Meeting minutes
The participants pause quietly while gathering their thoughts.
Antoine: Regrets from Ricardo, Anna, and Peter
introductions, very short
Antoine: I am a co-chair of this group, was involved in previous iterations of this group
annette_g: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Laboratory in US providing super computing for US Dept. of Energy. Was involved in earlier DX WG.
Dan: retired from US gov a year ago, worked for statistical agencies, longtime invovlement with DDI Alliance, the standard we'll be discussing. Was briefly involved with W3C Government Linked Data group.
Franck: at INSEE French National Statistical Institute (https://
Arofan: I work for CODATA as a standards expert, especially with the Cross-Domain Interoperability Framework. I am a co-chair of the DDI-CDI WG, and historically was one of the primary developers of SDMX, acted as the SDMX contact for DataCube, and was involved in other DDI developments and the GSIM model (a key source for the variable cascade).
fmichel: also from France, CNRS and INRIA, background in semantic web. I will be an editor of the spec with Arofan.
csarven: W3C TAG member,
worked in past on RDF data cube, government linked data working group.
Publishes a lot of data from international agencies. Remembers counting
4% of linked open data cloud, tapping into apis. Also co-edits DDI RDF
vocab. Nowadays works on dokieli ( https://
Last week's minutes
proposed: approve last week's minutes
<antoine> https://
RESOLUTION: approve last week's minutes
organization of work
antoine: we want to start gathering expressions of interest. We have some from even before the working group started to exist. We have some strong commitments for one of the specs already.
we'd like every group member to be able to express their interest.
We also want to make sure people can join the deliverables they want to. These will be discussed in the main call, like today's.
We feel that until the deliverables are clearly identified, we don't want to work in smaller groups. In fact, for now, we want to keep everyone together and informed about what's happening.
Any objections? None.
We want to start working on the highest profile deliverables in the charter. Several are mentioned. For now we want to focus on the three main ones. Is this fine with everyone?
VVD, DCAT, and Data Cube are the three main ones.
No objections raised.
Antoice suggests we go through each and see who is interested in it.
Starting with VVD
Dan: I'm willing to put work into it.
fmichel: how does it work at W3C?
antoine: chairs will not be editors but will be happy to nominate anyone who is willing to.
DCAT has had many editors, and they can change over time.
fmichel: what about task leaders?
antoine: e.g., creating group goals, not as formally defined as editorships.
it can be one of the editors who takes on the role of coordination.
fmichel is also interested
Dan: can be a contributor as well as an editor
antoine: maybe we can distrubute responsibilities.
Arofan: I nominate Franck :-)
antoine: one of the first items will be to nominate a chair of the call, when the group meets after some weeks.
antoine: How about DCAT?
We already have a message from Riccardo that he is interested in being an editor.
and also to do coordination
Franck: the minutes from last meeting also mention he is interested in DCAT. Peter may also be interested.
Franck: I would be interested in contributing to DCAT.
Dan: not sure that he can really contribute to that.
antoine: will try to follow DCAT.
<antoine> Arofan: I would also be interested in contributing, but mostly as an observer. (CDIF is implementing it...)
Arofan: will also contribute mostly as an observer (CDIF is implementing...)
antoine: Moving on to Data Cube
csarven: I would be interested in editing.
There are some gaps that need to be addressed.
I suspect those would be changes that don't break conformance, up through correction class 3 in the W3C process. For the future, we could introduce new properties. Those are low hanging fruits that would help implementors.
<Arofan> There is a new version of SDMX, also...
<Franck> I will follow the work on QB too, within the limits of my abilities
Arofan: DataCube may have some issues with how concepts are used - this may need to be expanded to work well with VVD
antoine: reminder of our charter wording for these, it focuses on maintenance for these things. Work that resolves an issue is needed. That doesn't mean we would rule out new ideas, but we don't want to make changes for the sake of changing.
should still be backward compatible
csarven: W3C emphasizes keeping things working for the web community, so not just maintenance, we can introduce new features. New features can make a spec work better for the community.
That was something Phillippe clarified in a past meeting.
We do have some documentation for data cube. Maybe we should include in this discussion whether use cases need to be updated as well.
antoine: editors can make amendments to existing use cases and requirements.
csarven: the impression that I got was that there exists documentation of maintenance.
Franck: It's not all that clear, but I agree that it's fine to introduce new features if we don't break existing ones.
<csarven> https://
csarven: it's usually good practice to indicate something is a correction class 2 or whatever, so people know what they are looking for. I think the maintenance doesn't prohibit any of these from happening.
Arofan: At https://
physical meeting
antoine: Franck has sent a survey, and the majority cannot make it for either proposed meeting.
fmichel: how should we consider this at TPAC? Is it a separate meeting?
Arofan: I think it has to be separate.
[someone mentions a coming seminar at Dagstuhl castle]
antoine: we cannot say that we've organized a group meeting if not everyone can be there.