– DRAFT –
(MEETING TITLE)

<Caroline_> https://www.w3.org/2023/01/31-dxwg-minutes

proposed: approve last meeting minutes

+1

<riccardoAlbertoni_> +1

<Caroline_> +0 wasn't there

<naik> +1

RESOLUTION: approve last meeting minutes

voting for DCAT3

riccardoAlbertoni_: We had a lot happening in the last two weeks. One thing was that the SENIC group asked for an update. We needed to do some very minor editorial stuff.

<riccardoAlbertoni_> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99375/dcat_2023_v3/

riccardoAlbertoni_: The vote received 8 yeses, no objections. It's closed now.

<Caroline_> Poll's results https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99375/dcat_2023_v3/results

riccardoAlbertoni_: We should consider ratifying the vote.

<riccardoAlbertoni_> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues?q=+is%3Aissue++closed%3A%3E%3D2023-02-01+

proposed: to ratify the results of the poll

to ratify the results of the poll, to publish a new working draft

proposed: to ratify the results of the poll, to publish a new working

proposed: to ratify the results of the poll, to publish a new working draft

+1

<riccardoAlbertoni_> +1

<naik> +1

<Caroline_> +1

RESOLUTION: to ratify the results of the poll, to publish a new working

RESOLUTION: to ratify the results of the poll, to publish a new working draft

Caroline_: did you want to make any other comments?

riccardoAlbertoni_: I think we are in good shape. The plan is to have the candidate rec in mid April.

<riccardoAlbertoni_> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/milestone/30

riccardoAlbertoni_: We collected the issues that we will address before then. We still have some editorial stuff, like acknowledgements section, still waiting to hear from Nick Doty whether he is happy with what we put in.
… We did some housekeeping of the github issues we couldn't address, which can be moved to the next round as requirements. We need to inform the submitters that we aren't ignoring them.
… This needs to be done for some other group of issues. For the next month or so, I will be the only editor around. This isn't a blocking issue. We can address what's missing in terms of editorial stuff.

In this phase, we are not discussing new issues, just finalizing the document. I apologize that the meetings are a bit boring because of this.
… My proposal is to stop the DCAT subgroup call for something like one month and see what progress we have on things. One of the things we wanted to add was a draft of implementation report, so that if we identify a feature at risk we can mark it.

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

riccardoAlbertoni_: That's the link to the implementation report.
… If you want, you can ask me and I'll open the document.

Caroline_: Is the document open for anyone who would like to read it?

riccardoAlbertoni_: It's a work in progress. It's a document in Excel. It will ultimately be published in github as HTML. So it's a working document.
… I don't think we will have many people interested in editing the Excel.

Caroline_: I was just wondering as a viewer, not an editor.
… If the idea is to spread the word that we need implementations, we could have more implementations in the wild.

riccardoAlbertoni_: In the W3C process, the call for implementations comes after candidate rec.
… We want to avoid the issue in the second stage and see if we can already get the minimum number and stay on the safe side.
… It can also function to get people who are implementors to reach out to us.

Caroline_: Anyone else have any comments?

crickets

riccardoAlbertoni_: Do we want to register the fact that we want to have a DCAT sub-call in the next month?
… I can email the regulars.

Caroline_: I'll discuss with Peter, but my feeling is that we should also wait a month because on the plenary.
… s/because on the plenary/on the plenary as well/
… Next would be February 28, but since we're waiting for the working draft and implementation reports, my suggestion would be to wait. What would the subgroup want to do?

riccardoAlbertoni_: If we wait, it would be until March 21. We could have a plenary on the 14th to see if there are any important matters to address.
… The current plan is to deliver the final version of DCAT3 on March 28.
… I think we should consider having a plenary in mid March to see what has happened on the reviews and if editors are available again.

Caroline_: my suggestion is to cancel DCAT subgroup Feb25 and March 7.
… Then we have a plenary on February 28, but it would only be worth it if we are talking about conneg or something other than DCAT.

Caroline_: I will discuss with Peter about the 28 and March 14.

Caroline_: anything else?
… comments about conneg?

riccardoAlbertoni_: We voted for publishing DCAT, who will follow up to see that it gets published?

riccardoAlbertoni_: I can be a candidate, but it's as you prefer.

Caroline_: I think it would be great if you can do it, since you've been leading it.

Caroline_: thank you Riccardo, let us know if you run into any trouble.

annette_g: this is very off topic, but one thing I've been thinking about is whether we could do anything to improve the performance of file transfers in http.

Caroline_: Does anyone have ideas about this and how it could be approached in W3C?

riccardoAlbertoni_: by the name of our group, it makes sense for us to think about it, but it would require a change in our charter.
… I don't know which network layer this should be handled at. It may not be under W3C concerns.

annette_g: Right now, the best tool for moving files over the web is Globus, which handles a setting up multiple threads and minding connections for you. It might be nice if that functionality were built into browsers.

Caroline_: I'm sure phillipe would know if there is a relevant working group.

annette_g: This might be more of an IETF thing otherwise.

Caroline_: the W3C should be a step ahead on these things.

nobu_ogura: maybe I'll report about the IEEE roundtable with the data society in Brussels.
… It was a meeting with the Japanese data society and european organizations on data and semantic web.
… Two weeks ago, I talked with Peter on this topic and said I wasn't expecting much in relation to the W3C, but on the contrary, I learned that DCAT is in quite an important place for them.
… Two people, one from Spain, they are using DCAT in a system. They are using DCAT 2.
… One is working across societies using DCAT. One is Spanish.
… Two weeks ago, Peter mentioned about CAMMS I met those people. They are trying to propose a vocabulary against DCAT. Not sure what the relation would be yet.
… Anyway, I was glad to hear the acknowledgment of the usefulness of DCAT.

riccardoAlbertoni_: I think that after we have published this last working draft, it might be worth contacting these people that Nobu mentioned and see if they plan an implementation.
… I guess we need to list all the people we know and contact them in order to solicit implementations. Until then, we can work under the hood and try to encourage people to implement DCAT 3 features.
… Many people may not know that they can be part of this effort.
… Involving new people that you met could be interesting.

nobu_ogura: yes, that's what I am trying to do now.

Caroline_: thanks for the report, nobu_ogura !

Caroline_: congratulations especially to riccardoAlbertoni_ and the editors of DCAT3!

<annette_g> s/ECCN??/CAMMS/