Meeting minutes
Approval of last week's minutes
FranckC: antoine edited the minutes manually, to fix some issues with the bots
… anyone has any remark?
RESOLUTION: accepting last week's minutes https://
Group membership
FranckC: Stephen Richards joined the WG, but he is not room.
… He will introduce himself on the next meeting.
Continue discussion on organization in task forces
FranckC: a question raised last week, in particular by Sarven: what are we allowed to do while "maintaining" a recommendation?
… we also have a subject on "tools": one is about github management (following an email from nicholascar),
… another is using Slack (suggested by Annette)
… About taskforces, we need one to maintain DCAT, and one to maintain QB.
<Arofan> I am interested in QB also
FranckC: IIRC, csarven was volunteering for QB as an editor. I also had good experience with QB.
nicholascar: I can contribute in a small way; not familiar with the statistics dimension, but I have experience with measurements in SOSA
… I will not actively contribute, but I can provide reviews
… We need to clarify what "maintenance" means.
… I guess it includes reviewing the dependencies, including RDF with the new RDF 1.2.
FranckC: regarcing DCAT, we voluntold RiccardoAlbertoni last week, despite his absence :)
RiccardoAlbertoni: of course, I'm interested in continuing contributing with DCAT, and to coordinate the efforts
… It would be important at this stage to know who we have on board as editors.
… We already have some issues on gihtub left over from the previous group.
FranckC: during the last meeting some people expressed interest from DCAT.
… from memory: myself, Franck Michel, Arofan (link with CDIF)
… I assume that Peter Winstanley would also be; RiccardoAlbertoni can you reach out to him please?
nicholascar: I have a contribution that I would like to make to DCAT:
… the consideration of what to do when you are cataloguing a semantic artifact (e.g. Ontology)
… I would understand if the WG does not find it interesting.
FranckC: that's a thing to consider; we did have a conversation 2 years ago with Arofan and Dan about attaching metadata to DCAT
… an issue with DCAT is the multiplicity of profiles; and profiles exists to attach specific kinds of metadata
Jakub: I'm also interested in DCAT, following nicholascar's proposals
FranckC: let's move on to VVD
Dan: I'm interested in being involved
FranckC: FranckMichel and Arofan as well, as editors. Anybody else?
RiccardoAlbertoni: I may be interested, though not as an editor.
leskneebone: also interested in DCAT
FranckC: we also need to gather interest for PROF
nicholascar: I'm interested in being editor of PROF and CONNEG-PROF
… I don't think there is a lot of editing to be done
<Jakub> I am interested in PROF
nicholascar: there is also a profile guidance document
YoucTagh: also interested in continuing as an editor of conneg-p
nicholascar: Rob Atkinson, a previous editor of PROF, has joined the WG, but has not joined the meetings
… he might still be interested in reviewing
FranckC: we had a discussion with the chairs about appointing task force leaders, but we don't see a necessity at this point
… we intend to have task forces report during the general meetings
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
<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1 to antoine on spliting in group
maintenance
csarven: the charter mentions "maintain and revise", the terms are used liberally in W3C
… so even if "maintenance" proves to be not enough, we can still "revise"
<nicholascar> pchampin did check the charter and it does say maintain & revise
<nicholascar> importantly it refers to existing Rec rather than working on new ones
<FranckC> pchampin but deliverables use only maintain
<nicholascar> pchampin's reading is we can make recommendations on the Rec but not make a new one (for DCAT)
<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.
https://
<nicholascar> above are the 4 classes of allowed changes
<nicholascar> for Specifications
<csarven> pchampin: for example, correction classes on editorial and substantive categories
<nicholascar> we can make changes of class 1 - 3 on an existing Rec
<nicholascar> cannot make class 4 changes
<csarven> I'm glad pchampin mentioned correction classes, because I also brought that up in the last meeting :)
<nicholascar> - all this for "maintenance"
FranckC: if we really think we have to add new features, what can we do?
<nicholascar> pchampin we can extend the Charter but this is a bit hard
<csarven> pchampin: we could also ask for a new charter which would need a new review from the AC
<nicholascar> will need a new review
<nicholascar> can operate on existing Charter in the meanwhile
csarven: my reading of the charter is that we could introduce class-4 changes
<nicholascar> pchampin my take is that it's maintain, not make a new DCAT 4
csarven: my impression from other WGs is that we can read "maintain" more liberally
Arofan: SDMX has changed (v3, now) - QB is based on an outdated version.
… Does a change in QB to reflect the new aspects of SDMX fall into the "maintenance" category?
… They really should - even if they result in minor "new features"...
csarven: I also wanted to talk about implementation experience; are the participants of the WG intending to also implement the spec?
FranckC: that's an important point, I suggest we keep it for next week
nicholascar: regarding PROF, we are moving the Profile vocab to REC track, connegp is already on REC track
… the scope is beyond maintenance
<Zakim> csarven, you wanted to ask about work towards gathering implementation experience and to mention maintain / maintenance of specs as per charter
RiccardoAlbertoni: trying to understand the classes of change in the Process document
… the first 2 are clearly editorial
… the 3rd one requires some form of versioning
… would we have to call it DCAT 3 or could we call it DCAT 3.1?
pchampin: my reading of the charter is very conservative, but I'll check with PLH if we can be more literal
antoine: can we add new requirements in the "Use Cases and Requirements" document?
pchampin: yes, this is a Note
Dan: if we think we need to make changes that require a new version, how can we do it?
… Do we have no way of addressing that?
Tools
nicholascar: my first question is about the PROF specification; it was initially merged into the w3c/dxwg repo.
… But it was then moved into its own repo w3c/dx-prof .
… Problem: the published document still points to the old repo, so people get confused.
pchampin: we are chartered to publish it on the REC track, we just need a WG decision to publish the current Editor's Draft.
FranckC: any objection to publish PROF as a FPWS?
… [hearing none]
RESOLUTION: publish PROF as a FPWD
nicholascar: other issue about conneg-p
antoine: nicholascar please send this as an email to the ML, so that people can prepare for the discussion next week
FranckC: you also wanted to mention Echidna?
<Dan> I didn't raise my hand since I last commented
nicholascar: the process requires a WG decision to publish any new Working Draft
… 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
PROPOSED: the WG will use Echidna for dx-conneg-prof, dx-prof
<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
<nicholascar> +1
<YoucTagh> +1
<Jakub> +1
<pchampin> +1
<FranckC> +1
<Arofan> +1
<FranckMichel> +1
<Dan> +1
<antoine> +1
RESOLUTION: the WG will use Echidna for dx-conneg-prof, dx-prof