley> plh: the licence is not CC0. We should use the same licence for doc and ttl

<PWinstanley> alejandra: I agree- that is what I would have suggested

roba_: people who are using the spec tend to go to the usable artifacts
… if something is not well documented is an issue

<antoine> @SimonCox: Wikidata "duplicates" every ontology they want to use anyway. There are not many statements in Wikidata that use non-Wikidate classes and properties.

<riccardoAlbertoni> in the turtle we are using https://‌www.w3.org/‌Consortium/‌Legal/‌2015/‌copyright-software-and-document

FYI: this is the link to the discussion in the mailing list: https://‌lists.w3.org/‌Archives/‌Public/‌public-dxwg-wg/‌2019Dec/‌0068.html

and I had mentioned CC-BY

so happy that the W3C one is similar

AndreaPerego: is there a sharealike requirement? can it be commercial?

plh: you need to attribute the work, with or without modification

<SimonCox> yes @antoine - that is because very few published ontologies are licensed CC0

plh: include disclaimers...
… if you make changes, you need to document them

SimonCox: I've already noted in the thread that wikidata takes an attitute that they don't reuse any ontology that doesn't have a CC0 license
… I suggest a conversation between W3C and Wikidata should happen
… vocabularies for general purpose
… unfortunate that Wikidata cannot use them directly
… antoine mentioned that they use to clone vocabularies
… but my understanding is that it is not their preference
… but they do it when there isn't an appropriate license
… if we use the w3c URIs the attribution is given via the URI reference
… and for the ontology then we could have CC0

Action: plh to ask W3C legal if we can use CC0 for the ontology given the Wikipedia terms

<trackbot> Created ACTION-385 - Ask w3c legal if we can use cc0 for the ontology given the wikipedia terms [on Philippe Le Hégaret - due 2020-01-21].

plh: legal process is stretch
… I'll see if I can get a 'yes' from them

antoine: I'm not extremely convinced by the wikidata argument in the moment
… I was shocked to say that they clone ontologies
… I'd be in favour of CC0
… and I'd be in favour of discussing with Wikidata

<plh> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌1192

plh: another question about the spec
… issue about using the proper license
… willing that people are willing to change to the more open license
… do we have to fix that issue?

proposed: close issue https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌1192 without action

resolution is that we keep the license 'software and document' license

so, keeping the most open license

<SimonCox> ... i.e. the more open license

plh: if we get the new charter approved, we can squeeze it in the new charter

antoine: struggling to understand if this is the issue that we want

+1 to use the more open license

<PWinstanley> +1

<antoine> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to use the more open license

<roba_> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1

<SimonCox> +1

<Caroline> +1

<Ana> +1

Resolution: close issue https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌1192 without action (meaning that we will use the more open license for the spec)

plh: I'll get approval for new charter by next week

roba_: wanted to make sure we don't loose the other important point Simon made
… about dereferrencing of identifiers
… check if we can have CC0

<annette_g> Hey, all, sorry to be so late. We're in maintenance mode at the supercomputing center, and I had to put out some fires.

roba_: and then check if dereferencing is a valid form of attribution
… we need to have an understanding of that from W3C in general, and probably also OGC

PWinstanley: we need to select the meeting time

meeting time

PWinstanley: this time is difficult for Caroline in a regular basis
… but would find Wednesday easier

Caroline: I think I'd be available

<SimonCox> (To determine meeting timing we should do a poll - e.g. using Doodle)

PWinstanley: are people happy to keep this time or should we consider other times?

<AndreaPerego> +1 from me to keep the current time.

<SimonCox> This time OK

PWinstanley: is there a need for a poll?

<roba_> we are a self-selecting sample of course :-(

proposed: we keep this time

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1

<plh> +1

<PWinstanley> +1


<annette_g> +1

<roba_> +1

<antoine> +0

<SimonCox> +1

Resolution: we keep this time

<Caroline> +1


PWinstanley: we have the member only results
… 10 support; 3 abstain; 1 suggestion of changes

<plh> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌milestone/‌24

plh: we need to see the issues in that milestone

riccardoAlbertoni: we have resolved most of the issues
… several 'due for closing'
… some other issues plh has assigned himself
… 1182 and 1177 are open but I think we can close them

PWinstanley: are people happy for riccardoAlbertoni to lead this?

riccardoAlbertoni: next two days, I'll be busy

<PWinstanley> alejandra: that is fine - if riccardoAlbertoni can lead then others can review - I've been doing this recently

plh: riccardoAlbertoni will you give me the document or do you want me to generate from github?

riccardoAlbertoni: is there a procedure for this?

plh: focus on the issues and let me know and I can point you to the tools or run them myself

PWinstanley: reminder about discussion on papers and blog posts, etc
… put them around and get quick feedback
… perhaps different languages and different audiences

PWinstanley: are we going to break out the github for one repo per document?

I think that would be good

<roba_> +1 to split up and reset issue chaos


<antoine> I prefer to keep the same repo. Issues may be about several deliverables...

<SimonCox> According to Phillipe the DXWG is unusual in not having split the repo from the beginning!

<AndreaPerego> Same opinion of antoine

roba_: as nick is not here, I'll take the discussion on conneg

<plh> (indeed)

<SimonCox> (Git subtree command allows you to split the repo and keep the history)

roba_: my understanding is that nic has been following the W3C process for PWD3

PWinstanley: we voted towards the end of last year to take it forward

(but we won't get the split of the issues)

<plh> https://‌w3c.github.io/‌transitions/‌nextstep.html?shortname=dx-prof-conneg

roba_: I've got an extended contract with OGC and will extend conversations engaging various organisations


roba_: same situation
… ready to be published as a note

<plh> https://‌w3c.github.io/‌transitions/‌nextstep.html?shortname=dx-prof

plh: it's been published as a note in mid Dec
… it can be updated anytime

PWinstanley: remaining topic was open actions


382 can be closed

<plh> close action-382

<trackbot> Closed action-382.


<plh> action-338?

<trackbot> action-338: Antoine Isaac to Handle definition in 662 re profiles and media types in Profile Guidance -- due 2019-06-18 -- OPEN

PWinstanley: related to 242 is 338

PWinstanley: small taxonomy of profiles
… data profiles and talk about them in isolation
… if we're going to do anything on profiles it has to be very focused

roba_: ADMS is a note and declares itself a profile of DCAT
… can we look at the W3C cannon and note how they relate to each other
… we might get a sense on how to do things
… keen to keep it open
… not sure to specify what we want to do now

PWinstanley: we'll meet up same time next week

<roba_> bye

<SimonCox> bye

<riccardoAlbertoni> nye

Summary of action items

  1. plh to ask W3C legal if we can use CC0 for the ontology given the Wikipedia terms

Summary of resolutions

  1. close issue https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌1192 without action (meaning that we will use the more open license for the spec)
  2. we keep this time
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 104 (Sat Dec 7 01:59:30 2019 UTC).


Succeeded: s/view/views

Succeeded: s/call/poll

Maybe present: FYI