Meeting minutes
<PWinstanley> proposed: approve https://
Previous minutes
0
<PWinstanley> +1
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
RESOLUTION: approve https://
<annette_g> +1
RESOLUTION: https://
DACT Updates - report
https://
PWinstanley: unanimity to publish
<PWinstanley> https://
+1
<annette_g> proposed: accept the result of the poll
<DaveBrowning> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
<annette_g> +1
<PWinstanley> proposed: accept poll result in favour of publication of DCAT v3
<annette_g> +1
<PWinstanley> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
RESOLUTION: accept poll result in favour of publication of DCAT v3
ACTION: Plh to publish the PWD of DCAT 3
Plh: I'll do the magic to get it done
… then we need to do the wide review: https://
PWinstanley: a11y folks tend to talk to us a bit more
<annette_g> plh: we have 5 horizontal groups
<annette_g> they all have github repos where we need to open an issue.
<annette_g> Before we get to them, all have a questionnaire that we need to answer.
https://
<annette_g> Tracking all of that through github issues is the way to go.
<annette_g> that ^ is an example
https://
<annette_g> This one is pretty easy. Once we're ready for the horizontal review, we point them to our completed questionnaire.
<annette_g> We need the working draft, and we need to send it to all of them.
<annette_g> We should reach out to all the groups we know about.
<annette_g> Each questionnaire is 20-30 questions, might take 2 weeks.
<annette_g> The one that would take the most effort might be security and privacy.
<annette_g> At the next plenary, we can look at all the issues with the questionnaires. We should expect to wait 3 months to hear back.
<annette_g> That puts the earlier time for CR in August.
<annette_g> riccardoAlbertoni: the CR could be later, right?
<annette_g> plh: yes
<annette_g> PWinstanley: maybe by Oct/Nov we'll be done with version 3.
<annette_g> plh: we need to list the changes too
<annette_g> PWinstanley: is there anything else we need to note at this point?
<annette_g> riccardoAlbertoni: I noticed that plh attached one questionnaire. Are there others we need to consider?
https://
<annette_g> plh: yes, they are linked from the document review.
<annette_g> ... I opened this issue to track.
<annette_g> PWinstanley reviews who will do what
<annette_g> We really want to make sure we get comments, not just critical ones.
<annette_g> ... nulls are not allowed.
<annette_g> PWinstanley: next question is do we need a plenary in a couple weeks, or wait a month?
https://
<annette_g> plh: If we aren't ready with the questionnaires, no need to.
<annette_g> ... we need to determine what is the relevant subset here.
<annette_g> ... (of people to ping)
<annette_g> ... we probably should reach out to schema.org
<annette_g> PWinstanley: co-data too
<annette_g> plh:putting them into the issue
<annette_g> PWinstanley: goFAIR, RDA...
<annette_g> PWinstanley: next plenary meeting, do we play it by ear?
<annette_g> people nod
<annette_g> Nobu joins us, pwin reviews discussion thus far
PWinstanley: lots of people will be on vacation during the summer. If people feel there is a need to meet, we'll do that.
… If not, we'll cancel.
Nobu_OGURA: what is the timeline?
PWinstanley: probably about a month, right?
plh: 3 months for horizontal review
PWinstanley: for publication of the working draft with changes to address feedback, it would be about a month.
… would that work?
plh: yes
PWinstanley: there are W3C news releases.
plh: because it's going to be a working draft, it won't make the home page of the consortium. We can broadcast a bit more because it is "wide review". You can do a blog.
PWinstanley: That's what I've done in the past. will do that again.
<plh> https://
link to wordpress blog ^
plh: Are we going to talk about the next charter?
Next charter updates
PWinstanley: give us the news
plh: I've got approval to move ahead with it!
… We'll extend the current group, start the wide review, all within the week
PWinstanley: motion to adjourn?
… done