Meeting minutes
https://www.w3.org/2020/05/12-dxwg-minutes
proposed: approve last week's minutes
<Caroline> +1
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
<kcoyle> 0 (wasn't here)
<AndreaPerego> +1
<annette_g> +1
<ncar> +0
0 (not there)
Resolution: approve last week's minutes
<Caroline> I think it might be my Internet. I will leave and come back. If nick wants to start talking about conneg I appreciate it
ConnegP
ncar: received feedback from IETF process and there is a small change request on one of the response headers
… draft being updates. initial indications are that it is OK./
… when appropriate we will update the other docs
… this is to keep in with IETF prefs
… Following a favourable response from IETF we will have a series of meetings to establish the position and determine next steps
annette_g: what was the header change?
ncar: in the original we were working to create an additional header (content-profile) that would let the requester know the type of profile for the doc returned, but IETF prefer this to be in a link header using another key
… I don't understand their preference, but it seems to be just a preference and we can work with that
PWinstanley: how will this affect implementation evidence?
ncar: we will need to re-jig these and (for mine) it is a small difference. For those implementations using my/the python library this is in a standalone library and so the change should be minimal. I don't know about OGC but RobA is aware.and
Prof
ncar: work ongoing is the implementation reports. There is another implementation - a ConnegP implementation that implements the prof:hasToken feature
<AndreaPerego> s/rrsgent, please draft minutes v2//
ncar: this is part of the ConnegP querystring design.
… The OGC implementation is the same type, but isn't written up yet. There is another implementation but I'm still finding out the mechanism as the return is an HTML doc and not RDF.
<ncar> Australian Government Ontology Profile: https://github.com/AGLDWG/agop/
ncar: In Australian Gov we are looking at coordinating semantic artifacts. We will prepare a profile using prof and this will help ontology developers to align their metadata so that in future there is better alignment
ncar: The Australian gov ontology won't be in the implementation report, but it will in time be a significant ontology as it will be widely adopted.
PWinstanley: might be utility in reaching out to Denmark and Flanders to coordinate with them as they are adding RDF from the EC Core Vocabularies to UML
ncar: I'll follow up
DCAT v3
riccardoAlbertoni:
<riccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/wiki/Material-for-a-SPRINT-on-Versioning
riccardoAlbertoni: we met last week for a discussion about advancement on versioning.
… we decided to ask the plenary about the content of the wiki page - we need advice, and hope that colleagues have some thoughts
riccardoAlbertoni: I will introduce the wiki page - it is a collection of the materials that we are considering . it is in 2 parts. the first part reviews the terms in existing vocabs that relate to versioning
… The first bit of feedback we need: have we omitted any key vocabs?
… The second feedback Do we need all first-class citizens in DCAT to be versioned?
kcoyle: I agree that the DC hasVersions is vague. I think a first step is to define 'version'. I see 2 forks: workflow (outline, draft, final) which are stages in a final produce; second is all the derivative products (adaptations, redactions, selections) which do not replace the original but are resources in their own right.
PWinstanley: I agree with kcoyle second point. I think that versioning has to be used sparingly
riccardoAlbertoni: I think that kcoyle and PWinstanley are right and that we should focus on the first of kcoyle forks
proposed: that the plenary is content with the DCAT group focusing on versioning of workflow type stages as referenced by kcoyle above
<annette_g> +1
<Caroline_> +1
+1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
<ncar> +1
<kcoyle> +1
Resolution: that the plenary is content with the DCAT group focusing on versioning of workflow type stages as referenced by kcoyle above
ncar: in the OGC there is work ongoing to develop a small catalogue of datasets and small services. The catalogue will be made by hand over the next few months but will be used by machines. We expect to see this put up using ConnegP mechanics, but it will bring together datasets and dataservices that will be accessed by machine
riccardoAlbertoni:
riccardoAlbertoni: so OGC is going to describe DCAT with a profile?
ncar: the interesting thing is that there is going to be machine access, and this will be a good test of these aspects of DCAT
riccardoAlbertoni: The second part of the versioning document (section 2, design considerations) is where we are listing desiderata. We see DCAT as an enabling lingua franca for interoperability. The qualifier relationship can be used for describing versions.
… There are some competency questions
… Do you have any other desiderata? if so, please add them to the doc (via a PR)
riccardoAlbertoni: we have also tried to list possible solutions. Please review and report back any thoughts
kcoyle: RDA is doing some versioning work.
<Caroline_> Is this the link of RDA? https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/data-versioning-wg
riccardoAlbertoni: I have read the document and what I've seen is that they providing use cases and referencing us. They are looking for guidelines. We will consider that document for primer material
<AndreaPerego_> I agree with riccardoAlbertoni interpretation about the scope and objectives of the relevant RDA group.
kcoyle: I thought it was interesting the way they were looking at FRBR and the hierarchy of catalogues and datasets
<AndreaPerego> Caroline_ , the link to the relevant RDA ouput is https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/data-versioning-wg/outcomes/principles-and-best-practices-data-versioning-all-data-sets-big
<Caroline_> Thank you AndreaPerego :)
riccardoAlbertoni: I think FRBR is useful for some communities, but having a 4-level hierarchy doesn't to my view map well to DCAT. But this is a feeling and not tested
PWinstanley: how can we address the covid era?
kcoyle: many people of the group don't belong to large organisations - so perhaps creating a community group would help because anyone can join a community group
riccardoAlbertoni: In DWBP we created a community group but it didn't take off
Caroline_: I agree with riccardoAlbertoni . Perhaps we need to contact people that we know and see if they will give input to the group (even if they can't join in the meetings)./ This might prepare people for joining a community group
kcoyle: I was thinking of having a community group in parallel with the WG. It would require people who are not in W3C joining
Caroline_: the difficulty is always engagement - getting people to participate.
riccardoAlbertoni: 2 tiers are useful if they have different focus.
PWinstanley: I was wondering if we should think about setting up a half day conference on the work of DXWG
<Caroline_> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_f5CAZv7rgUjJH5YXkmD6w5xS6GX5X2AmEp_LMptAfQ/edit#gid=560881316
<ncar> I would be intersted in this web workshop - always a pain travelling from Australia for real workshops!
<riccardoAlbertoni> thanks, bye have a good night day!
Bye!