Meeting minutes
<riccardoAlbertoni> PROPOSED: approve last meeting minutes https://
<riccardoAlbertoni> PROPOSED: approve last meeting minutes https://
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
approve last meeting minutes
<AndreaPerego> +1
0 (not there)
RESOLUTION: approve last meeting minutes https://
Pending PRs
<riccardoAlbertoni> https://
riccardoAlbertoni: Some conflict/inconsistencies have come up in this PR
… due to multiple PRs active at same time
… Not clear what the root of the problem is
<riccardoAlbertoni> https://
riccardoAlbertoni: Further work to day has produced a new branch that seems to address the problem
riccardoAlbertoni: On the substance of the changes, the aim was to harmonize the use of example name spaces
… Looks like RDF is now consistent. Fixing the html to save the changes in the main branch is a bit harder. Not sure of Alejandra's plan (did try to contact a couple of days ago)
… We could publish now as is and address inconsistencies after publication
<AndreaPerego> +1 from me.
riccardoAlbertoni: or try to address the clashes now (and delay publication).
… or followup with Alejandra
AndreaPerego: This shouldn't block publication - if we can address in time then okay, but it isn't urgent
DaveBrowning: Rather publish and address any tidying up afterword
riccardoAlbertoni: we should do a resolution...
proposed: Recommend publication of existing ED as last WD as is
<AndreaPerego> +1
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
proposed: Recommend publication of existing ED as last WD as is, with some tidying up to be done in parallel to review
<AndreaPerego> +1
+
+1
RESOLUTION: Recommend publication of existing ED as last WD as is, with some tidying up to be done later
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
+1
riccardoAlbertoni: I'll contact Alejandra and also liaise with Peter/Caroline
RESOLUTION: Recommend publication of existing ED as last WD as is, with some tidying up to be done later
<riccardoAlbertoni> https://
AndreaPerego: this originally raised a year ago, but subsequently became more active very recently
… Originally we weren't sure if this was a broad requirement but there now seems to be more interest. Not a candidate for the WD, but higher priority after this
AndreaPerego: Issue raises again the relationship between DCAT and CSVW or DataCube (e.g.)
… should DXWG take a position on how we align with other standards (esp W3C ones)
riccardoAlbertoni: Interesting when we have technical constraints in related standards and how much we help out
AndreaPerego: Raises some questions whether DCAT datasets and (e.g.) RDF DataCube datasets are the same. Datacube and CSVW quite close to the actual data
… Perhaps closer to distributions.... Needs some wider discussion.
riccardoAlbertoni: Not sure we are in the position where we can say e.g. all RDF DataCube are DCAT distributions...
AndreaPerego: May be some more natural alignment with dataseries and slices in DataCube but not straightforward
AndreaPerego: This is difficult to generalise and unclear quite what it would mean in other examples.
… It does feel that we should make some clearer statement
… but we need to decide what that is
riccardoAlbertoni: Agreed. It is difficult to separate the metadata from data in a general way....
riccardoAlbertoni: Enough for tonight
+2