Meeting minutes
https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2020.04.15
<riccardoAlbertoni> yes
mid-term plan and priorities
<alejandra> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/milestone/27
PWinstanley: alejandra set up a milestone, put issues into it. riccardoAlbertoni also added issues
<SimonCox> There is a lot of interest in dataset-series
riccardoAlbertoni: I checked the DCAT3 milestone today and realised that there are issues in feedback that needs to be included. I suggest that we include that as it is important to acknowledge it
<alejandra> +1 to including all the feedback first
<riccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Afeedback+label%3Adcat+-milestone%3A%22DCAT3+FPWD%22+
riccardoAlbertoni: and to consider it early in this next roung
alejandra: should we do a milestone for feedback?
I think that is a good idea
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to go in parallel..
<SimonCox> dataset series here: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/868
alejandra: I think it is important to reply to feedback, but perhaps in parallel we can look at new requirements so that we can also make progress in the new features. If we only address feedback we will get behind with progress on v3
riccardoAlbertoni: I agree with alejandra . The acknowledgement could just include open issue - but we also need to look to a 1st PWD later this year and so we need to progress with the new requirements
SimonCox: the link - on dataset series - is in the milestone, but it comes up every few months and we need to provide some guidance for those with systematic data acquisition to catalogue
alejandra: that is a topic that is important - I am interested, it is also in the milestone. One of the things we could do is to include all the feedback and also to start on dataset series. The discussion needs to be developed.
Action: SimonCox to progress the work on dataset series
<trackbot> Created ACTION-415 - Progress the work on dataset series [on Simon Cox - due 2020-04-22].
riccardoAlbertoni: we already included version in the work for v3 and there is some work by Dave that we can use to start. I'm not confident in my being able to lead but I am happy to contribute
SimonCox: I think we need strawman proposals to shape discussion and to guide work
riccardoAlbertoni: I can try to revise what we have done and propose a direction
Action: riccardoAlbertoni to revise versioning and prepare a straw man
<trackbot> Created ACTION-416 - to revise versioning and prepare a straw man [on Riccardo Albertoni - due 2020-04-22].
alejandra: it would be great to start on the primer, but on one side we would be starting a primer on DCAT 2, but we need a primer that is in place for DCAT 3 when we publish
PWinstanley: I agree. But I think is should be modular rather than monolithic, and it should focus amongst other things on the use cases
<alejandra> +1
Action: PWinstanley to set up straw man for primer
<trackbot> Created ACTION-417 - Set up straw man for primer [on Peter Winstanley - due 2020-04-22].
<riccardoAlbertoni> https://www.overleaf.com/project/5dcafcbf13c76400013e2676
DCAT paper
riccardoAlbertoni: there is a draft of one paper that needs to be reviewed and feedback given to riccardoAlbertoni . There are no examples in the paper, but I have tried to put in sections 3 and 4 the new features of DCAT 2. THis could feed into the primer, perhaps
… there are still actions to be completed, esp. section 7 - so if anyone can start to draft this and other missing sections that would be appreciated.
alejandra: I will try to book time to look at this, but it would be good to have a discussion sooner rather than later about the journal, audience, etc so that we get the tenor and style right
… SWJ, perhaps?
SimonCox: isnt' that too esoteric, and perhaps something in the LIS area?
alejandra: indeed, and that is why I think we need this discussion
<alejandra> Two possible options: Data Science Journal or CODATA journal
AndreaPerego: one option might be something with a broad audience such as ACM
<alejandra> Another option is PeerJ Computer Science
riccardoAlbertoni: the way the paper is organised currently is more appropriate for SWJ as it is quite technical. If we wanted to address a wider community perhaps something as AndreaPerego was suggesting,we would need to restructure the paper considerably
alejandra: let's make a google doc and try to sort the options
Action: alejandra to set up list of options for the publication
<trackbot> Created ACTION-418 - Set up list of options for the publication [on Alejandra Gonzalez Beltran - due 2020-04-22].
<SimonCox> Data Science Journal is a good idea - CODATA is interested in infrastructure
issues as specified as section 3 in the agenda
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 maxk view
riccardoAlbertoni: I am in favour of the Makx view to not be prescriptive - whatever the user wants
<riccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1221#issuecomment-604546874
riccardoAlbertoni: my impression was that the conversation was converging, - I wonder if we can restart from the end of the sentences in this link and modify the content.
SimonCox: my feeling was that we were getting stuck in different "camps" based on work areas.
PWinstanley: I firmly take the view that it is a catalogue and the dataset aspect is purely a historical requirement given the government open data requirement in the early days of DCAT v1
AndreaPerego: I agree with what has been discussed - we already have a sense of using DCAT in non-traditional ways in the geospatial community, for example, where it could be physical resources. From the domain perspective these might not be supposed to be in the catalogue, but ....
<SimonCox> AndreaPerego: 'catalog' is the primary application, not 'dataset'
AndreaPerego: I think this is related to discussion on what constitutes a dataset. there may be an interoperability risk here, if we don't decide on this then the envelope might be pushed in such a way that leads to a proliferation of resource types that cease to be interoperable. So we need to guide through the primer on how to do the job whilst having an eye on maintaining interoperability
<SimonCox> DCAT = 'Digital Catalog Vocabualry'
<SimonCox> +1
alejandra: I agree with the points made - the name doesn't help, because we still talk about data catalogue vocabulary. It is probably too late to change the acronym, but we need to perhaps call it "DCAT Catalogue Vocab" or something that shows that it supports any cataloguing
<alejandra> https://codemeta.github.io/
alejandra: in another group - codemeta - to do with citations they are thinking of extending schema, and I was suggesting DCAT - so we need to reach out to people in this situation
<alejandra> I like the idea of Digital Catalog Vocabulary!
riccardoAlbertoni: are we going to have a call next week?
+0
<AndreaPerego> +1 from me to have regular calls
<SimonCox> +0.5
<riccardoAlbertoni> +0
<alejandra> +0
<SimonCox> fortnightly
next meeting on 2020-04-29T21:00:00 ?
<AndreaPerego> +1
<alejandra> +1
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
<riccardoAlbertoni> thanks bye !
bye