– DRAFT –
'Profile' task force'

roba: intros

LarsG: I'm back at the German Natl Library
… my main goal is to get the recommendation back on track
… especially wrt the IETF process

Yousouf_Taghzouti: my PHD is semantic content negotiation
… beyond the classicial dimensions
… for me profiles are the way to go
… Unfortunately when I joined it was the time when the group stop pushing the effort
… Antoine suggested that I join the group

aisaac: still at Europeana
… to be honnest, I don't have much time
… invoved in Data Spaces (something the EU pushes)
… in which profiles can have a role

pchampin: several hats. Initially I was interested via RDF*
… working on RDF1.2
… and the extension to have edges on edges
… We want not to break any of the existing systems/data
… Profiles may be a way to do this.
… My 2nd hat is that I'm the W3C Staff contact for DXWG

roba: I'm with the open geospatial consortium
… The needs for providing several views on the same data are quite strong
… I was working on metadata for data profiles and Phil Archer invited me to DXWG
… Defining profiles has been very difficult
… In the meantime we've worked on infrastructure
… It also touches on the depth of graph traversal (what to include in a response)
… The Open API spec is prevalent in a lot of OGC work.
… We use the profile vocabulary for a lot of things.
… But I wanted to leave that until we progress on Conneg
… There were a few people on the spec. Hopefully we can reach out to them.

update on the IETF process

LarsG: it's still stuck. One has to be part of the consortium
… we've tried the HTTP-bis working group and the HTTP API one. Got negative answers.
… We've tried with a group handling internet drafts
… I would have to come back to them, asking where this would fit
… "informative" RFC

roba: how can we support?

LarsG: I don't need support from this WG. Hopefully with Ruben and HErbert

roba: are there other pathways which potentially influence the IETF discussions? Open API?

pchampin: do you know if there's any application of profile-based conneg in Solid?

LarsG: not that I know of

pchampin: maybe I can ping Ruben about that.
… Solid is currently developed in a CG but we're working on a WG charter
… hopefully for the summer
… If there's interest for profiles in that WG it would be an interesting liaison

roba: at the moment we've in a vacuum. We're solving a particular problem that may not be understood
… but there's no competition

LarsG: we're in a better state because there are implementations

For the record we cannot identify other alternative pathways to influence IETF discussions (wrt to the question above)

LarsG: is there a liaison between W3C and IETF?

pchampin: I can check

meeting time

roba: there's another person working on JSON-Schema who could be interested, but in the US West coast
… I will ask him whether there is a connection between Open API and this (he also works on Open API)

aisaac: please don't make an effort for me, wrt setting the time!

open issues

<roba> https://github.com/w3c/dx-connegp/issues

roba: I went through them and have done some triage

<roba> w3c/dx-connegp#31 is typs

<roba> w3c/dx-connegp#33

<roba> w3c/dx-connegp#34

roba: these are simple issues

<roba> w3c/dx-connegp#35

roba: I propose to close them

One issue is about a broken link to the editor's draft from the PWD
… How does one fix such a reference in the PWD?

pchampin: we could modify a broken link on a doc in TR. But in this specific case we could add something at the current link, because it's in control of DXWG
… Maybe a note saying "this doc has moved, please see [here]"
… I could make a PR on that repository

roba: this would be great.

<roba> w3c/dx-connegp#42

roba: Can we move on an close these issues, looking at the PR?

LarsG: Nick and I could review?

Yousouf_Taghzouti: I could give it a try

aisaac: it would be great to add the link to the PR

PROPOSED: close 31,33,34,35,42 as soon as the corresponding fixes are implented

+1

+1

<roba> +1

<Yousouf_Taghzouti> +1

<LarsG> +1

RESOLUTION: close 31,33,34,35,42 as soon as the corresponding fixes are implemented

<roba> w3c/dx-connegp#27

<roba> will propose an improved version as per suggestion

aisaac: having a subclass of Resource also called Resource doesn't seem ok.

roba: we'll take it offline and develop a proposal

aisaac: removing this class entirely would look better practice

<roba> w3c/dx-connegp#6

roba: issue 6 has been labeled 'due-for-closing'

ACTION: Antoine to study issue 6

aisaac: this looks like it's a request to have a document explaining what profiles are. Not trivial ;-)

<roba> w3c/dx-connegp#2

aisaac: Maybe we could park it elsewhere, if it still applies
… (this is about 6 not 2)

roba: for issue 2 we've tweaked the wording.
… the sentence has been changed from MUST to MAY
… Maybe we can quickly discuss this.
… a lot of the issue was a long rambling discussion

LarsG: this sounds like an academic case

+1

-1

aisaac: I think I agree with the remarks but it could be good to advertise it to the group as part of the next call's agenda
… we've covered a lot of ground today and this could be an opportunity to make noise about the sub-group's resuming

roba: agreed!
… in the meantime it would be good for everyone to look at the issues and say which ones they'd like to tackle for the next meeting
… for some I need more time thinking about it
… Everyone feel free to comment and vote on your priority issues!

frequency of meetings

roba: every two weeks or every month?

LarsG: every two weeks, for trying to keep the momentum

pchampin: same time?

roba: yes until we have strong hints by other potential contributors