Meeting minutes
<PWinstanley> proposed: Accept minutes https://www.w3.org/2020/07/07-dxwg-minutes
admin
<AndreaPerego_> +1
<ana> +1
<annette_g> +1
<roba> the meetings link from the Meetings page was changes and goes to an outdated Zoom link, still trying to find the old webex link
<PWinstanley> 0 not there
+1
Resolution: accept minutes of last meeting
<PWinstanley> accepted: Accept minutes https://www.w3.org/2020/07/07-dxwg-minutes
Resolution: Accept minutes https://www.w3.org/2020/07/07-dxwg-minutes
Summer break
PWinstanley: general proposal: take much of August off, using only email in that time
<ana> I can connect on Webex
PWinstanley: much of Europe will be off during August
<ana> can't*
PWinstanley: DCAT group has already decided to be off during August; will do a sprint in September
… How about this?
<annette_g> +1 for a break
roba: sounds fine. will bring some prof and conneg issues shortly, and this needs working group
… work on these will go on
<PWinstanley> Proposed: Take August as holiday
<PWinstanley> +1
<annette_g> +1
<ana> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
+1
<roba> +1
Resolution: Take August as holiday
<ana> I'm with difficult here, but I can follow the scribe
Conneg
roba: been following the IETF work; another working group has proposed to IETF regarding link hints (?)
… but our document waits on that decision
… need to discuss further making the http header non-normative; not needed for implementation
… so conneg not becomes fragile when IETF changes happen
… will do a Doodle poll for a meeting to decide this
… should happen next week
… could do the work in August and bring back to plenary in September
PWinstanley: what is IETF attitude?
roba: hard to characterize; challenge aligning this with some new work
PWinstanley: problem that non-normative things can lead to fragmentation or practice
… your reason for going non-normative?
roba: mainly timing; doesn't change things functionally, not a problem for implementations; could end up with
… minor technical difference between documents; better to say to check the IETF doc for normative
<Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to ask roba if the IETF group he mentioned is the one working on https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wilde-linkset-06.html
AndreaPerego: you mentioned group in IETF - is it the group doing the linkset, as I typed above
… is their work relevant for us?
roba: our link header syntax would have to follow this; impacts only the syntax of the link response
… that is enough to break implementations if we also go for normative in that area
… we need to discuss that
PWinstanley: who is the poll for?
roba: this working group, anyone who wants to respond
PWinstanley: is there scope for guest involvement?
… do you think the current approach would come back to IETF ever?
roba: strategy is to keep them aligned; current work doesn't assume http header live in the wild immediatelyt
roba: can we have a point of order to extend invitation outside of it?
PWinstanley: working group is small so reaching out is good; we just can't vote on normative things with outsiders
… this could be another kind of input
roba: plenary decides if we should widen poll; we can still do work if we don't get a response early enough
… could be for a later time
<annette_g> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-link-hint/?include_text=1
annette_g: which ietf practice is at issue -
roba: yes, the link-hint is it
PWinstanley: what about having guest appearances?
<roba> expires sept by the way..
<PWinstanley> kcoyle: do we need to check with PLH?
<PWinstanley> ... we would/might be using W3C resources
<annette_g> license issues
roba: can take action to ask Philippe
annette_g: group operates in public anyway, so probably no problem
+1
<PWinstanley> proposed: to investigate scope for involving other tech experts as guests in the conneg one-off meeting and proceed if W3C OK
+1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<PWinstanley> +1
<annette_g> +1
<roba> +1
Resolution: to investigate scope for involving other tech experts as guests in the conneg one-off meeting and proceed if W3C OK
Action: roba to discuss guest involvement at conneg one-off meeting
<trackbot> Created ACTION-429 - Discuss guest involvement at conneg one-off meeting [on Rob Atkinson - due 2020-07-28].
roba: have implementations that will be pushed into production; for OGC usage
PWinstanley: how widely used?
roba: most being done on profile description side; have 3-4 projects creating profiles and manage related resources
… intention is to link into projects through w3id.org
PWinstanley: can we get info on real traffic?
roba: using for publishing heterogeneous models; projects running for next 3 years
… not clear when this data will be generated
PROF
roba: also here need a doodle poll for a prof discussion; now have more implementation experience
… no proposed changes
<roba> https://www.w3.org/TR/?title=registry
roba: only emergence of w3c registry approach, so want to move roles to registry
… they'd come out of the normative portion of the document
… currently 6-8 roles, a few others identified during implementation; need work on definitions
PWinstanley: have plenary look at the list of roles; may have others
… need to pass the 'bloody obvious' test ;-)
… need to be sure the categories make sense to a larger group
roba: best to put them into different lifecycles
AndreaPerego: not clear on how community manages resources with this practice
… would it be a community group that maintains the list of profiles?
<roba> https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-eme-stream-registry-20160915/
AndreaPerego: also, how is the registry going to work? e.g. as in SpecRef, how will registry going to governed?
roba: philippe has been giving advice so we will follow w3c practice; see document above as an example
… this is just separating the role list from the data model
<PWinstanley> kcoyle: does the group need to take a decision that the data model of PROF is mature at v1, and that the changes are related only to the roles categories, because there are github issues that are still open
roba: there is one open issue for the model - e.g. name changes
… one change would make one property a subproperty of rdfs:??
<PWinstanley> roba: there is one open github issue relating to the model. one change is to make a change to isDefinedBy
<PWinstanley> ... there is another about including a property chain axiom in order to clarify intent
<PWinstanley> ... github issues are still the route to engaging with discussion about the core model, and this is still open for people to use. There is always the point of the role of guidance to show how aspects of the data model can be used to its fullest
<PWinstanley> ... Extensive use has shown the model to be robust
<PWinstanley> kcoyle: There are many issues then that need to be re-visited and closed if they actually have been dealt with (e.g. if they relate to other data models)
https://github.com/w3c/dx-prof/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Acomments-desc
<PWinstanley> kcoyle: do we go ahead and close these open issues, thereby fixing the core data model?
<PWinstanley> ... The group needs to make a decision about closing issues so that we are certain about the future direction
PWinstanley: lay out in the agenda issues that are about to be closed so that group can review and raise any objections
… this would help us get these issues cleared out
<roba> what issue?
PWinstanley: this issue has meat so maybe needs discussion
… #22 at https://github.com/w3c/dx-prof/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Acomments-desc
… anything that can get cleared without need for discussion should be done to tidy
… then the plenary has oversight and the list is tidied and it's easier to move forward
roba: yes, we can do that
… list of open ones being considered are in document
<roba> issues relevant to the doc are listed. bring an agenda item to the proposed prof sub group to consider a particular issue if not listed in doc already
DCAT v3
PWinstanley: versioning; RDA questionnaire
AndreaPerego: had discussion about how to organize work around versioning and data services
… we got feedback on these;
… talked about how to reach out and what direction to take with RDA group but haven't been
… successful getting in touch with them; they are looking at the metadata aspect that can
… be used across scientific disciplines; it's very conceptual
… based on the approach that RDA took, the DCAT work wasn't very relevant
… didn't seem worth spending a lot of time on this, but haven't yet taken a decision
… please make any suggestions you have
PWinstanley: versioning: is a rabbit hole, so you either do it superficially or you go deep and it doesn't cover many cases
… question of generalize or be specific
… inform people of best practice through primers and other documentation
… people have difference experience with versioning, which is a positive, lots of different experiences
… think about what might be helpful that you can offer from your experience
<annette_g> I could really use a break
PWinstanley: next meeting September 1; unless folks want one next week.