– DRAFT –
DXWG DCAT subgroup

<RiccardoAlbertoni> RSAgent, draft minutes

<RiccardoAlbertoni> PROPOSED: approve last meeting minutes https://www.w3.org/2022/04/05-dxwgdcat-minutes

approve last meeting minutes

<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1

+1

<DaveBrowning> +1

RESOLUTION: approve last meeting minutes

<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2022.05.03

approve agenda

RiccardoAlbertoni: Any proposed changes?

[none]

Updates from last plenary

<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1502

RiccardoAlbertoni: Publication of 4PWD was approved.
… The issue of wide review was raised (see link above).
… And also the one of the horizontal review - i.e., from other W3C WGs.

<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1504

RiccardoAlbertoni: About horizontal review, we have specific checklists.
… The first one ^^ is about i18n.
… There are many not relevant for DCAT, but a couple of them are.

<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/958

RiccardoAlbertoni: The first one is about some issues opened by i18n about DCAT ^^
… We partially replied to it, but we didn't address the point about direction metadata.

<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://w3c.github.io/rdf-dir-literal/

RiccardoAlbertoni: About this, options on how to do this in RDF is discussed in a specific document ^^
… As this approach is not part of a REC, so we can keep the issue open, and move it to future work.
… When an "official" solution will be available, it can be adopted in DCAT.

proposed: Keep open https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/958 and move it to future work

<DaveBrowning> +1

<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1

+1

RESOLUTION: Keep open https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/958 and move it to future work

<RiccardoAlbertoni> “The document available at https://w3c.github.io/rdf-dir-literal/ states that text direction problem must be solved on the RDF level and provides an analysis of possible alternatives. DCAT expects to inherit a solution for expressing text direction from RDF.”

RiccardoAlbertoni: Maybe we can add comment to issue ^^

+1

<DaveBrowning> +1

<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/959

RiccardoAlbertoni: The other issue ^^
… The comment is about ISO language codes instead of URIs for language.
… There was some discussion on this thread, and some proposals to address the issue.
… I wonder whether what we proposed can be considered as the solution.
… Or rather we should ping again i18n to get their feedback.

AndreaPerego: They didn't provide feedback, so either we ping them, or ask PLH what to do.
… In any case, using blank nodes instead of URIs raises a number of issues, also in terms of linked data principles.
… And we have official code lists about languages, where each language definition also include the ISO codes.

<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://www.w3.org/International/track/actions/837

RiccardoAlbertoni: i18n also raised an issue about the problem literals vs URIs mentioned by Addison ^^

AndreaPerego: My feeling is that we are stuck here, since we need the feedback from Addison.

RiccardoAlbertoni: I suggest we then add a comment to the issue asking Addison to provide the text for this "health warning".

AndreaPerego: No harm doing that, but I wonder whether we should ask first PLH which approach is best.

DaveBrowning: It may well be the case that the "health warning" solves the problem, but this needs to be done by looking at the current situation - the issue have been hanging for quite a while.
… This is also something to be asked to PLH.

RiccardoAlbertoni: All right, let's discuss with PLH.
… I suggest anyway we add a comment to the issue, trying to get in touch again with Addison.

proposed: About https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/959 , contact Addison to ask if he thinks the "health warning" solves the issue and, in such a case, to provide as the text

proposed: About https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/959 , contact Addison to ask if he thinks the "health warning" solves the issue and, in such a case, to provide us the text

<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1

<DaveBrowning> +1

+1

RESOLUTION: About https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/959 , contact Addison to ask if he thinks the "health warning" solves the issue and, in such a case, to provide us the text

<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/582

RiccardoAlbertoni: I was checking checklists filled in by some WG for some inspiration.
… The WoT ^^ even expanded the checklist. Not sure we should do that.

<RiccardoAlbertoni> Finalizing a11y checklist [https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1506]

RiccardoAlbertoni: I also started other checklists.
… The a11y one is mostly not relevant to DCAT, AFAICT.

RiccardoAlbertoni: DaveBrowning, you did something on privacy and security?

DaveBrowning: We have the section in the spec, where we basically say we don't deal with these issues.
… Not sure we did more than that.

<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://www.w3.org/TR/security-privacy-questionnaire/

RiccardoAlbertoni: The security checklist ^^

AndreaPerego: I have the impression that we just have one answer to all the questions: privacy and security issues can be related to which type of information a data provider expose via DCAT, but not on DCAT itself.
… Maybe we can ask PLH which is the best way to answer to the checklist - considering that the answer will be basically the same.

RiccardoAlbertoni: Actually, I had the impression that some of the guidelines we are providing in terms of the use of DCAT may be relevant from the privacy and security point of view.

DaveBrowning: I will have a look at the privacy and security checklist.

<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1502

AndreaPerego: I will look at the architecture one.

DaveBrowning: About talking with PLH, I suggest we devote some time during the plenary.

AndreaPerego: +1

<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1

[meeting adjourned]