– DRAFT –
DXWG Plenary

<Caroline_> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2021.03.09

proposed: accept minutes https://www.w3.org/2021/02/23-dxwg-minutes

<Caroline_> +0

+1

<PWinstanley> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1

Resolution: accept minutes https://www.w3.org/2021/02/23-dxwg-minutes

Subgroup DCAT update

<Caroline_> https://www.w3.org/2021/03/03-dxwgdcat-minutes

PWinstanley: Discuss the model using mainly is PAV, added classes and properties to the DCAT namespace, as PAV is not a maintaining versioning. This is a discussion not just around how to implement sequential versioning but also the language. There is a progress but not completed. There is a demand for guidance. The group making an effort to provide version in the dcat

AndreaPerego: About dataset series, How to formulize a definition of the data series. there are different positions, in the current draft there are not major changes.

PWinstanley: github is very active and many discussions

Caroline: No further updates from other subgroups

GitHub Housekeeping

AndreaPerego: The DCAT subgroup trying to promote some house keeping on those issue. ... There are issues that we just forgot to close and there are some issues which are not relevant or old. ... The profile vocabulary, we can ask Rob or Antuone to move the issues to the right repository. ... There are more than 200 open issue and at least half of them had no discussion in the last year or more.

kcoyle: A decision on many of these issues: its need to be a recorded decision what was decided and those issues need to stay in GitHub

<annette_g> +1 to kcoyle

All open issues need to be documented not just PROF

<Caroline_> +1 to kcoyle

<PWinstanley> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/labels/out%20of%20scope

<PWinstanley> The label already exists, but hasn't been used

Caroline_: Can we set a deadline for documenting the scope if we cross that deadline we can consider another approach. Allowing enough time and after that bring back to the Plenary

<kcoyle> sounds good

annette_g: The emphasize should be on finding a solution per issue and add a time line for the solution

Caroline_: Keep github housekeeping on future meeting agenda

<annette_g> +1 for considering "out of scope" as a possible solution

AndreaPerego: I find many of the issue with out a use case, we need evidence to make sure there is a delivery and if not we should close the issue. Or we park all those issues or to not loose control we should prioritize them

<AndreaPerego> I think we should seriously consider reviewing at least some of the issues during the plenary.

Caroline_: How do we decide what is out of scope we, initially my thought was to bring to the Plenary and document on Github

<Caroline_> +1 to consider reviewing at least some of the issues during the plenary

kcoyle: My concern this group cannot make a decision on these amount of issue (100+). The editors should make the first iteration

annette_g: Maybe some of the issue can be group to topic we already decided that are out of scope .

AndreaPerego: Can we add a resolution today, the editor will contacted to add information and then restart the review ?

<kcoyle> I agree with Andrea's wording

Rachel: Is there a minimum set of information to request from the editors?

<annette_g> PROPOSED: editors will review existing open issues for scope and potential closing, and group them as possible for review by the plenary.

AndreaPerego: We need to match the issues to deliverables initially

<AndreaPerego> +1 (thanks, annette_g)

<Caroline_> +1

<annette_g> +1

+1 (thanks you, annette_g)

<kcoyle> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

Resolution: editors will review existing open issues for scope and potential closing, and group them as possible for review by the plenary.

kcoyle: Regarding Andrea's statement , this group will not take the profile guidance , was that discussed in the group?

AndreaPerego: This wasnt my intention. Asking for Peter's feedback

PWinstanley: The difficulty we dont have the full group , and we cannot have much contribution from Nick,Rob,Simon some good engagement in Github and very few meetings

Caroline_: Proposing we can take a look on Github and reach the wider group directly for help to contribute with their expertise.
… Anyone else has another suggestion? No

Time of the DXWG Plenary meetings

Caroline_: The current time is not suitable for Australia . Ricardo suggested doodle . The US start Daylight saving time this month

Today we are 20:00 PM UTC

AndreaPerego: Personally I prefer to keep the old meeting time, it was always decided to keep the same time.

Caroline_: From March 28, 21:00 UTC. Lets do a doodle. Then we have a better feedback.

annette_g: I don't see a way to do a doodle , I have a conflict every other week.

If we keep the same time for me it becoming a conflict

Caroline_: For me its also to keep the members that are active and contribute to be able to join the meeting

<annette_g> oh phooey, I just noticed another conflict with the other other weeks :(

<annette_g> so don't worry about which week it is

PROPOSED: Plenary meeting time : a doodle from March 28: UTC 20:00 UTC 21:00 UTC 22:00

<kcoyle> +1

<Caroline_> +1

+1

<annette_g> +1

<PWinstanley> +!

<PWinstanley> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1

Resolution: Plenary meeting time : a doodle from March 28: UTC 20:00 UTC 21:00 UTC 22:00

Next meeting March 23rd 21:00 UTC

<PWinstanley> Bye

<AndreaPerego> Thanks, bye bye