Meeting minutes
pchampin: The meeting - before going to CR, we need to check that everything is in order to avoid future problems. 2 things: close any issues in github that we can; the wider review, the standard one and the one relating to groups specifically mentioned in the charter, have to be dealt with.
<pchampin> https://
pchampin: Issues: see the link above.
… Issue #1561 - is probably out of date.
RiccardoAlbertoni: yes, it is. I was trying to make a proposal
<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://
pchampin: the last 2 lines say '2023', but should be '2024'
… I think we can go with that proposal
… Once the issue is updated, then we can close. But it is like a noticeboard and so is OK to leave open too
… Just add a pointer to the timetable in the wiki
… We need 28 days between CR publication and transition - we should exclude holidays around Christmas etc - but as long as the timetable proposal is realistic we are OK
… The issue should probably stay open until the completion of the timetable
ACTION: RiccardoAlbertoni to update the issue
ACTION: RiccardoAlbertoni to update issue 1561 with the latest schedule (link above)
pchampin: The next issue is 1509. This is a checklist. Most are checked apart from a small number.
… The only unchecked boxes are in our list, so we can also keep this until the end of the schedule
AndreaPerego: This issue has been open since 2019. The problem is that when we get references from the W3 software there is inconsistency in the results
… unless it is fixed centrally, we need to make a local fix
pchampin: I am not sure that this is a bug - it might be a feature.
AndreaPerego: I think it is a bug because the editors are given as those for version 1
… the link points to DCAT 2, not DCAT 1. So there is an inconsistency between the short name without the version number in SpecRef and the TR link
pchampin: we should fix our problem at our level, and close this issue
… but, this is mainly editorial, so we can keep the issue open and fix at PR time
pchampin: Are we happy about having the local fix?
… looks like there is no objection to this approach
pchampin: Next issue -1352
<AndreaPerego> w3c/
RiccardoAlbertoni: a reminder that at some point we need to provide translations to other languages
… we need to consider this within our schedule because it will take time
pchampin: What are the specific success criteria? It seems like a 'nice to have' and not essential for moving through to CR etc
RiccardoAlbertoni: It is something that matters to the group
pchampin: Agreed, but it isn't essential - we keep the issue open but it is not an obstacle
… Issue 1352 is an unticked box in 1509.
… So we should be consistent - I don't think keeping this issue open (1352) isn't blocking the closure of 1509
… so I propose to remove them from the list -
<pchampin> PROPOSED: remove issues 1223 and 1352 from the meta-issue 1509 ("to be adressed for CR")
<AndreaPerego> +1 from me
+1
<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
<DaveBrowning> +1
RESOLUTION: remove issues 1223 and 1352 from the meta-issue 1509 ("to be adressed for CR")
<alejandra> +1
<roba> +1
pchampin: Issue 1507
<AndreaPerego> w3c/
pchampin: This is one of the horizontal reviews.
RiccardoAlbertoni: I think we can close this
<AndreaPerego> +1
pchampin: agreed because we have had correspondence with reviewers. Any objection to closing?
<alejandra> +1
pchampin: I think we can proceed
pchampin: The remaining issue is 1502 - about the wide review. Only open because of the need to cover reaching out to all groups in our charter
<AndreaPerego> w3c/
<pchampin> https://
RiccardoAlbertoni: there is a newer version of the charter
<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://
<pchampin> https://
<pchampin> The Working Group is advised to seek a review at least 3 months before first entering CR and is encouraged to proactively notify the horizontal review groups when major changes occur in a specification following a review.
<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://
pchampin: we just need to understand that some interaction has taken place
… and also, this is 'advisory'.
AndreaPerego: we have some users who have already made preparations to move to v3 (e.g., DCAT-AP).
alejandra: if it is only awareness then we have been promoting this
RiccardoAlbertoni: we just need to write this down
alejandra: we need to advertise widely. what is the 'official' requirement
pchampin: The lists in the charter and in the google doc aren't the same? They seem close
pchampin: Thanks RiccardoAlbertoni - that is exactly what I need. I think that we have something for all the groups. Can I include a pointer in the transition request? If so then if there are additions following this meeting they will be available to people
RiccardoAlbertoni: my impression is that the community group isn't that active
pchampin: obviously there are registered participants who are not very active, and if community groups aren't active then we cannot expect feedback.
… Given that there is no objection to using the google doc as part of the justification of wide review, and that we have no github issues that might block moving to CR, then I will take the snapshot from 3 weeks ago and will proceed with that. The SpecRef bug can be handled later. I will proceed with the transition request on this basis
RiccardoAlbertoni: in January we are expected to prove implementation. Do we need to provide a proper document for this?
pchampin: I don't know how formalised this is - my understanding is that implementation evidence isn't a tick-box situation. I will check
pchampin: features at risk can be removed from the CR before going to PR
roba: during December I will be working on the geoDCAT profile and will be needing help with testing
pchampin: I will send the CR in the morning and keep everyone posted
pchampin: bye, and meet up after the CR period