Meeting minutes
<annette_g> I can scribe
approved last week meeting minutes
<Caroline> https://www.w3.org/2020/03/03-dxwg-minutes
<kcoyle> 0 (not there)
+1
<annette_g> +1
<ncar> 0
<Caroline> +1
Resolution: approved last week meeting minutes
DCAT3
ncar: [explaining an issue following the split of repos]
<trackbot> Error finding 'for'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/users>.
<Caroline> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/1220
Action: Caroline to attend the repo tidy PRs
<trackbot> Created ACTION-400 - Attend the repo tidy prs [on Caroline Burle - due 2020-03-17].
Caroline: Anything else about the splitting of repos?
all: [silence]
Progress on future work for DCAT3
Caroline: Anybody wants to say anything about this?
<Caroline> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1222
Caroline: Maybe riccardoAlbertoni can share your thoughts?
riccardoAlbertoni: I was unsure about whether we are allowed to create new PRs.
… We had feedback about typos.
… In case of editorial feedback, should this be but into the errata document?
Makes sense to me.
Caroline: Yes, it makes sense. In DWBP, as editors, we had the permission to fix typos, but as errata.
… If you don't know how to do it, I can ask Philippe.
riccardoAlbertoni: I can follow the structure given in the DCAT2 REC. Any other things I should know?
Caroline: No, just fix it as an erratum.
AndreaPerego: I wonder whether we shoudl change the ED of DCAT in GH plus add the typos as errata in the DCAT2 errata document.
[some discussion]
Caroline: Yes, we should do that.
Action: riccardoAlbertoni to fix typos in the GH version of DCAT and add them in the errata document
<trackbot> Created ACTION-401 - Fix typos in the gh version of dcat and add them in the errata document [on Riccardo Albertoni - due 2020-03-17].
Caroline: Anything else about DCAT3?
Caroline: We have both the list of issues tagged as future work, and the UCR document. Any thought on how to proceed with them? Editors should take the lead, and ask for help, if need be.
<Caroline> AndreaPerego: the UCR are also on github
<Caroline> ... we can start there looking at the issues
<Caroline> ... at github
<Caroline> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/milestone/27
AndreaPerego: It does not seem the requirements are there.
… Some are here: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Arequirement+label%3Adcat
<Zakim> riccardoAlbertoni, you wanted to ask "are all the new requirements about dcat?"
riccardoAlbertoni: If we are talking about requirements, GH can indeed be the starting point.
<riccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Arequirement+-label%3Adcat
riccardoAlbertoni: But we should not take control of the requirements not related to DCAT.
Caroline: I agree. We should review the requirements and decide what to do for each of them.
… You can put forward the DCAT-related requirements.
riccardoAlbertoni: There are also possibly relevant requirements not tagged with DCAT, so we should decide how we want to go through them - either online or offline.
<kcoyle> a lot look like profiles/guidance. we can look through them
Caroline: Maybe the same issue will come up with requirements for CONNEG and PROF.
CONNEG
Caroline: ncar, can you report on this?
ncar: There was some discussion on the use of tokens.
… [missed]
<Caroline> roba: there was one request for clarification
<Caroline> ... we need further discussion
<ncar> ncar: I said that we are mostly testing the outputs of our implementations of ConnegP with the spec
<Caroline> ... lars and ruben were very much against it. We need to talk to them
<Caroline> ... in the URC work we believe the conneg cover all the requirements we have so far
<ncar> ncar: another step for us before CR submission is to list spec requirements in the doc as an Appendix
<Caroline> kcoyle: can we have a update IETF process
<Caroline> ncar: we haven't followed up on that
<Caroline> ... I will contact them right now
<roba> https://github.com/w3c/dx-connegp/issues/15
<roba> https://github.com/w3c/dx-connegp/issues/18
roba: We didn't get feedback on that one.
… so we need to convene and have a subgroup discussion.
… it was actually discussed previously, but then removed from the spec.
roba: I'll give feedback on 18 and if anybody would like to comment.
Caroline: Any comment?
Action: roba to give feedback on https://github.com/w3c/dx-connegp/issues/18
<trackbot> Created ACTION-402 - Give feedback on https://github.com/w3c/dx-connegp/issues/18 [on Rob Atkinson - due 2020-03-17].
Caroline: Issue 15 needs discussion?
roba: It is unclear if it is a requirement or not. Subgroup should discuss and bring back to plenary.
… Actually, the plenary should be involved in the technical issues.
Caroline: In DWBP, we used to use the plenary just to approve decision. But if DXWG is doing otherwise, fine with me.
kcoyle: We actually didn't expect the whole WG to have a strong opinion on CONNEG.
… Each subgroup worked on their own, and asking the plenary for agreement.
annette_g: It depends very much on whether subgroup decisions are controversial or not. It they are not, it is pretty easy to take a decision.
Caroline: So, roba, maybe you just go on as discussed.
riccardoAlbertoni: In DCAT we used the "due for closing" tag to mark issues that should have been reviewed by the plenary for being closed.
… Maybe this approach can be used also for other deliverables.
roba: This is actually the same approach we used.
Caroline: Thanks for the clarification.
… We are waiting for the decisions of the CONNEG group.
… So we may need an action to reconvene CONNEG.
ncar: Already working on that.
PROF
ncar: Not much to say. We worked a bit on profile validation.
… The other thing roba and I did is to test profile hierarchies.
roba: I'm doing 2 implementations of profiles.
… So, I'm implementing the profiles against the CONNEG implementation.
… But the challenge I have is about profiles based on external specifications, and not always they have identifiers which can be used to link them to the profile.
… I don't know if anybody is looking for that.
<ncar> The software tool implementing PROF for SHACL validation by profile hierarchy is here: https://github.com/surroundaustralia/cheka
roba: I have some OGC meetings to discuss about this. If there's any feedback,I can report it there.
ncar: I am doing some work that can address this issue [missed the details]
<ncar> ...with the ISO TC 211 and also with Standards Australia
Caroline: Any comment or doubt about what was just explained?
Caroline: Maybe you can share the next steps?
roba: I will create an issue about the use of dct:conformsTo so maybe there will be some feedback there from implementation experiences.
Action: roba to create an issue on the use of dct:conformsTo to get feedback from implementation experiences
<trackbot> Created ACTION-403 - Create an issue on the use of dct:conformsto to get feedback from implementation experiences [on Rob Atkinson - due 2020-03-17].
open actions
<Caroline> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/193
Caroline: Last time there was some discussion on this action ^^
roba: [missed]
… It is still relevant.
<Caroline> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/205
Caroline: The next one is https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/205
AndreaPerego: This is about the guidance document, so I don't know if we want to raise it when we discuss this deliverable.
Caroline: Should we add an agenda item in the next meeting?
ncar: It would make sense.
Caroline: Can we try to convene the guidance subgroup.
ncar: I can take care of pinging them.
<riccardoAlbertoni> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/399
Caroline: The next is this one ^^
ncar: Done.
Caroline: So we can close it.
<roba> bye
<Ana> bye
<Caroline> bye! Thank you all :)
[meeting adjourned]