– DRAFT –
DCAT subgroup

gaia-x: https://www.data-infrastructure.eu/GAIAX/Navigation/EN/Home/home.html

<RiccardoAlbertoni> PROPOSED: approve last meeting minutes https://www.w3.org/2021/09/01-dxwgdcat-minutes

approve last week meeting agenda

<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1

+1

<DaveBrowning> +1

<alejandra> 0 (was absent)

<PWinstanley> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

Resolution: approve last meeting minutes https://www.w3.org/2021/09/01-dxwgdcat-minutes

approve agenda

<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2021.09.15

+1

<alejandra> +1

<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1

Pending PRs

RiccardoAlbertoni: About https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/1401
… This is trying to implement the proposal from Bert to remove the axioms in the DCAT RDF not included in the spec.
… IMO the proposal makes sense. But we need to check whether some of the axioms make sense in DCAT3.

<alejandra> +1 to creating issues for the axioms in DCAT3

RiccardoAlbertoni: Should we create specific issues on them? Other options.

<alejandra> AndreaPerego: how many axioms are there that are in the RDF but not in the specification?

AndreaPerego: How many axioms are to be deleted?

RiccardoAlbertoni: They are three.

PWinstanley: The first one doesn't seem to be right. So, maybe we can remove them.

alejandra: Do you know where these axioms are coming from?
… Maybe we can add an errata.

RiccardoAlbertoni: Adding an errata may affect the REC.

alejandra: In any case we should verify where these axioms were discussed in GitHub before taking a decision.

AndreaPerego: Tentatively, I would support dropping them, as they may have an impact on re-usability.

<alejandra> should we first vote on dropping the axioms from the RDF in DCAT2?

proposed: we are going to drop the axioms from the RDF of DCAT2

<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1

<alejandra> +1

<DaveBrowning> +1

+1

<PWinstanley> +1

Resolution: we are going to drop the axioms from the RDF of DCAT2

proposed: we create an issue to discuss all the axioms, and then, if need be, we create separate ones

+1

<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1

<PWinstanley> +1

<DaveBrowning> +1

<alejandra> +1

Resolution: we create an issue to discuss all the axioms, and then, if need be, we create separate ones

<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/SEMICeu/DCAT-AP/issues/166

RiccardoAlbertoni: The last aspect is the discussion in DCAT-AP ^^
… The question is what is normative and what is not.
… The fact that only the HTML is normative is explicitly mentioned in the RDF.
… What said in the HTML colophon is probably not so visible / clear.

<alejandra> https://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#Normative

AndreaPerego: The fact that the HTML is the normative part is a general rule at W3C, so I don't think we should have anything - especially because we have already this clarification in the RDF.

alejandra: Agree, but it may be worth making this clear for people who are not familiar with this W3C rule.

DaveBrowning: Providing a pointer to something non normative may sound pointing to something not reliable. At least this how the message can be understood.

<alejandra> https://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#N-I-sections

alejandra: A suggestion: I you look at ^^

<alejandra> https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/#RDF-representation

alejandra: it explains the reason behind the normative / non-normative issue
… Based on that, we can just say that the RDF is provided as an informative complement to the REC.

AndreaPerego: I wonder whether this clarification may be confusing, as we are saying something different from what was in DCAT2.

alejandra: I don't agree. We had already to add or revise to clarify issues. And there are also parts of the document when we use "normative" (as for the mappings) that may be confusing.

<alejandra> https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/#RDF-representation

<alejandra> e.g. https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-ssn/

<PWinstanley> suggest that we need to have within the Primer area a 'getting started' section that includes desciption of the artifacts and describes what 'normative' means and which parts of the artifacts are normative

DaveBrowning: There's also the issue about the translation of the label names.

AndreaPerego: How many issues were reporting the misunderstanding about the fact that the RDF in non-normative?

RiccardoAlbertoni: This one explicitly, but others may be related.

<alejandra> https://github.com/SEMICeu/DCAT-AP/issues/166#issuecomment-917912937

alejandra: I think that clarifying is not a problem. But I think that from Bert's comment ^^ is clear that they are aware about the normative / non-normative part.

<RiccardoAlbertoni> ack alejandra

alejandra: Anyway, I don't see issues in adding a clarification.

[meeting adjourned]