DXWG Plenary

28 January 2020


alejandra, Ana, AndreaPerego, annette_g, plh, PWinstanley, riccardoAlbertoni, roba
Antoine, Makx, SimonCox

Meeting minutes


<PWinstanley> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2020/‌01/‌21-dxwg-minutes

Proposed: accept minutes of last meeting'

<PWinstanley> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1


<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


<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.


<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

<plh> https://‌help.github.com/‌en/‌github/‌managing-your-work-on-github/‌transferring-an-issue-to-another-repository

<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

Summary of action items

  1. AndreaPerego to draft a PR with links to specific version of DC terms
  2. PWinstanley to draft blog post for DCAT2

Summary of resolutions

  1. accept minutes of last meeting
  2. close new action-389 and create issue for this
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 104 (Sat Dec 7 01:59:30 2019 UTC).


Succeeded: s/not/note/

Succeeded: s/Priimer/Primer/

Succeeded: s/splitting the report/splitting the repo/

Maybe present: propose