Meeting minutes
<Caroline_> https://www.w3.org/2020/06/09-dxwg-minutes
Approving last meeting minutes
<kcoyle> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<Caroline_> +1
<ncar> +1
<annette_g> +1
Caroline: minutes approved
+0 (wasn't there)
Caroline: one item: Code of Ethics and Conduct of W3C (CEPC)
<Caroline_> https://www.w3.org/2020/05/CEPC
<annette_g> There is a call for review until 6/26 for the AC
https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/
Caroline: its' much better than the old one
… Plh: review until June 26
Plh: review until June 26
Conneg
Nick: nothing really happening. Still waiting on IETF
… more implementation
… blocker is the IETF related document. one small change requested.
… it seems that process takes a long time
… we're waiting on a note from the IETF
… so we can start the finalization after they're done
Plh: let me know if you need us to poke IETF
PROF
Nick: waiting on Rob to finish his implementation. will talk to him this week.
… that will be the last implementation that needs to be updated
… there is a need for further discussion about the roles represented in the document
… working on sketching out questions
… we have an other impl (not independent though)
… [breaking out]
… hoping we can discuss those roles in a couple of weeks
… status of roles in the document and wg suggestions for them
<ncar> The new Geoscience Australia's vocabulary profile in PROF: https://linked.data.gov.au/def/ga-skos
<ncar> The roles to discuss are really "specification", "validation" & "constraints" and those related to conformance testing.
Karen: will there be more work on open issues or is it considered complete besides adding roles?
Nick: finalization impl report, then we'll call for a series of meeting again to go through issues/future use cases
… the roles is an important one
… don't know how may meetings we would have to do this but we'll see
… it's open
Plh: for shortname change, ask me to publish a new WD
[ https://www.w3.org/TR/dx-conneg/ ]
Karen: somebody needs to do a triage and do some kind of rankings on which ones we should look at
… someone needs to create the mental path
… put ones in order of dependencies as well
… and suggest some that won't be addressed
Caroline: +1 as a good start. we have some open issues and decide which way we're going
… other comments?
… any volunteer to do the triage?
Karen: not sure if I can do it because I don't know the current direction of the editors. needs to hear from them
… it's possible one of us can help summarize some of the issues but we need the editors
… if the editors feel the doc is complete, they should say so
… I see it as an open plan :)_
Nic: can't summon my fellow editors easily. once we get the response from IETF on connegp and PROF impl report are out, both groups can meet and triage
… we'll agree to do that as first action of business but we shouldn't rush
… for both of those things we have a known action, once done, we'll need to run meetings. so +1 to Karen's suggestion.
… and will be the topic of the first meeting
… we know that all of the artifacts for PROF will be in place
Caroline: what's the ETA for PROF?
Nic: Rob said that his implementation was nowish. I'll give him a call.
… if he did, it's just writing the impl report
… and OGC conference was last week and Rob was demonstrating there
… I'll talk to him today
… but he probably done everything
… because it's an other SDO, he might need their sign-off
… we should have the impl report finished by next week hopefully
… it's 30 minutes work if he is allowed to do it
DCAT v3
<AndreaPerego> DCAT sugroup summary: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2020Jun/0038.html
AndreaPerego: the subgroup focuses on issues of versioning
… we took some work and decisions about those issues
… some discussion on general approach
… whether we should provide basic support and points folks to vocabularies. plan is to have a plenary meeting with everyone involved. next meeting (next week) will address other issues
Caroline: next topic will be about relational database?
AndreaPerego: yes, but related to a more general issue
AndreaPerego: this is an issue raised while collecting use cases
… related to the scenario with a dataset accessible through a data service
… when you have a dataset, points to an API, which serves more than the dataset
… ie giving information on how to get out only the relevant subset
… during the work on DCAT 2, we didn't make progress
… whether it's within the scope or related to service descriptions
… more recenlty, we received 3 issues related to this
… so another topic for DCAT v3 but yet to start
… "
How to catalog a relational database" is related
… whether we should address specific use cases like this one. other use cases are about accessing data outside of the Web (JDBC, etc.)
ncar: in several of these meetings, we could get a CKAN (sp?) implementation.
… hoping we'll be able to issue a DCAT 2 handling from CKAN
… once we've done that, upgrading to DCAT v3 will be easy
… the CKAN is very keen to maintain compat with DCAT
<annette_g> CKAN
annette_g: do you want feedback now or next week?
annette_g: my thoughts is that DCAT is intended to be a Web standard
… since it's developed at W3C and its history
… so we go through Web APIs.
… since DBs can have different ways to model themselves (graphs, etc.)
… we'trying to make a standard which is independent from the underlying DB
… as tech advances, we would bridge the gap
AndreaPerego: I tend to agree that we need to cater to the Web, and not DB-specific protocols
… we shouldn't prevent their use however
ncar: sounds like extension work to DCAT indeed. I have my own requirements for extensions elsewhere. but where would they put those extensions?
AndreaPerego: no need to produce in W3C space
… they can do their own extension
AndreaPerego: and indicate where it's useful
… they could start with a CG at W3C if needed
… in any case, it should start outside, unless there is clear evidence that we may need to produce such extension
ncar: not disagreeing but how would they inform others?
… my interest is to use DCAT for catalogs but other orgs will look at a profile of DCAT
… but for folks coming to W3C / DCAT would need a way to discover things
… maybe the CG can be used
<Caroline_> plh: depending on the use cases
<Caroline_> ... we can go to registered extensions
<Caroline_> ... a WG note can be updated as needed
<Caroline_> ... that would be a easy official way to do it
<Caroline_> ... if tehre is no official need, we don't need to manage two extensions for the same protocols, then a wikipage would be enough
<Caroline_> ... it is lighter but less official
<Caroline_> ... we can have a page on github for that
annette_g: with regards to having a CG, that seems odd
… if they don't work on a web standard
<ncar> Regarding the listing of profiles: I volunteer myself to communicate some profiles to DXWG/CG as the process for notifications of profiles is established. I expect to indicate some DCAT profile for cataloguing vocabularies and also specifications.
plh: we have plenty of CGs, working on plenty of items. pretty cheap to create.
ncar: I'll communicate some profiles to the Group
… I'll prod the group and will follow suggestions
https://www.w3.org/TR/?title=registry
<Caroline_> plh: there are plnety of examples
<Caroline_> ... on the link above those are notes or working drafts
<Caroline_> ... ttlm is a spec for television capture
<Caroline_> phl: the link above show the specifications
<Caroline_> ... there are mapings as well
<Caroline_> ... and other non web protocols
https://www.w3.org/TR/2019/NOTE-trace-context-protocols-registry-20191119/#registry
AOB
[none heard]
[adjourned]