Meeting minutes
approve last meeting minutes
<riccardoAlbertoni> PROPOSED: approve last meeting minutes https://
<DaveBrowning> 0 (not present)
+1
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
<nobu_ogura> +1
RESOLUTION: approve last meeting minutes https://
<riccardoAlbertoni> https://
approve agenda
TAG review
<riccardoAlbertoni> https://
<riccardoAlbertoni> https://
riccardoAlbertoni: There are two main points raised.
<riccardoAlbertoni> https://
riccardoAlbertoni: The PR above updates the explainer as requested.
… I added some sentences in the DCAT history, and I copied the main changes.
… I tried also to explain the notions of dataset series and versioning.
… And also the process we usually go through.
riccardoAlbertoni: Do you think my revision goes in the right direction?
AndreaPerego: +1
DaveBrowning: I think this is going in the right direction.
… Notably, we didn't have much push-back on the new features.
… Not sure if a description of process is something they asked.
riccardoAlbertoni: One thing is that at least some issues about versioning were also touching dataset series.
… So, they are kind of linked, and motivates the presence of both these new features.
<riccardoAlbertoni> https://
riccardoAlbertoni: We actually still have 3 issues open about dataset series.
… We have to consider whether to keep them or move them to future work.
AndreaPerego: My impression is that these issues are related to dataset series, but they actually refer to features not supported in DCAT at the moment.
… It may be relevant to the future evolution of DCAT.
riccardoAlbertoni: I'm actually wondering whether, after DCAT3 is out, we should consider running a new round of UCR collection.
AndreaPerego: It could be an option.
<DaveBrowning> +1
<nobu_ogura> +1
riccardoAlbertoni: So, my proposal is to move these issues in a specific sprint about new features.
+1
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
<DaveBrowning> +1
proposed: More issues in https://
proposed: Move issues in https://
<riccardoAlbertoni> https://
RESOLUTION: Move issues in https://
riccardoAlbertoni: The other point of the TAG review is about dcat:first etc.
… Their question is also about re-usability.
… And, actually, we haven't specified domain and range restrictions.
… So, we can mention that, and we have clarified their use in examples.
… Does this make sense to you? Or should we move this issue to future requirements?
AndreaPerego: +1 from me to your proposal, riccardoAlbertoni
riccardoAlbertoni: I drafted a reply accessible from the link above.
… But: is using RDF lists and added value?
AndreaPerego: With these properties we didn't mean to describe something similar to RDF lists. We have been inspired by the same properties from the XHTML vocabulary, and they correspond to the relevant relation types from the IANA registry.
<AndreaPerego> s/inspire from/inspire by/
<riccardoAlbertoni> https://
<riccardoAlbertoni> https://
<riccardoAlbertoni> https://
Privacy WG review
<riccardoAlbertoni> https://
riccardoAlbertoni: Any opinion about the issue they raise about security attacks?
AndreaPerego: I have the impression that security cannot be addressed by DCAT itself, but it rather depends on how data and metadata are managed, published, etc.
… Maybe we can ask them how they would address these issues in DCAT.
… BTW, we had some feedback in relation to encryption that may point to a possible new feature in DCAT.
DaveBrowning: I am not aware of a use case that could be relevant here. So, it may be worth finding it before proceeding.
… We should probably raise this in the plenary.
… My feeling is security is something more related to the infrastructure. As such, it may be relevant to data services.
riccardoAlbertoni: So, let's bring this up in the plenary, and then decide how to proceed.
[meeting adjourned]