Meeting minutes
admin
<PWinstanley> https://www.w3.org/2020/01/21-dxwg-minutes
Proposed: accept minutes of last meeting'
<PWinstanley> +1
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
+0
<Ana> +1
<Ana> sorry
Resolution: accept minutes of last meeting
DCAT 3 items
DCAT2 publication
riccardoAlbertoni: two reminders for @plh re content negotiation
<riccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/milestone/24.
plh: issues assigned to myself to solve - can fix later if need be
riccardoAlbertoni: #1182 is due for closing
… discussion open about how to support (couldnt catch...) DCAT is ready
<riccardoAlbertoni> https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/errata/
riccardoAlbertoni: discussion about handling errata documents
<riccardoAlbertoni> https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/
plh: should i change status and publish as is ?
riccardoAlbertoni: yes - but open issues like we dont know where the RDF turtle will be
plh: suggest move note to status of document
… did you run pubrules?
<Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to ask about issue posted in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2020Jan/0107.html
riccardoAlbertoni: discussion was to leave as note, but open to suggestions... have not run pubrules
plh: will run rules by end of week
AndreaPerego: new version of DCterms has been published: yet to review - should we put in some caveat?
PWinstanley: why not push to v3? - DCterms previous version still valid
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to put it in version 3
PWinstanley: otherwise need to do everything in 2 days, including pub rules
… safe enough in your opinion?
AndreaPerego: option is to modify references to point to previous version - we are using references to the current version
<riccardoAlbertoni> ok
AndreaPerego: I can do a PR to replace link - we can decide it to merge it
Action: AndreaPerego to draft a PR with links to specific version of DC terms
<trackbot> Created ACTION-389 - Draft a pr with links to specific version of dc terms [on Andrea Perego - due 2020-02-04].
<AndreaPerego> +1
roba: will there be an issue with the TTL files?
PWinstanley: should be handled in PR
AndreaPerego: probably dont have time to review, Dcterms defintions are not complex though
plh: my recommendation is not to do anything - if there is an issue deal with it in V3 or in errata
AndreaPerego: happy to move to v3
propose: close new action-389 and create issue for this
<PWinstanley> +1
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
+1
<Ana> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<plh> +1
<alejandra> +1
Resolution: close new action-389 and create issue for this
<AndreaPerego> close action-389
<trackbot> Closed action-389.
plh: what about the blog?
PWinstanley: will have a draft put round by end of the week
Action: PWinstanley to draft blog post for DCAT2
<trackbot> Created ACTION-390 - Draft blog post for dcat2 [on Peter Winstanley - due 2020-02-04].
PWinstanley: we have a spreadsheet with contacts - need to send emails to this contact list and ask for implementations and errata
… please email your contacts
<alejandra> I think this is the spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_f5CAZv7rgUjJH5YXkmD6w5xS6GX5X2AmEp_LMptAfQ/edit#gid=0
<alejandra> sure
PWinstanley: to do after blog.
Conneg
<PWinstanley> roba: I talked to nick yesterday - I don't know that there's anything we are waiting for re: publication, but I am actively working on implementation and test suites
plh: next step is to move to CR
<PWinstanley> ... I am preparing implementations on both QSA and also headers. There are challenges in making tests on these implementations comparible
roba: prefer to get implementations deployed before moving to CR
<alejandra> created new worksheet on spreadsheet for DCAT2 REC publicity: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_f5CAZv7rgUjJH5YXkmD6w5xS6GX5X2AmEp_LMptAfQ/edit#gid=560881316
PWinstanley: any other comments on conneg?
DCAT version 3
PWinstanley: how are we going to work out what v3 will cover
… we are probably not representative for this discussion
<AndreaPerego> GH issue about DCTERMS new version just created: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1213
PWinstanley: should we split repo
<PWinstanley> roba: I would definitely like to see the repo split. It is a good opportunity to make more visible the issues relating to the work of the specific deliverable. There is also mention in v2 saying that aspects of DCAT 2 would be handled by the profile. We need to incorporate this thinking more explicitly
<PWinstanley> ... I would also specifically urge against creating specific aspects of DCAT that would be better handled by profiles
-1 to cloning issues - better to review them and make a case to reopen
plh: recommend to clone repository - keep history of commits - then transfer issues to the clone
… there is a concept of transferring issues
<alejandra> great
alejandra: also interested in profiles - we have exampes here
… should we use the Primer?
PWinstanley: we can publish Notes as well
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to keep the issues and maintain the precious discussions we've had..
alejandra: we have some work on dataset series to revisit
… create a milestone
<Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to say not so sure about splitting the repo and working on profiles in DCAT 3
<alejandra> this is the milestone we already have with priority for future work in DCAT: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/milestone/15
<alejandra> I think we should revise that selection
AndreaPerego: same concerns we may lose issue - so happy to see a possible solution. Re profiles +1 to point by roba - may be domain independent. So far profiles of DCAT made by communities.
… concerned about potential for conflict.
PWinstanley: isnt point to be instructional - to show how things can be addressed by a profile?
<plh> "The Dataset Exchange Working Group will not create application profiles or metadata standards that only apply to very specific domains (such as particle physics, accountancy, oncology etc.)"
AndreaPerego: propose to review issue - if domain-independent can go into V3 otherwise explore options
… one issue is that there may be many valid ways of solving a problem, so guidance doesnt always help
<PWinstanley> roba: I think that there is likely to be a middle ground between general cases and application-specific requirements (which should be managed by communities) where we can find good practice patterns
AndreaPerego: agree - important to review open issues
+1 for triage of issues first :-)
PWinstanley: we have UCR document too
<AndreaPerego> +1 to look at the UCR for not addressed requirements.
alejandra: fine to look at UCR - but we have already generated issues
PWinstanley: who is going to do this? joint activity or alejandra doing as part of milestone review?
alejandra: can have my view then we need to discuss
PWinstanley: focus of charter is expanasion of community using FAIR principles - need to get people on board ASAP
open action actions https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/open
388 is closed
plh: we can not go to cc0 without 6 weeks loop. we have moved to cc-by4 already
… need to recharter - so part of move to evergreen process
PWinstanley: can we go back to wikidata and have conversation about cc0 need?
… now we are clear we need to open discussion with wikidata?
closing 385
<AndreaPerego> close action-385
<trackbot> Closed action-385.
closed 386
<AndreaPerego> close action-386
<trackbot> Closed action-386.
<alejandra> thanks all, and bye!
<riccardoAlbertoni> thank you all, good night
<AndreaPerego> Bye
<Ana> thanks all, bye