Meeting minutes
proposed: approve last week's minutes
<Nobu_Ogura> +1
<roba> +1
<Caroline_> https://
<Caroline_> +0 wasn't here
+1
<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
RESOLUTION: approve last week's minutes
DCAT
RiccardoAlbertoni: we discussed logistics of meetings, as standard time is approaching.
… We moved the meeting to 2200 UTC.
… We should have that discussion in plenary too.
<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://
<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://
RiccardoAlbertoni: We started with the issues raised by the privacy and security group
… I replied to them regarding issue 1526
… We are waiting for the progress of RDF working group, we plan to move to a milestone for DCAT 4.
… I've written an email to Annette regarding the example to include for checksums. We'll probably discuss offline.
… We moved to discussion of metadata for private queries on data services, moved that to future work, since that would be a new requirement and we're not in that phase.
… When we start version 4, we'll need to revisit the requirements discussion.
<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://
RiccardoAlbertoni: third issue: David was the person dealing with it, had some concern about deferring it.
<RiccardoAlbertoni> ttps://
<RiccardoAlbertoni> If I'm processing some data most privacy laws (assuming some privacy related data) apply to what I do irrespective of any constraints coming from the publisher - I'm on the hook to apply the privacy regulations of the jurisdiction where I am (or where the data is). To me that suggests that the catalog can't be directly prescriptive as far as my responsibilities are, though I guess it could describe the data elements that might[CUT]
RiccardoAlbertoni: above is from David
… We can't imagine an example of a grounding use case. This issue is a bit difficult, as I'm not an expert in privacy.
Caroline_: Any comments on the issue?
roba: this looks like an issue where any group can declare a profile to meet its needs. It's just a DCAT profile issue.
+1 to what David had said.
<RiccardoAlbertoni> Data Privacy Vocabularies and Controls Community Group, https://
RiccardoAlbertoni: there might be elements related to this issue addressed by the privacy controls community group.
… In the next round, they may be ready with some solutions we can point to.
<Caroline_> +1 to RiccardoAlbertoni suggestion
+1 to RiccardoAlbertoni
<Nobu_Ogura> +1
RiccardoAlbertoni: I wonder if it is useful to have a vote.
<roba> +1
proposed: that we defer discussion on privacy to see what the Data Privacy Vocabularies and Controls Community Group develops.
proposed: that we defer discussion on privacy to see what the Data Privacy Vocabularies and Controls Community Group develops, and other efforts by other W3C groups.
proposed: that we accept the decision of the subgroup to defer discussion on privacy to see what the Data Privacy Vocabularies and Controls Community Group develops, and other efforts by other W3C groups.
+1
<Caroline_> +1
<Nobu_Ogura> +1
<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
<roba> +1
RESOLUTION: that we accept the decision of the subgroup to defer discussion on privacy to see what the Data Privacy Vocabularies and Controls Community Group develops, and other efforts by other W3C groups.
RiccardoAlbertoni: It's not clear to me whether we need a special sign-off from the horizontal review or not.
Caroline_: we should ask antoine. Would you mind asking by mail?
RiccardoAlbertoni: I asked already, but it's a new procedure. Let's finish with the feedback we can provide and see if we need to contact the horizontal group or not.
Caroline_: anything else?
RiccardoAlbertoni: We are just following up on the issues above.
Nobu_Ogura: next week we are moving one day.
RiccardoAlbertoni: November 1 is a holiday, so we are moving the meeting to thursday, Nov 3.
… just for that week
Caroline_: you'll update the calendar?
RiccardoAlbertoni: yes
Future of Conneg
roba: I got an email from Peter Winstanly that had been sent to Pierre-Antoine, that there are three leads there in terms of communities looking at this space. I followed up on one of them, the Research Data Commons. I'm going to present at a workshop of theirs in November.
… Our issue is with active engagement in order to restart discussions.
<roba> there is some interest at the Australian Research Data Commons, as I remember from discussions with Adrian Burton (CC'ed). Adrian, could you maybe elaborate what your interest in content negociation by profile?
<roba> there is some interest in the Solid community -- I heard that from Ruben Verborgh, who is leading (I think) the Solid Lab initiative in Flanders, and who is also a co-author of the IETF draft on that topic [1]. From what he told me, their goal is to gather more implementation experience before coming back to the standardization table.
<roba> there is some interest in the upcoming RDF-star working group. The community group has long discussed wether new content-types should be defined for the extended version of Turtle & co., or whether it was better to overload the existing content-types. In the latter case (which, I believed, had more proponents), an additional mechanism would be require to allow legacy systems to explicitly require "non-star" RDF, which could be seen as a profile of RDF 1.2 .
(preceding three messages are copy paste from emails)
roba: OGC interest in semantic interoprability. That doesn't mean connegp is the only means to interop, but to expose the info a service provides at a level more explicit than DCAT is obviously there.
… I also talked with Nick Carr, and he says he's able to reinvigorate the effort.
… There's a lot more work happening in the profile space.
Caroline_: any comments about conneg?
silence ensues briefly
roba: The finalization of a charter for a geoDCAT working group in OGC has progressed. We have interest from SEMIC (semantic Interoperability Community).
… we're starting to have a discussion about best processes, and factoring a european geoDCAT our of the more general one.
… Opportunity to get more experience. There's also an effort to get an agricultural model. That project is in the process of proposing a charter to the OGC.
Those two will have formal profile publication requirements. That should bring the vocabulary up to the status of a normative artifact.
… Once we have wider acceptance, there may be discussion about bringing it as a recommendation.
… It's related to the generic topic of data exchange, but it's not clear where is the best place to do that work to maximize visibility.
Caroline_: maybe we can wait a bit for this discussion
roba: yes, I need to follow up a bit more on these areas of interest, see if there are unmet requirements. Otherwise, we maybe should focus on getting more evidence of implementation.
Caroline_: other comments?
RiccardoAlbertoni: are you planning to collect new requirements? How are you planning to register them? Remember at the beginning of this group we had a lot of discussion of use cases and we added items to github for tracking.
… At one point we were able to say, okay, we've received the requirements. Is there any plan in this direction?
roba: I'm very happy to take that guidance. At the moment we do have issues, but previously they were mixed up and there was another discussion around best practices around profiles. Our issues got cluttered up with philosophical issues about profiles, so there was a split out of issues.
… We should review the backlog of those discussions. I wouldn't call them issues. At the moment we have no issue that requires a change.
… what's your advice? Should we split those out? How do we stop discussion of topics we don't feel are related?
RiccardoAlbertoni: At the same time, the discussion with the external group can generate new issues. That will be helpful to track the feeling outside this group.
roba: you recommend to add a label to these issues?
RiccardoAlbertoni: yes, you can label afteward as requirements.
roba: that's very helpful. To confirm, if we allow users to label with a proposed requirement, the subgroup can decide whether we consider it as an accepted requirement or not.
Caroline_: do we need a vote?
annette_g: we just need to make sure this doesn't become a way for a small group to make decisions that the rest of the group doesn't agree with
roba: when we bring decisions to the plenary to ratify, that will be a check on that.
roba: I need to share my new affiliation email address, will reach out to those who might be interested.
… obviously, the subgroup would be open to anybody.
Caroline_: It's good if you can send an email. The editors need to always update the calendar and the agenda. It would be very nice to get a common time that works across the globe. It's very important to bring to the plenary issues and the resolutions.
… I think the way the DCAT subgroup is working is going very well.
RiccardoAlbertoni: the main problem is that the group is made up of a limited number of people. With DCAT, we are at the end of the standardization cycle. We are trying to finish a round.
Caroline_: can you just share the group's working methods?
RiccardoAlbertoni: one of the issues is that if you start with a new round of work, one of the issues is involving more people in the discussion. We have the same issue in DCAT. Since we are at the end, things get decided more easily. A new round would need input from more people.
… If we are planning a new round of a vocabulary, let's use the call for new requirements to get more people engaged.
Caroline_: thanks, that seems very very correct. Maybe talk with Pierre-Antoine and Phillipe as well.
roba: communications aren't perfect, but I think that's definitely the way to do it.
… I'll follow up with Pierre-Antoine and those other people and send an email to the wider group.
Caroline_: anything else to discuss?
we are quiet
Caroline_: I'll talk with Peter and we'll come back with a way to address the time issues in two weeks.