– DRAFT –
(MEETING TITLE)

<Caroline_> https://www.w3.org/2023/05/09-dxwg-minutes

Proposed: Approve minutes of last meeting

+0

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<Nobu_OGURA> +1

RESOLUTION: Approve minutes of last meeting

DCAT vote status

riccardoAlbertoni: can we start with ConnegP in the hope that Annette will join later to discuss the issue she raised

ConnegP update

<riccardoAlbertoni> attemp

<Caroline_> Test

<roba> https://github.com/w3c/dx-connegp/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22due+for+closing%22

roba: Conneg subgroup is meeting regularly. We have a small group: LarsG, PHD student, myself
… we have working on this https://github.com/w3c/dx-connegp/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22due+for+closing%22

<roba> w3c/dx-connegp#42 to finish to close

roba: still fixes to do
… we want to close this one w3c/dx-connegp#42 after receiving comments from the plenary
… we are happy to bring the substantial changes for the plenary
… other than that the question is that do we close the issues or do we bring the issues here to be formerly closed?

riccardoAlbertoni: at DCAT we close the issues directly on github but we keep the plenary aware of changes
… at the moment we don't have plenary meetings regularly
… if there is anything substantial it would be important to discuss with plenary

roba: anyone who has issues will receive the notification
… we will flag the next set for review
… this will be open until the next subgroup meeting

<roba> next meeting Wed 9th

riccardoAlbertoni: the transparency is important. Communicate the agenda to the mailing list and be sure to give the opportunity to join if someone has any specific concern
… but keep going if there is no concerns

roba: we will send everyone the agenda

roba: the next meeting is on August 9th. When should I send out the agenda?

riccardoAlbertoni: there is a rule that says 24h fro sending out the agenda
… it is important to put the meeting on w3c calendar

ack

Who is participating in this subgroup?

<roba> https://github.com/YoucTagh

roba: myself, LarsG, Nick, Pierre-Antoine, and a PHD student
… if there is something about RDF we will bring to the plenary attention
… of course the soubgroup is open to anyone
… we would like to get the review from this person who works with open API
… we haven't changed any substantial subjects yet
… we are working on the components to serve as examples to deploy connegp

riccardoAlbertoni: Is it a draft recommendation already?

roba: there is a small number of people testing it. It is on the way to become a draft recommendation
… there are two possibilities: connegp descriptive behavior and the alternative is to describe the primary dataset
… we could look at it as a normative

Caroline_: have you talked about time schedule?

roba: we are working on solving the issues first
… that cleared we will start working on the timetable

DCAT vote status

<roba> ... reach out to the W3C business development

riccardoAlbertoni: Have not had time to respond yet directly to Annette re vote comments
… would like to address misunderstanding
… reached out to Nick Doty at the time, he provided suggestions as to how to improve

w3c/dxwg#1526

<riccardoAlbertoni> Diff: https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/&doc2=https://raw.githack.com/w3c/dxwg/dcat-issue-1526-bis/dcat/index.html#security_and_privacy

"It's an improvement to at least have these concerns noted in the spec."

what is the option described in this diff?

riccardoAlbertoni: This is a possible option to refine the document
… alternative is to leave document as is since no normative change is required
… can share proposed revision with Annette - but not comfortable as original DCAT participants in this issue not available to review
… propose to send email to Annette and regular contributors to see if this is a common view and consistent and see if agreement to change can be achieved in next 3 weeks.

Caroline_: sounds like a good idea

ACTION: riccardoAlbertoni to send email to Annette and regular contributors to see if this is a common view and consistent and see if agreement to change can be achieved in next 3 weeks.

roba: Noting OGC has proposed a GeoDCAT profile: https://www.ogc.org/press-release/ogc-forms-new-geodcat-standards-working-group/
… we can bring this to the OGC Security WG https://portal.ogc.org/?m=projects&a=view&project_id=216

riccardoAlbertoni: prefer to leave this to a next round where specific requirements are solicited
… we need the right people defining requirements to address this further

riccardoAlbertoni: Bert Bos confirmed DCAT-AP 3 is compliant with DCAT 3

<Caroline_> meeting adjourned

<riccardoAlbertoni> s\DCAT3 is compliant with DCAT 2\DCAT-AP 3 is compliant with DCAT 3