– DRAFT –
DXWG Plenary

PWinstanley: really short meeting
… last time

approve last meeting minutes

<PWinstanley> proposed: accept minutes https://www.w3.org/2022/03/29-dxwg-minutes

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<Nobu_OGURA> +1

<DaveBrowning> +1

<pchampin> +0

<PWinstanley> - 0

annette_g: 0 (missed it)

<AndreaPerego> 0 (was not there)

RESOLUTION: accept minutes https://www.w3.org/2022/03/29-dxwg-minutes

TPAC

PWinstanley: TPAC is in September, hybrid, in Vancouver

pchampin: it's up to group chairs to organize as they see fit.

PWinstanley: you were talking about repositioning data activities...? something in the context of dxwg, or what?

pchampin: the activity of this group is quite important to European members.
… it made sense for me to join the group, being from a European host, and a group that clearly relates to the data activity.
… I was remotely following the group
… I wanted to ask your opinion about profile-based negotiation. I heard that the document has been stalling a bit.
… One question that we had relates to RDF-star
… Looking at how RDF and sparql can be amended to support (?)
… Some data will not be consumed because it's in a new media type. We thought that profile based negotiation could be a middle ground.

PWinstanley: There's a couple of things about it. The first is that part of the work involved conversations with IETF.
… One of the difficulties we've had is that there isn't a lot of enthusiasm for changing the http specification for headers.
… The linkage between labeled property graphs and things like GraphQL vs the updated Sparql stuff and RDF triple stores, and there are a lot of new players in the market, it could be that there's room for W3C to nudge everyone along.
… Some of these things are hard for a few people in a working group like this. You're having to do politicaly negotiations as well as technical negotiations.
… Even the word profile is very loaded; it means different things to different people.
… The folks that were driving it were challenged by things like people moving jobs, and the group has had changes of staff sponsors in W3C.

PWinstanley: There's probably quite a bit of mileage in it, but it would involve a lot of people being moved at the same time.

AndreaPerego: I think you said it. We would want to have Nick and Rob in the room to say more.

PWinstanley: What else do people think from the standpoint of technical infrastructure?

annette_g: I think there were a lot of unanswered technical questions, especially around the need to maybe register new ways of calling an API.

<Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to ask if current IETF work on HTTP API can turn to be relevant here

AndreaPerego: it's an open question with the IETF.

AndreaPerego: It's about APIs and web services as well as the http protocol.

<AndreaPerego> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/httpapi/

PWinstanley: I think this is something we need to address as a whole team. Pierre-Antoine, can you circulate a few bullet points?

<AndreaPerego> +1

PWinstanley: We can try to make sure that Rob and Nick have some time to think about that. Would that work for everybody?

people nod.

DCAT update

<riccardoAlbertoni> https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/

riccardoAlbertoni: The draft is available at the usual link, waiting for review.

riccardoAlbertoni: There are still issues about dataset series, but we can address that in the next working draft.
… We made editorial improvements, for example how to use some of the properties.
… We realized some things could be explained better, so we used examples.

<riccardoAlbertoni> https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/#changes-since-20220111

riccardoAlbertoni: Do other editors want to add something more? I think the document is ready. We can plan to send for publication maybe after a vote in the next plenary, or do we need more time to review?

PWinstanley: So you want a poll set up?

riccardoAlbertoni: yes

PWinstanley: I think that's a reasonable time frame.
… anybody have an alternative view?

silence.

PWinstanley: Has everything gone quiet with Makx, with regard to dataset series.
… He didn't think people would like the change there.

riccardoAlbertoni: We had some discussion at the end of the last year. At the moment it seems that there are not many complaints about how we solved it.
… There are people who want to adopt their own solution, less general, and that's perfectly fine if you are targeting a subcommunity, but a larger community needs a solution that is more selective.

PWinstanley: Did we ever hear anything back from Codata and DDI/CDI?

riccardoAlbertoni: no

pchampin: Regarding DDI/CDI, I met with them last September. We decided to set up a semiformal liaison with W3C, and I'm the contact person for that.
… mostly I've been in contact with Arofan and Joachim.

PWinstanley: We need to make sure that when we move to version 3 it gets fairly quick adoption. I think the dataset series if kind of fundamental.

AndreaPerego: I was thinking Alejandra knew more about that. You and Alejandra gave a presentation to the FAIRSFAIR project, no?

PWinstanley: yep
… I think the thing is to make sure that they don't wander too far away. They'd be up for adopting it, we need to make sure they are still on message as it were.
… We need to make sure it doesn't fall through the cracks.

PWinstanley: Mario has retired. What's happening there with SEMIC?

AndreaPerego: the work will in any case go on. There is also work on Solid. There's no stopping this work.

PWinstanley: We need to make sure we have close connections with them, so they're prepared for adopting it.

PWinstanley: For a while, DCAT has been a bit marginal.
… Anything else?

silence ensues.

PWinstanley: Anything happening in Japan?

Nobu_OGURA: nope

<pchampin> q°

PWinstanley: Annette?

annette_g: nope

pchampin: I had a question, but I think I have my answer. It's quite late in Europe. Is there any chance to get this a little earlier? I guess it's quite early in Japan already.

PWinstanley: yes, this seems to be the sweet spot.

PWinstanley: I'll send out a poll so we can vote on it at the next plenary.