Meeting minutes
admin
proposal: accept minutes of last call https://www.w3.org/2020/02/18-dxwg-minutes
annette_g: they were mixed up
philippe: I've cleaned it
PWinstanley: there are some warning
… in the diagnostics
philippe: I'll fix that as well.
<PWinstanley> +1
+1
<annette_g> +1
<ncar> +1
oops no 0 I was not here
but it seems there's been some attention to the minutes :-)
Resolution: accept minutes https://www.w3.org/2020/02/18-dxwg-minutes
DCAT V3
PWinstanley: we agreed to split the repos
… open two new ones for Conneg and PROV
and do a bulk closure of Conneg and PROV in the current repo
<plh> dxwg, dx-prof-conneg
philippe: not done yet. You want dxwg, dxwg-conneg and dxwg-prof ?
<plh> dxwg, dx-prof-conneg, dx-prof
<ncar> yes please!
<ncar> did we make a call about UCR & Guidance?
<plh> https://github.com/w3c/dx-prof-conneg
<ncar> yes
PWinstanley: the current one would be for DCAT
<ncar> dx-connegp
<ncar> dx-prof
<ncar> dx-prof-conneg is fine
nooo!
<ncar> copnnegp is my personal preferred term
<ncar> make that connegp
ncar: did we discuss UCR and Guidance
PWinstanley: no we didn't have time
<ncar> preferred dx-prof & dx-connegp
<PWinstanley> antoine: I am arguing against dx-prof-conneg
<plh> https://github.com/w3c/dx-connegp
ncar: would it be possible to change the short name of prof-conneg?
philippe: open an issue in the new repo!
… and assign the issue to me.
PWinstanley: do you see issues for expedite the new github repo arrangement?
philippe: connegp is created and I gave you access.
… do you want me to transfer issues?
PWinstanley: pretty certain that yes
ncar: for connegp and prof, yes, and we'll tidy them up
https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1211
<PWinstanley> antoine: question about shared issues, esp 1211. It was originally about DCAT but spans two topics
ncar: we'll have to do what we do with other work. Maybe create copy issues.
<PWinstanley> I think we just do as in other projects and make reference across repos. Perhaps create peer issues if necessary
<plh> https://github.com/w3c/dx-prof now exists
ncar: we'll lose neatness but I think it's fine.
<PWinstanley> antoine: I can live with that, but if done automatically, which repo does it end up in?
<PWinstanley> ncar: in this case leave in DCAT
ncar: in this one we can leave it with DCAT
<alejandra> question: should the prefix be dxwg rather than dx?
<alejandra> due to the existing repo: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg
<PWinstanley> antoine: good - so can we take a note of the shared issues?
<PWinstanley> ... I'm concerned that we lose info if this is done automatically
PWinstanley: this is something we can identify by queries
ncar: the tags are free-floating so they would retain the original labels
alejandra: so we would create mirror issues? My concern is that we would still have to go back to original issues.
PWinstanley: there may not be many, but there could be the important ones
https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1216#issuecomment-587788504
alejandra: also shouldn't we keep the same prefix, i.e. dxwg?
… for consistency
PWinstanley: yes we probably should want to do this
alejandra: especially if DCAT remains in the original repo
annette_g: wouldn't it create inconsistencies with the W3C websites?
philippe: we track repos based on their configuration not their name
… what we recommend is that the name of the repo is the one of the short name of the spec
<alejandra> about the overlap of issues... there is now only 1 issue that shares the labels dcat and profiles-vocabulary: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Aprofiles-vocabulary+label%3Adcat
philippe: if one changes then the other should change
PWinstanley: maybe we should do this once we start working with these new repos
… and the UCR
<alejandra> and no issues between dcat and profiles-negotiation
<PWinstanley> antoine: I wanted to point to the statistics on the shared issues that Riccardo / Karen were pointing out were not overlapping, but there is 1211
alejandra: I agree that it falls into profile guidance but are we sure we don't want to add something in DCAT?
… the original post was about the description in DCAT
<ncar> Create a peer Issue Alejandra?
alejandra: there could be an issue created for the original spec
philippe: we can create a peer issue if needed
<plh> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/389
<alejandra> sure - I will comment on the issue later - I think it has to stay in DCAT and we can create a peer issue in the guidance doc
<annette_g> nice!
PWinstanley: alejandra is it something that you want to track?
Action: alejandra to keep an eye on #1211 as a shared issue
<trackbot> Created ACTION-398 - Keep an eye on #1211 as a shared issue [on Alejandra Gonzalez Beltran - due 2020-03-03].
PWinstanley: next topic is future work and UCR
antoine: what needs to be done?
PWinstanley: at the moment we have a list of future work and things in UCR that haven't be dealt with
… we need to check they are in line, and in scope
… we need to do some triage
<PWinstanley> antoine: I was concerned that we would be re-doing UCR
antoine: I thought this would be about doing a new UCR
<PWinstanley> PWinstanley: NO
alejandra: we don't even need to look at the UCR again, I believe
… in principle we've handled them, either solved them or they are open as github issues
… so we shouldn't have to look again at the original UCR
<alejandra> also note that we do have new use cases from those written in the UCR, but they are in github issues
annette_g: do we have new people coming as per the re-chartering?
PWinstanley: there should be people around, whom we could ask
… do you see anything appropriate for inclusion?
annette_g: I think I might have seen something, but it was late in the process
… it was about the need to streamline things
… I would need to write it in a coherent way
… We should consider how people put things into practice
… For example what we're asking in Conneg can be burdensome
PW: user experience - user research?
annette_g: yes
PW: there are groups to which we could throw things
… a number of them from W3C members
… We tend to look at accessibility but there are other aspects of usability
… Anything else, e.g. on FAIR?
<PWinstanley> antoine: alejandra said that there are some use cases that are new (not in the UCR, but are in github issues). Do these need to be put into the UCR?
PWinstanley: I'm going to ask philippe where we're going in terms of agile method
… the UCR was waterfall-y.
… How should we think of our competency questions?
… the UCR is not complete
… wrt competency questions
philippe: UCR is not a REC, it's a NOTE
PWinstanley: at this stage do we need to update the UCR doc with things in the github issues?
philippe: no it's not needed
… I would recommend that before moving to CR that you mention where the requirements are
… because you'll need to prove you've met there.
<alejandra> Good! To be more agile is good to keep the use cases in github only
PWinstanley: ok so as long as we're explicit on where the requirements came from and that we've handled them then we're good to go.
<plh> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues?page=1&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Aprofiles-vocabulary
philippe: I've moved all the open issues for the two deliverable except these which had dual labels
+1!
PWinstanley: alejandra and ncar can look at them and mirror them if needed
<alejandra> +1
<annette_g> +1 to moving them
philippe: do you want me to migrate the closed issues?
<ncar> =1
<ncar> +1
ncar: I don't think it's a good idea but I won't object
philippe: ok I'll do them one by one
<PWinstanley> antoine: asking plh - will the closed issues be moved with the same criteria as the live one - esp relating to issues spanning deliverables?
<PWinstanley> plh: yes
philippe: something else: for the moment I've cloned the repo, keeping the structure and milestones
… for DCAT there could still be links to editor's drafts
… I can update the REC to point to the right place but it needs some coordination.
Conneg
ncar: Rob are going to check the test suite in the next day or two
… we don't think there will be a lot of change but will check
… the main change will be adding a list of requirements
PROF
ncar: I've made a profile hierarchy-based validation tool
… the tool is fed with a data graph and a profile hierarchy and hunts for the SHACL files available for the hierarchy.
… it implements one of our use cases.
… I've implemented this tool because we need to validate data for another project [???]
… which will make conformance claims based on the outcome
PWinstanley: maybe you can check and move the drafts to the new repo
ncar: ok but how about the issues?
PWinstanley: they are moved
… it would be good to have visibility for the group, with links
Action: ncar to mail the group with a proposal to move the prof and connegp drafts from the original repo to the new ones
<trackbot> Created ACTION-399 - Mail the group with a proposal to move the prof and connegp drafts from the original repo to the new ones [on Nicholas Car - due 2020-03-03].
<alejandra> thanks all, and bye!
<AndreaPerego> Thanks, bye!