W3C

– DRAFT –
DXWG DCAT subgroup

03 November 2022

Attendees

Present
alejandra, DaveBrowning, RiccardoAlbertoni
Regrets
AndreaPerego
Chair
RiccardoAlbertoni
Scribe
alejandra

Meeting minutes

<RiccardoAlbertoni> PROPOSED: approve last meeting minutes https://www.w3.org/2022/10/18-dxwgdcat-minutes

0 (absent)

<DaveBrowning> +1

<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1

RESOLUTION: approve last meeting minutes https://www.w3.org/2022/10/18-dxwgdcat-minutes

<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2022.11.03

+1

<DaveBrowning> +1

Pending PRs

<RiccardoAlbertoni> Updating dcat3-external.* #1538 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/1538

<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1498

<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1533

RiccardoAlbertoni: the PR is a draft
… and the issues are those in the links
… the issues are about the RDF that we provide for DCAT3, different files that we provide in DCAT2
… complementary file that includes the terms from third-party vocabularies
… the PR is for the second kind of terms (those borrowed from other vocabularies)
… Andrea listed some changes that we need to do
… there are some decisions to be taken to be consistent - in particular, in DCAT2 we use scope notes (skos:scopeNote) to indicate the notes in DCAT, skos:definition for definitions
… definition is reused when there is a comment about DCAT2
… now we are providing DCAT3, and now it will be confusing to find those notes with 'in the context of DCAT2'
… when a term is added to DCAT, it is tracked by different skos term (skos:changeNote)
… the proposal is to update all of the DCAT2 mentions in the definitions and in skos:scopeNote's
… keep DCAT2 when we explain that the term was added in a given version

alejandra: question about the multiple use of skos:definition in some terms

RiccardoAlbertoni: one of the definitions is the one of the original term, then we clarify "in the context of DCAT 2" we use it in this way

alejandra: ok, then I propose that we put "In the context of DCAT" without naming a version
… as this would make it future-proof for the next versions

RiccardoAlbertoni: we need to check that the definition is still valid

<RiccardoAlbertoni> we can update skos:scopeNote and skos:definition by turning “in the context of DCAT 2" to "in the context of DCAT"

PROPOSED: we will update skos:scopeNote and skos:definition by turning “in the context of DCAT 2" to "in the context of DCAT"

<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1

+1

<DaveBrowning> +1

RESOLUTION: we will update skos:scopeNote and skos:definition by turning “in the context of DCAT 2" to "in the context of DCAT"

PROPOSED: we will keep using skos:scopeNote to describe when a property or class was added to DCAT 3

<RiccardoAlbertoni> Proposed: We keep the skos:changeNote as they are, and add "Property added in this context in DCAT 3.0."@en ; for new terms

+1

<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1

<DaveBrowning> +1

RESOLUTION: We keep the skos:changeNote as they are, and add "Property added in this context in DCAT 3.0."@en ; for new terms

PROPOSED: we will not modify the skos:changeNote's that describe that the property or class was added in DCAT 2

+1

<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1

<DaveBrowning> +1

RESOLUTION: we will not modify the skos:changeNote's that describe that the property or class was added in DCAT 2

<RiccardoAlbertoni> Properties without specified domains #1537 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/1537

<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1534

DaveBrowning: PR makes a clarification
… for the use of properties that don't have specified domains

alejandra: makes sense, I'll also approve

RiccardoAlbertoni: we can then merge it
… and mark the issue as due for closing

<RiccardoAlbertoni> Update metadata of the RDF definition of DCAT3 #1508 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/1508

RiccardoAlbertoni: this PR can wait till the final steps of the recommendation but we need to take care of it
… it will be better to discuss when Andrea is present

<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1524

RiccardoAlbertoni: Dave looked at this and considered that this request is out of scope
… we don't have experts on privacy though

DaveBrowning: the WG could consider this for a future version or we could consider that we do not have any requirements to support this
… the decision by the plenary to postpone this discussion is acceptable
… as discussed in the plenary, it is a profile issue - to my mind is a domain specific issue
… it is sensible to defer the discussion and see if we can do something in the future
… we need to respond to the issue along those lines
… and I'm happy to reply

<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1526

RiccardoAlbertoni: we provided an explanation with some sort of mechanism using checksums for distributions
… we are not sure if the metadata we are serving is authentic and the integrity of the metadata is guaranteed
… this depends on how DCAT metadata is provide, should be defined at the level of RDF or SPARL
… not completely out of scope
… we should try to add a note explaining that we are aware of this issue
… and that we are waiting for a solution that is in progress, but also that we should consider the three points

RiccardoAlbertoni: we could try to draft something considering the suggestion and present it

DaveBrowning: we have to respond, don't have an issue with suggestions 1 and 3, the second one, I don't have a way that I could add to the list
… but that highlights that I don't understand entirely the scope of this
… integrity and authenticity of DCAT metadata, surely it is not only the transfer of the metadata
… but it is also knowing about the origin
… we should accept the challenge and say that we could do 1 and 3, maybe 2, but also what other questions we should cover
… the checksum does a thing, but I could imagine that it might persist across different sources of the metadata
… what am I really protecting

DaveBrowning: we also have a question of addressing this now or leave it for the future
… postponing features has to happen sometimes

RiccardoAlbertoni: we can provide acknowledgment of the issue in the specification
… it is not completly in or out of scope
… maybe mixing acknowledgement of the issue, including the suggestion that he makes, and linking to ongoing activity

DaveBrowning: agreed

alejandra: the issue seems valid and something to address, I would say that we could acknowledge this in the issue itself and not necessarily add something in the spec yet, but whenever we address the issue (in future versions)

<DaveBrowning> https://w3c.github.io/rch-wg-charter/explainer.html

DaveBrowning: the issue could be address by the outputs of this new WG

RiccardoAlbertoni: we could add a note to the security section

RiccardoAlbertoni: will try to draft a sentence

Summary of resolutions

  1. approve last meeting minutes https://www.w3.org/2022/10/18-dxwgdcat-minutes
  2. we will update skos:scopeNote and skos:definition by turning “in the context of DCAT 2" to "in the context of DCAT"
  3. We keep the skos:changeNote as they are, and add "Property added in this context in DCAT 3.0."@en ; for new terms
  4. we will not modify the skos:changeNote's that describe that the property or class was added in DCAT 2
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 196 (Thu Oct 27 17:06:44 2022 UTC).

Diagnostics

All speakers: alejandra, DaveBrowning, RiccardoAlbertoni

Active on IRC: alejandra, DaveBrowning, RiccardoAlbertoni