– DRAFT –
DXWG Plenary

<Caroline_> Last minutes meeting https://www.w3.org/2022/04/26-dxwg-minutes

<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1

+1

<Nobu_OGURA> +1

<Caroline_> +0 was not there

proposed: approve minutes of last meeting

RESOLUTION: approve minutes of last meeting

<Pierre-Antoine> +0

<AndreaPerego> +1

DCAT update

<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1506.

<RiccardoAlbertoni> FAST Checklist https://w3c.github.io/apa/fast/checklist.html

RiccardoAlbertoni: We have produced the draft check list as the issue above
… intention is accessibility is not a big concern
… as a consequence most responses are that DCAt doesn't supply these
… Some additional detail provided eg in question 5
… but the checklist focus is not really relevant

RiccardoAlbertoni: Other questions where we are interested in input/contribution is q9, and also more generally
… Does anyone have any comments or remarks? Or can we submit this to the accessibility group?

Caroline_: Thanks for that.

Pierre-Antoine: I don't have much background as team contact but this looks like a good response

RiccardoAlbertoni: Really the checklist shapes the dialog with the specialist, so its more start of a conversation - at least as I understand it

Pierre-Antoine: Indeed - that's right.

Caroline_: Should we reach out to the experts?
… is this the right time?

RiccardoAlbertoni: The guidelines say to do the checklist and then add specific keyword in github which will trigger the involvement of the experts

RiccardoAlbertoni: Moving to the other checklists...

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

RiccardoAlbertoni: internationalisation is at above link

<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://www.w3.org/International/i18n-drafts/techniques/shortchecklist

RiccardoAlbertoni: also for this check list most is not relevant. The ones that are are the direction of text indication etc. DCAt follows other standards which
… are partial. If RDF provides a standard solution we'd follow it (or try to)

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

RiccardoAlbertoni: A more specifically relevant issue is the specification of language (BCP codes etc) where there was previous discussion for DCAT 2
… Addison made a suggestion that we could perhaps adopt - but I'm not sure if this group would be happy with it. Further discussion is in the issue

Pierre-Antoine: On the direction issue - the json-ld work didn't manage to get significant agreement. Perhaps the DCAT spec could do some examples in json-ld
… using these ideas?
… to indicate direction.

RiccardoAlbertoni: We can consider doing so - but perhaps the priority would be low

Caroline_: Anything more on this one?

RiccardoAlbertoni: We can discuss it in the next DCAt meeting unless there is a strong opinion from the plenary
… Question - we haven't documented any response to the detailed questions in the expanded checklist. Is that okay?

<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://www.w3.org/TR/international-specs/#locale

RiccardoAlbertoni: For example each short item expands. We have treated it as optional. Is this okay?

Pierre-Antoine: The goal of the questionaire is more to start the conversation - if they want more they will ask

DaveBrowning: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1507

DaveBrowning: The last is about security & privacy.
… For DCAT2 there was a shorter checklist, and more discussion.
… In any case, what RiccardoAlbertoni said about the other checklists applies to most of the questions.
… The point is that the vocabulary by itself has no security or privacy issues.
… Rather, they may raise depending on which information is published by data providers.
… So the possible problems are on the implementation side.

Caroline_: Thanks, DaveBrowning. Any questions?

<DaveBrowning> AndreaPerego: For TAG, there is no check list. Not clear what questions we should address... Is there any guidance

Pierre-Antoine: I will contact plh...

AndreaPerego: Or if someone attended the next DCAT meeting.....

<Pierre-Antoine> @plh any guidance on how to deal with the TAG review? there is no checklist for this one?

RiccardoAlbertoni: To confirm - we can progress with the current checklist....? <no objections>

Caroline_: Agreed

Next charter

Caroline_: Is there an update?
… Is there any feedback from anyone on this?

<Pierre-Antoine> https://www.w3.org/2022/04/proposed-dx-wg-charter.html

<Pierre-Antoine> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2022AprJun/0023.html

Caroline_: There was a specific suggestion - I'll forward this later
… no comment on contents. Would be good if this group made sure they have raised any issues

Pierre-Antoine: There was one discussion on IETF....
… charter mentioned IETF work that was marked as expired, so the charter was potentially misleading
… (concerns profile negotiation)

Caroline_: Should check with Philippe that its been done...

Pierre-Antoine: No reply to earlier request to Philippe re: TAG, so I'll follow up.

Caroline_: When does the charter vote close?

Pierre-Antoine: 26th May