– DRAFT –
DXWG DCAT subgroup

<RiccardoAlbertoni> RRSAgent v2, draft minutes

<SimonCox> RiccardoAlbertoni: I don't have the dial-in details

<RiccardoAlbertoni> /me hi simon, Do you need the zoom link?

<RiccardoAlbertoni> me ok I am sending you via email

exit

<RiccardoAlbertoni> PROPOSED: approve last meeting minutes https://www.w3.org/2022/11/29-dxwgdcat-minutes

+1

<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1

<SimonCox> +0 not present

RESOLUTION: approve last meeting minutes https://www.w3.org/2022/11/29-dxwgdcat-minutes

<RiccardoAlbertoni> PROPOSED: approve last meeting minutes https://www.w3.org/2023/01/24-dxwgdcat-minutes

<SimonCox> +0 not present

<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1

+1

RESOLUTION: approve last meeting minutes https://www.w3.org/2023/01/24-dxwgdcat-minutes

<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2023.02.07

<RiccardoAlbertoni> w3c/dxwg#1342

<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/#ex-license-and-access-rights

RiccardoAlbertoni: Issue raised proposing the removal of some of the text...
… can make change and/or move to future work
… for the difficult discussion

action for RiccardoAlbertoni to produce PR to remove the text.

<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.

RiccardoAlbertoni: Email discussion has happened on doing a WD in the immediate future.
… does anyone have any objections..

<SimonCox> OK from me to publish a new WD

<RiccardoAlbertoni> w3c/dxwg#1558

RiccardoAlbertoni: general agreement....
… there ate a small number of changes/PR that are on the list for completion

<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat-3/#Property:catalog_themes

RiccardoAlbertoni: Description of PR #1558
… including the usage note at above PR

SimonCox: Question - we still have foaf:Agent in the diagram?
… if we remove the skos things I'd be in favour of removing those as part of a clean up?

RiccardoAlbertoni: That would make sense

<RiccardoAlbertoni> w3c/dxwg#1556

<SimonCox> propose to remove that from the diagram as well

RiccardoAlbertoni: Since no objection then I'll revise the PR

<RiccardoAlbertoni> w3c/dxwg#1509

RiccardoAlbertoni: #1556 should now be complete - <now merged>

RiccardoAlbertoni: Next issue #1509

<RiccardoAlbertoni> w3c/dxwg#1332

RiccardoAlbertoni: At some point we will need to address this.

<SimonCox> Move to new milestone

RiccardoAlbertoni: This issue is a good reminder that we need to keep a eye on it

<SimonCox> +1

+1

<RiccardoAlbertoni> `1

<RiccardoAlbertoni> resolve: Move #1332 to new milestone

RESOLUTION: Move #1332 to new milestone

<RiccardoAlbertoni> w3c/dxwg#1520

RiccardoAlbertoni: This now seems to work

<SimonCox> Close #1520

+1

<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1

<RiccardoAlbertoni> w3c/dxwg#1509

DaveBrowning: w3c/dxwg#1543

RiccardoAlbertoni: This was discussed with Andrea a few months ago. There was the idea to make some changes/improvements but the detailed discussion hasn't happened.
… Details aren't available at this time.
… underlying issue is w3c/dxwg#1536
… Not exactly our problem but a usage note might be useful in some form

SimonCox: Was there some issues/discomfort raised?

RiccardoAlbertoni: Yes. So it would be best to get that resolved
… Would be ideal to warn people. Perhaps having something that was not normative is helpful.

<SimonCox> Perhaps a warning but not a type change is preferable

RiccardoAlbertoni: I'll register this discussion with PierreAntoine

Action on RiccardoAlbertoni to progress with PierreAntoine the sense of this discussion

<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.

RiccardoAlbertoni: Other action that needs progressing is the implementation report

<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DWifljP6bTb_Z1Bk40ltek1cfepJPAYmJsl2tIwOXZ4/edit?usp=sharing

RiccardoAlbertoni: Particular question about inverse properties - are we happy if these aren't included

<SimonCox> Where inverse-properties are specified, we do not need to include these in the implementation report

<SimonCox> as long as the direct property is implemented

<SimonCox> +1

Proposed: here inverse-properties are specified, we do not need to include these in the implementation report as long as the direct property is implemented

+1

<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1

<SimonCox> +1

RESOLUTION: where inverse-properties are specified, we do not need to include these in the implementation report as long as the direct property is implemented