– DRAFT –
DXWG Plenary

<PWinstanley> proposed: accept https://www.w3.org/2020/10/06-dxwg-minutes

approve last meeting minutes

<plh> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

<Rachel> +1

+1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<PWinstanley> https://www.w3.org/2020/10/20-dxwg-minutes

<plh> +1

+1

<annette_g> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

<Rachel> +1

<Ana> +1

<roba> +0

Resolution: last meeting minutes approved

agenda

PWinstanley: The agenda is about updates from all groups.
… The other one is admin stuff.

<plh> https://www.w3.org/2020/02/dx-wg-charter.html

plh: We have a WG charter regulating what we do. which links to the process doc - now 2020.
… It also link to the patent policy, which is what you should look at when joining the WG.
… We did a major update to the patent policy back in Sep, concerning patenting commitments.
… Now it says that every time a call for exclusion is triggered, licensing commitments should not be present.
… And this applies also to living standards.
… For us this means we have the option of adopting the new patent policy in December.
… If we do that, the director will send a new charter, and this will require you to rejoin.
… The other option is do nothing, and adopt the new patent policy when we re-charter the WG in 2022.
… My recommendation would be to move to the new patent policy.

PWinstanley: A question. We have non-WG members contributing via GitHub. How this will be dealt with by the new patent policy?

plh: Good question. An option is to assess how much substantive the contribution is. If it is not, no problem.

PWinstanley: So we may need these external contributors that things have changed.

plh: We may need to ask them their commitment.

PWinstanley: So before deciding, we need to make an individual check with our organisations.

<Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to ask which would be the impact on invited experts.

<PWinstanley> AndreaPerego: how will this impact on IEs?

plh: You just need to rejoin the WG.

<PWinstanley> plh: IEs will need to rejoin and accept the new policy conditions.

<Zakim> riccardoAlbertoni, you wanted to ask about IPR and translations e.g., https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/1264

<plh> How should Working Groups handle contributions from non-participants (e.g., meeting guests or on public lists)?

riccardoAlbertoni: Related to PWinstanley 's point, we get translations from external contributors. This is not impacting the normative part.

plh: This is not a problem, provided that it is not in the normative specification.

PWinstanley: annette_g , Rachel , do you expect any issue from your orgonisations?

annette_g: Nope.

<Rachel> No issue

PWinstanley: In a couple of weeks we are going to have a FPWD for DCAT3. Adopting the new patent policy have an impact with the people involved?
… We need to check this.
… Ana could you please check this with the DCAT theme?

Ana: Yep.

PWinstanley: roba , what about you?

roba: No problem from my side.

PWinstanley: Do you think Nick and Simon may have issue?

roba: Not sure. We should also check with the people involved in the CONNEG deliverable.

Updates on CONNEG

roba: We are still waiting to get feedback from IETF, especially about the substantive changes related to link headers.
… Other than that, we did not get any change requests, and implementation work is going on.

PWinstanley: Are the implementations publicly available?

roba: They will.

PWinstanley: I wonder whether there will be links people can have a look at.

roba: Yes. We are working on some interoperability experiments with OGC and OSGeo.
… We are also working with RDA, including groups on FAIR principles.
… There should also be some documentation available for the implementations.

PWinstanley: Thanks, roba . Any questions?

roba: We are also working on the publication of data models as linked data, and we are looking into supporting CONNEG there.
… We are having some issues with JSON-LD contexts.
… Anyway, so far nothing raised any need to update the spec.

Updates on DCAT

<riccardoAlbertoni> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/dxwg/dcat-dataset-series/dcat/index.html#dataset-series

riccardoAlbertoni: We plan to deliver the FPWD to the WG on Nov, 24th. The draft includes already the new section on versioning, and another one about dataset series will be included as well.
… We invite the whole WG to send comments on these 2 sections.
… The purpose of including these sections is to trigger feedback from stakeholders.

PWinstanley: I wonder how much versioning of profiles is in CONNEG.

<Zakim> annette_g, you wanted to ask a couple questions

annette_g: Where you want the comments to go?

PWinstanley: Github.

annette_g: Is the intention of the WG to add actual versioning terms in DCAT?

riccardoAlbertoni: At the moment we are not.
… This is being discussed, actually. The idea is to start with existing vocabularies.
… We may discover this requirements once we get feedback.

PWinstanley: We want to make sure there is actual feedback. The timeframe is pretty tight.

roba: I see an inheritance pattern in the new sections, and there are some technical challenges - especially to define relevant axioms.
… Also, where is the implementation evidence for this new patterns?

riccardoAlbertoni: At the moment these sections are guidelines - there is no normative part in the current draft.

AndreaPerego: We have partial implementation evidence (for dct:hasPart / dct:isPartOf), and for the rest we are trying to address existing issues.

<PWinstanley> PWinstanley: Process2020 has a range of possibilities: https://‌docs.google.com/‌presentation/‌d/‌1f0X-GZsPo-Si4UswIhSQA1iyEXH91iATyRRns9Lg2AQ/‌edit#slide=id.g6c0d24ae60_0_16

AndreaPerego: The idea to have all this in the spec is to trigger feedback, and the content may change in new PWDs.

roba: Probably the fact that this is to trigger feedback should be more visible in the spec. Also, these topics may better be placed in a profile, instead of including them in the spec.

AndreaPerego: Actually, this is a possible option.

annette_g: Semantic versioning should also be addressed, and how this may impact new distributions, etc.
… I don't think we should be defining all the aspects, but at least some categories.
… Probably we should try to narrowing versioning, and avoid describing all what people are doing that.
… If it is too broad, it will be not be useful as guidance, and it will not help interoperability.
… I also shared some feedback I got from project using versioning.

<roba> e.g. https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-adms/#owl-versioninfo

riccardoAlbertoni: The issue is that there are already existing vocabularies that may deal with versioniong.
… So we are trying not to duplicate existing terms.
… We also looked into version-specific vocabularies - as PAV.
… Eventually, we thought that using terms with more general vocabularies would be more useful.

annette_g: The problem is that sometimes they are too general.
… E.g., it would be good to be able to specify the version identifier.

riccardoAlbertoni: For this we have suggested the relevant property from ADMS.

<roba> ADMS is a profile of DCAT ;-) might get a bit circular here. We are hamstrung by not being able to publish profiles of DCAT - we could simply implement a profile for a given vocab.

Updates on PROF

roba: There is a lot of implementation work going on.

roba: Nick is also setting up a profile catalogue.
… No changes required in the spec.

PWinstanley: Are these also taxonomies, etc.?

roba: It is about all resources to be taken into account to address domain requirements, so it is quite comprehensive.

PWinstanley: Thanks, roba . AOB?

<riccardoAlbertoni> thanks all bye

PWinstanley: See in 2 weeks. Please contribute in GH, and consider the patent policy issue.

[meeting adjourned]