14:01:03 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dxwg
14:01:08 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/06/25-dxwg-irc
14:01:08 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:01:09 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), pchampin
14:01:09 <RiccardoAlbertoni> present+
14:01:19 <pchampin> meeting: Dataset Exchange WG
14:01:25 <pchampin> chair: FranckC
14:01:47 <pchampin> present+
14:02:04 <pchampin> agendabot, find agenda
14:02:04 <agendabot> pchampin, sorry, I don't know which mailing list or calendar is associated with this channel. Try "agendabot, help this is".
14:02:07 <YoucTagh> YoucTagh has joined #dxwg
14:02:19 <pchampin> agendabot, help this is
14:02:19 <agendabot> pchampin, if you say "agendabot, this is xyz", I will remember the calendar "group/wg/xyz" (or similar), and the mailing list "xyz" (or "public-xyz", "www-xyz", "member-xyz", "w3c-xyz" or "team-xyz" or "w3t-xyz", whichever I can find and read) and use it to search for agendas. You can also give the
14:02:19 <agendabot> … URL: "agendabot this is https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xyz/". Multiple lists is also possible. Just separate the names or URLs with commas or with the word "and".
14:02:31 <pchampin> agendabot, this is dx
14:02:33 <agendabot> pchampin, OK, using https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/dx/calendar
14:02:37 <YoucTagh> present+
14:02:44 <pchampin> agendabot, find agenda
14:02:44 <agendabot> pchampin, OK. This may take a minute...
14:02:44 <agendabot> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/cf468f73-53d3-4cd8-bb8a-eb534f47bc80/20260625T100000/
14:02:44 <agendabot> clear agenda
14:02:44 <agendabot> agenda+ Approval of -> last week's minutes https://www.w3.org/2026/06/18-dxwg-minutes.html
14:02:45 <agendabot> agenda+ Group membership
14:02:47 <agendabot> agenda+ Continue discussion on organization in task forces
14:02:50 <agendabot> agenda+ What "maintenance" covers
14:02:52 <agendabot> agenda+ Tools
14:03:29 <pchampin> scribe+
14:03:30 <antoine> antoine has joined #dxwg
14:03:52 <pchampin> zakim, open agendum 1
14:03:52 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Approval of -> last week's minutes https://www.w3.org/2026/06/18-dxwg-minutes.html -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:03:55 <antoine> present+
14:04:29 <csarven> present+
14:04:57 <pchampin> FranckC: antoine edited the minutes manually, to fix some issues with the bots
14:05:00 <nicholascar> nicholascar has joined #dxwg
14:05:08 <pchampin> ... anyone has any remark?
14:05:08 <nicholascar> present+
14:05:46 <pchampin> RESOLVED: accepting last week's minutes https://www.w3.org/2026/06/18-dxwg-minutes.html
14:05:51 <pchampin> zakim, next item
14:05:51 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, pchampin
14:05:56 <Arofan> Arofan has joined #dxwg
14:05:59 <pchampin> q?
14:06:02 <antoine> q-
14:06:17 <pchampin> zakim, next item
14:06:18 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Group membership -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:06:35 <pchampin> FranckC: Stephen Richards joined the WG, but he is not room.
14:06:51 <pchampin> ... He will introduce himself on the next meeting.
14:06:55 <pchampin> Zakim, next item
14:06:55 <Zakim> agendum 2 was just opened, pchampin
14:07:01 <leskneebone> leskneebone has joined #dxwg
14:07:03 <pchampin> Zakim, close item 2
14:07:03 <Zakim> agendum 2, Group membership, closed
14:07:04 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
14:07:04 <Zakim> 3. Continue discussion on organization in task forces [from agendabot]
14:07:06 <pchampin> Zakim, next item
14:07:06 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Continue discussion on organization in task forces -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:07:32 <pchampin> FranckC: a question raised last week, in particular by Sarven: what are we allowed to do while "maintaining" a recommendation?
14:07:34 <antoine> present+ FranckC
14:07:34 <pchampin> q+
14:07:36 <nicholascar> q+
14:08:10 <Dan> Dan has joined #dxwg
14:08:34 <pchampin> ... we also have a subject on "tools": one is about github management (following an email from nicholascar),
14:08:36 <antoine> present+ Dan, Arofan, leskneebone
14:08:49 <antoine> present+ Jakub
14:08:50 <pchampin> ... another is using Slack (suggested by Annette)
14:09:31 <antoine> Regrets+ Steve Richard
14:09:45 <pchampin> ... About taskforces, we need one to maintain DCAT, and one to maintain QB.
14:10:10 <Arofan> I am interested in QB also
14:10:15 <pchampin> ... IIRC, csarven was volunteering for QB. I also had good experience with QB.
14:10:37 <nicholascar> q?
14:11:05 <antoine> present+ FranckM
14:11:12 <pchampin> nicholascar: I can contribute in a small way; not familiar with the statistics dimension, but I have experience with measurements in SOSA
14:11:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/06/25-dxwg-minutes.html antoine
14:11:29 <pchampin> ... I will not actively contribute, but I can provide reviews
14:12:10 <pchampin> ... We need to clarify what "maintenance" means.
14:12:33 <pchampin> ... I guess it includes reviewing the dependencies, including RDF with the new RDF 1.2.
14:13:06 <FranckMichel> FranckMichel has joined #dxwg
14:13:16 <pchampin> FranckC: regarcing DCAT, we voluntold RiccardoAlbertoni last week, despite his absence :)
14:13:30 <pchampin> RiccardoAlbertoni: of course, I'm interested in continuing contributing with DCAT, and to coordinate the efforts
14:13:46 <pchampin> ... It would be important at this stage to know who we have on board as editors.
14:13:59 <pchampin> ... We already have some issues on gihtub left over from the previous group.
14:14:23 <pchampin> FranckC: during the last meeting some people expressed interest from DCAT.
14:14:52 <pchampin> ... from memory: myself, Franck Michel, Arofan (link with CDIF)
14:15:12 <pchampin> ... I assume that Peter Winstanley would also be; RiccardoAlbertoni can you reach out to him please?
14:16:07 <pchampin> nicholascar: I have a contribution that I would like to make to DCAT:
14:16:30 <pchampin> ... the consideration of what to do when you are cataloguing a semantic artifact (e.g. Ontology)
14:16:52 <pchampin> ... I would understand if the WG does not find it interesting.
14:17:29 <pchampin> FranckC: that's a thing to consider; we did have a conversation 2 years ago with Arofan and Dan about attaching metadata to DCAT
14:17:50 <pchampin> ... an issue with DCAT is the multiplicity of profiles; and profiles exists to attach specific kinds of metadata
14:17:58 <csarven> s/for QB/for QB as an editor
14:18:18 <pchampin> regrets+ SteveRichards
14:18:49 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
14:18:57 <Jakub> Jakub has joined #dxwg
14:19:04 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q-
14:19:06 <pchampin> Jakub: I'm also interested in DCAT, following nicholascar's proposals
14:19:19 <pchampin> FranckC: let's move on to VVD
14:19:25 <pchampin> Dan: I'm interested in being involved
14:19:29 <pchampin> q-
14:19:37 <nicholascar> q-
14:20:02 <pchampin> FranckC: FranckMichel and Arofan as well, as editors. Anybody else?
14:20:14 <pchampin> RiccardoAlbertoni: I may be interested, though not as an editor.
14:20:49 <pchampin> leskneebone: also interested in DCAT
14:21:32 <pchampin> FranckC: we also need to gather interest for PROF
14:22:05 <pchampin> nicholascar: I'm interested in being editor of PROF and CONNEG-PROF
14:22:17 <pchampin> ... I don't think there is a lot of editing to be done.=
14:22:22 <Jakub> I am interested in PROF
14:22:24 <pchampin> s/done.=/done
14:22:38 <pchampin> ... there is also a profile guidance document
14:22:54 <pchampin> YoucTagh: also interested in continuing as an editor of conneg-p
14:23:23 <pchampin> nicholascar: Rob Atkinson, a previous editor of PROF, has joined the WG, but has not joined the meetings
14:23:37 <pchampin> ... he might still be interested in reviewing
14:24:00 <pchampin> q?
14:24:00 <csarven> q+ to ask about work towards gathering implementation experience
14:24:50 <pchampin> FranckC: we had a discussion with the chairs about appointing task force leaders, but we don't see a necessity at this point
14:25:00 <pchampin> ... we intend to have task forces report during the general meetings
14:25:43 <pchampin> antoine: I think we even said that in the first weeks we would discourage task forces to split separate calls, to allow people to express interest later
14:26:04 <pchampin> ack q
14:26:20 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1 to antoine on spliting in group
14:26:29 <csarven> q+ to mention maintain / maintenance of specs as per charter
14:26:52 <pchampin> csarven: subtopic: maintenance
14:27:07 <pchampin> s/csarven: subtopic/subtopic
14:27:28 <nicholascar> q+
14:27:30 <pchampin> csarven: the charter mentions "maintain and revise", the terms are used liberally in W3C
14:28:00 <pchampin> ... so even if "maintenance" proves to be not enough, we can still "revise"
14:28:01 <pchampin> q+
14:28:18 <pchampin> ack pchampin
14:28:48 <nicholascar> pchampin did check the charter and it does say maintain & revise
14:29:12 <nicholascar> importantly it refers to existing Rec rather than working on new ones
14:29:14 <FranckC> pchampin but deliverables use only maintain
14:29:39 <nicholascar> pchampin's reading is we can make recommendations on the Rec but not make a new one (for DCAT)
14:29:43 <csarven> pchampin: i did check the charter, it does indeed say maintain/revise, but the deliverable says maintain, and more importantly it refers to existing recs we hae. total maintenance means fixing existing rather than a working on a new rec. my reading of hte charter is that we can make the modification on the charter as process allows but not start a new rec.
14:29:50 <pchampin> https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#correction-classes
14:30:13 <nicholascar> above are the 4 classes of allowed changes
14:30:18 <nicholascar> for Specifications
14:30:30 <csarven> pchampin: for example, correction classes on editorial and substantive categories
14:31:19 <nicholascar> we can make changes of class 1 - 3 on an existing Rec
14:31:32 <nicholascar> cannot make class 4 changes
14:31:39 <csarven> I'm glad pchampin mentioned correction classes, because I also brought that up in the last meeting :)
14:31:47 <nicholascar> - all this for "maintenance"
14:31:51 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
14:32:14 <pchampin> FranckC: if we really think we have to add new features, what can we do?
14:32:51 <nicholascar> pchampin we can extend the Charter but this is a bit hard
14:32:52 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q-
14:32:55 <csarven> pchampin: we could also ask for a new charter which would need a new review from the AC
14:32:58 <nicholascar> will need a new review
14:33:09 <pchampin> q?
14:33:11 <nicholascar> can operate on existing Charter in the meanwhile
14:33:14 <nicholascar> q?
14:33:56 <pchampin> csarven: my reading of the charter is that we could introduce class-4 changes
14:34:02 <RiccardoAlbertoni> q+
14:35:06 <antoine> q+
14:35:18 <nicholascar> pchampin my take is that i'ts maintain, not revise of DCAT 3
14:35:38 <pchampin> s/not revise of DCAT 3/not make a new DCAT 4
14:36:00 <nicholascar> s/i'ts/it's/
14:36:12 <nicholascar> q?
14:36:34 <pchampin> csarven: my impression from other WGs is that we can read "maintain" more liberally
14:37:35 <pchampin> Arofan: SDMX has changed (v3, now) - QB is based on an outdated version.
14:37:42 <pchampin> ... Does a change in QB to reflect the new aspects of SDMX fall into the "maintenance" category?
14:37:49 <pchampin> ... They really should - even if they result in minor "new features"...
14:37:56 <pchampin> q?
14:38:38 <pchampin> q+ Dan
14:39:38 <pchampin> csarven: I also wanted to talk about implementation experience; are the participants of the WG intending to also implement the spec?
14:40:01 <pchampin> FranckC: that's an important point, I suggest we keep it for next week
14:41:00 <pchampin> nicholascar: regarding PROF, we are moving the Profile vocab to REC track, connegp is already  on REC track
14:41:12 <pchampin> ... the scope is beyond maintenance
14:42:12 <pchampin> ack csarven
14:42:12 <Zakim> csarven, you wanted to ask about work towards gathering implementation experience and to mention maintain / maintenance of specs as per charter
14:42:17 <pchampin> ack nicholascar
14:42:20 <pchampin> ack RiccardoAlbertoni
14:42:44 <pchampin> RiccardoAlbertoni: tryong to understand the classes of change in the Process document
14:43:01 <pchampin> s/tryong/trying
14:43:08 <pchampin> ... the first 2 are clearly editorial
14:43:14 <pchampin> ... the 3rd one requires some form of versioning
14:45:50 <pchampin> ... would we have to call it DCAT 3 or could we call it DCAT 3.1?
14:46:39 <pchampin> pchampin: my reading of the charter is very conservative, but I'll check with PLH if we can be more literal
14:46:53 <pchampin> antoine: can we add new requirements in the "Use Cases and Requirements" document?
14:47:00 <pchampin> pchampin: yes, this is a Note
14:47:20 <pchampin> Dan: if we think we need to make changes that require a new version, how can we do it?
14:47:33 <pchampin> ... Do we have no way of addressing that?
14:50:14 <pchampin> agenda?
14:50:31 <pchampin> zakim, open item 5
14:50:31 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- Tools -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:51:05 <pchampin> nicholascar: my first question is about the PROF specification; it was initially merged into the w3c/dxwg repo.
14:51:29 <pchampin> ... But it was then moved into its own repo w3c/dx-prof .
14:51:51 <pchampin> ... Problem: the published document still points to the old repo, so people get confused.
14:54:58 <pchampin> pchampin: we are chartered to publish it on the REC track, we just need a WG decision to publish the current Editor's Draft.
14:55:18 <pchampin> FranckC: any objection to publish PROF as a FPWS?
14:55:25 <pchampin> ... [hearing none]
14:55:59 <pchampin> RESOLVED: publish PROF as a FPWD
14:56:41 <antoine> q+
14:58:02 <pchampin> nicholascar: other issue about conneg-p
14:58:03 <pchampin> antoine: nicholascar please send this as an email to the ML, so that people can prepare for the discussion next week
14:58:10 <antoine> q-
14:58:39 <pchampin> q-
14:59:11 <pchampin> FranckC: you also wanted to mention Echidna?
14:59:21 <Dan> I didn't raise my hand since I last commented
14:59:45 <pchampin> nicholascar: the process requires a WG decision to publish any new Working Draft
15:00:14 <pchampin> ... an alternative is to decide to use Echidna, a system used by many WG, where Working Draft publication is streamlined from the github main branch
15:02:32 <pchampin> PROPOSED: the WG will use Echidna for dx-conneg-prof, dx-prof
15:02:47 <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
15:02:50 <nicholascar> +1
15:02:51 <YoucTagh> +1
15:02:51 <Jakub> +1
15:02:55 <pchampin> +1
15:02:55 <FranckC> +1
15:02:55 <Arofan> +1
15:02:58 <FranckMichel> +1
15:02:59 <Dan> +1
15:03:01 <antoine> +1
15:03:07 <pchampin> RESOLVED: the WG will use Echidna for dx-conneg-prof, dx-prof
15:03:18 <pchampin> s/subtopic:/topic:
15:03:24 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:03:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/06/25-dxwg-minutes.html pchampin
15:03:39 <Dan> Dan has left #dxwg
15:04:35 <FranckC> FranckC has left #dxwg
15:15:51 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat has joined #dxwg