Meeting minutes
https://
Proposed: to accept minutes https://
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
<annette_g> +1
<Nobu_Ogura> +1
<pwinstanley> -0 not there
<pchampin> +1
+0
RESOLUTION: minutes accepted https://
TPAC update
Pierre-Antoine: my impressions. This group didn't have a meeting but the "data activity" was well represented
… I gave a lightening talk in the AC meeting around what's new
… Two new WGs: RDF Datasets and RDF-star
… Quite some discussion around JSON-LD: the WG is becoming active again
… Some discussion on YAML-LD
… Simple and yet more expressive than JSON. Makes some things easier
pwinstanley: anybody else from our WG attended?
annette_g: I did. I enjoyed the sustainability. Not direclty relevant for this group but interesting in general
… what's the impact of using web technology
… There was good stuff in the dev meetup. Queries/containers.
pwinstanley: what sort of scale is "green-computing" computing?
annette_g: not a lot of quantification yet.
<annette_g> https://
annette_g: some pointers were sent on W3C slack
pwinstanley: negotiation could be related to minimizing consumption
… if one does a lot of work with data there could be different versions.
… a very wild expansion of the notion of profiles
… sthg could have a lower energy utilization.
… This could be considered next to other concerns like ETL processing.
… We need to be thinking of all the things we do add up.
pwinstanley: is there sthg that hints that our WG should have contributed more?
riccardoAlbertoni: to me it was lack of energy. Other things had to be prioritized
Pierre-Antoine: it's hard to say
… DCAT is in good shape
… profile negotiation still feels rather early
… but it's going to take more space in the future
… I hope we can do something around RDF-star
… for example "I'd like Turtle but without the fancy RDF-star thing"
… We want to avoid being disruptive and creating a new content/media type for RDF
… We're in between things. So no lost opportunity but some more discussions
pwinstanley: cooperation with European Union people?
Pierre-Antoine: some have vocabularies published eg. on w3.org.
… maybe we'll have to find a home for this new work.
pwinstanley: a revitalization of the Gov WG?
annette_g: should we focused on DCAT and profile?
pwinstanley: I feel stronger about CAT than D :-)
annette_g: I feel the other way round :-)
pwinstanley: FAIR
antoine: which vocabularies?
Pierre-Antoine: Core vocabularies for persons, orgs...
… There are other people working on vocabularies. Core assessment methodologies.
… three groups of people have contacted me about similar things
pwinstanley: Nobu would there be some appetite from Japanese govt?
Nobu_Ogura: I would say yes
pwinstanley: W3C would give a neutral place for such work
… the "optics" would be easier
… there were also suggestions from US govt
Antoine: I saw sthg about evaluation methodologies on the EU portal for datasets
<pchampin> https://
Antoine: they may have idneed desires to standardize evaluation aspects
… but this would lead us into the "profile" work that may we were reluctant about several years ago.
Antoine: have there been discussions about "datasheets for datasets" ? This could be relevant for DCAT
pchampin: no
Pierre-Antoine: there was a meeting (25) organized by DDI and CODATA
… Some people use DCAT. Some Schema.org and DCAT perceived as too complicated
Pierre-Antoine: we talked about FAIR a lot.
… It's hard to turn the letters into technical measures
… Maybe this was the most obvious "missed opportunity"
pwinstanley: there's a week of activities in Leiden at the end of October
… I'll probably be there for some part
… The FAIR convergence symposium is one of the meetings.
… I'll send the link
<pwinstanley> https://
DCAT
riccardoAlbertoni: two meetings after the summer
… How to reply about the feedback got from TAG and Privacy group
<riccardoAlbertoni> https://
<pwinstanley> https://
<riccardoAlbertoni> https://
riccardoAlbertoni: a first part of the answer is to add things to the explainer
… adding to the main features of DCAT 3 and the history.
… this part does not seem most critical. We suppose it will satisfy their curiosity
… The second element is why we've not used RDF lists for series
… dcat:first etc sounds like it is related to rdf:first etc
<riccardoAlbertoni> https://
riccardoAlbertoni: but they do have different semantics
… We explained that RDF lists based on LISP-style lists are not the best way to describe our datasets series
… Pierre-Antoine, Dave and XX alreayd say they agree
… Further feedback may be desired
… Any feedback?
PW
pwinstanley: I need to get back to the full presentation of DCAT v3
… we need better tutorials of how people are working with it
riccardoAlbertoni: my doubt is how to reply to such feedback
… what I've sent so far is clearly my position.
Pierre-Antoine: no clear advice. The answer was satisfying to me.
riccardoAlbertoni: when should the issue be closed?
Pierre-Antoine: I've not been in enough horizontal reviews. I would simply ask the question.
riccardoAlbertoni: ok
pwinstanley: sometimes things look too abstract, too distant to the domain
riccardoAlbertoni: I've tried to map the current datasets series to RDF lists, but it was hard
… I don't think people consuming dataset series function in LISP-list ways
… Maybe it was genuine curiosity
riccardoAlbertoni: let's see if they reply next week
Pierre-Antoine: I think it was to check that the group chose this option knowlingly.
pwinstanley: there was the PAV stuff brought in as well, for versioning
riccardoAlbertoni: one of our efforts was not to reivent the wheel
pwinstanley: there were reasons
riccardoAlbertoni: a long discussion about this re-use/import of PAV
… we mixed PAV with DCTerms
pwinstanley: I don't remember discussions around core RDF constructs.
riccardoAlbertoni: lists became more important than in the past.
… many people tried to stay away from RDF lists
… there was a paper about RDF lists, saying that they were not so well supported.
… The other thing was feedback from the privacy group
<riccardoAlbertoni> Discussion of the feedback from the privacy group https://
Antoine: cheap advice: ask them if they can live with your answer. People are never fully satisfied
… :-)
Also on RDF lists, if they have more questions maybe we could check what happened with Activity Streams.
… AS have come with their own "first" etc to handle pagination
… https://
<Zakim> annette_g, you wanted to mention web share API mention of DCAT -- typo?
<annette_g> https://
riccardoAlbertoni: it seems that the Privacy feedback is not centered on DCAT
… Please have a look at it
annette_g: the Web Share rec mentions DCAT
riccardoAlbertoni: I was not able to figure out what's happening
annette_g: it seems nobody knows?
annette_g: it's there