– DRAFT –
DXWG DCAT subgroup

<riccardoAlbertoni> PROPOSED: approve last meeting minutes https://www.w3.org/2022/05/03-dxwgdcat-minutes

approve last meeting minutes

+1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<Nobu_OGURA> 0

RESOLUTION: approve last meeting minutes https://www.w3.org/2022/05/03-dxwgdcat-minutes

approve agenda

+1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<Nobu_OGURA> +1

Wide review checklist

riccardoAlbertoni: No feedback from PLH so far.
… Anyway, I think that, besides the TAG's one, we can go ahead with the other ones.

riccardoAlbertoni: About changes we may want to do, I don't see problems, as we have not yet published the CR.

AndreaPerego: In any case, the changes to the spec are just editorial and bug fixes, so they are not changing anything.

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

riccardoAlbertoni: Coming back to the checklists, the one with still an open issue is the i18n one ^^

<riccardoAlbertoni> NOTE: requirements for identification of natural language in linked data specifications are evolving. Many applications use [BCP47] language tags for this purpose. ISO 639 also provides additional codes in ISO 639-3 which might be required for some uses.

riccardoAlbertoni: To summarize: There's now the option to use literal values from dcterms:language besides URIs.

riccardoAlbertoni: However, this would break existing implementations, and supporting two solutions does not help interoperability.
… So, I have drafted a health warning, as per what Addison suggested.
… Are you happy with it?

AndreaPerego: +1

<Nobu_OGURA> +1

riccardoAlbertoni: That's done. BTW, should we close the issue, or leave it open?

AndreaPerego: My suggestion is to close it, and keep track of this in a separate checklist, e.g., in the DXWG wiki.

<riccardoAlbertoni> ISO 639-3? E.g. Lexvo.org

riccardoAlbertoni: Another issue is whether we should recommend the use of a specific URI code list.
… Addison noted that the LoC is not operating URIs for ISO-Alpha-3 language codes, whereas Lexvo does.

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

AndreaPerego: I would not go that way, as this will break existing implementations.

<riccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/1512

riccardoAlbertoni: So, I'll finalize the PR ^^ with the health warning.

riccardoAlbertoni: To conclude about the checklists...

<riccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/milestone/30

riccardoAlbertoni: Usually, when you ask for review to the relevant groups, they may ask if we have a deadline.
… Should then agree on a deadline?

<riccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1509

AndreaPerego: My suggestion is to discuss this during the next plenary, and also to have the checklists validated in the same meeting.

Issues to be addressed for DCAT3

AndreaPerego: I created a issue to keep a checklist: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1509

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

AndreaPerego: One thing to be discussed is about the list of contributors, which is not aligned with the current specification.
… In the revision proposed in https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/1508 I kept only the contributors that we have in the front matter of the specification.

riccardoAlbertoni: I think that some of the contributors are those who provided translations.

AndreaPerego: Good point. We can then add the translators.

riccardoAlbertoni: About the issue we have concerning the policy for translation, should we wait until the REC is out?

AndreaPerego: +1

<Nobu_OGURA> +1

riccardoAlbertoni: So we move https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1352 to next stage.

riccardoAlbertoni: AOB?

[meeting adjourned]