– DRAFT –
Dataset Exchange Working Group

FranckC: We have some new info on TFs and continue discussion on tools.

FranckC: Also we'll look into who is here and not over the summary

<nicholascar> who is here?

FranckC: proposed: approve last week's minutes

proposed: approve last week's minutes

<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1

<Jakub> +1

<YoucTagh> +1

<nicholascar> +1

<LarsG> 0 (wasn't there...)

<Les> +1

<FranckC> +1

RESOLUTION: approve last week's minute

FranckC: IRC would be the primary way of queuing and more formal way of reacting to WG material. Zoom chat will be more informal.

FranckC: Was informed by pchampin that it'd be better to do resolutions in the IRC chat and allow people to explicitly react to it. Will keep this going. If not, please remind me.

maintenance

FranckC: pchampin looked into liberal or conservative reading of the charter wrt maintenance.

FranckC: It seems csarven's interpretation is aligned with the charter. That is, we have quite a bit of room to update/revise and do creative stuff. We'll send a message to the group about this.

pchampin: What csarven reported re Social Web charter, seems correct. We're in the same situation.. in that "maintenance" can be read liberally. Class 4 changes is possible. We need to go through the Rec track cycle. That is allowed by the charter.

introductions

LarsG: With DE National Library. large interest in RDF. About 10 years ago, I realised in order to serve RDF properly, we need to use profiles for different vocabularies. That was presented in Amsterdam back then. One thing we need to do is consult with IETF on best way to register the new header(s) for ConnegP Enjoyed being here again.

task forces

FranckC: Antoine documented / emailed https://www.w3.org/2026/06/25-dxwg-minutes.html who is interested in the TFs for the deliverables in our charter.

FranckC: Some reactions on the mailing list

Candidate editors

FranckC: VVD, we have 3 candidate editors

<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Main_Page

<FranckC> VVD:

<FranckC> - candidate editors: FrankM, Arofan, Dan

<FranckC> - task force: FrankM, Dan, Arofan, Riccardo (+Simon) (+FranckC?)

FranckC: between parenthesis is the reactions in the email thread

<FranckC> Data Cube:

<FranckC> - candidate editors: Sarven

<FranckC> - task force: Sarven, Arofan (+FranckC?)

FranckC: Data Cube

FranckC: DCAT

<FranckC> DCAT:

<FranckC> - candidate editors: Riccardo, Simon (+Jakub)

<FranckC> - task force: Riccardo, FrankM, FranckC, Arofan, Peter, Jakub, Les, Antoine

<FranckC> PROF:

<FranckC> - candidate editors: Nicholas (+Yousouf) (+Lars)

<FranckC> - task force: Nicholas, Yousouf, Les (+Jakub)

<FranckC> CONNEG-P:

<FranckC> - candidate editors: Nicholas, Yousouf (+Lars)

<FranckC> - task force: same as PROF (-Jakub)

<FranckC> DQV:

<FranckC> - candidate editors: Riccardo, Antoine

<FranckC> - task force: Riccardo, Antoine (+FranckC?)

<nicholascar> I will contact Rob Atkinson to see if he wishes to continue as an editor of ConnegP & PROF also

<nicholascar> He was an editor of the previous versions

pchampin: I was suggesting that we reach out to previous editors that are also in the WG. myself or one of the chairs in the mailing list that they are still welcome to volunteer. I think everyone got the message including them. So we are in a good place regarding that.

pchampin: According to the W3C Process the choice of editors are done by chairs. it is not arbitrary. And any volunteering is welcome. Sometimes political aspects are factored in. This is really a call for volunteers. And chairs will come back with their decision. Just so there is no wrong expectation with this exercise.

RiccardoAlbertoni: I contacted Peter Winstanley by email, and he mentioned that there is some overlap with meeting making it difficult to attend.

FranckC: He'd probably be candidate for DCAT

FranckC: We'll update the wiki https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Main_Page with the information based on discussion between the chairs as pchampin said. We have no intention to force someone out from a role in a spec. If perhaps if there are too many editors in one document, we can ask.

Summer meetings

FranckC: Summer in the sense of the Northern Hemisphere

FranckC: We have ~7 people. As it stands, we have maybe a problem for next week. 4 people won't be available. May have a problem in beginning of August. So far 3 people won't be available. Please respond to the email regarding that so we know for next week's meeting and help us decide.

Echidna

FranckC: Looked into transitioning the document for PROF

nicholascar: We're ready go on PROF. CONNEG-P in the repo is also ready to go

pchampin: I saw but haven't acted on it. It is on my plate and will take care of it soon.

csarven Purpose was on existing doc?

nicholascar: to update the repo representation and have it be automatically publishable

nicholascar: We have procedures in place to have double sign offs. PRs made besides the author needs to be approved by two people - any participant in the group but not sure about group of editors and approvers.

pchampin: Approvers vary from one group to another. Not dictated by W3C. Anybody in the WG is perfectly okay

pchampin: I wanted to point out what FranckC noticed. We made decision to use Echidna for PROF and CONNEG-P. First decide on WG and second is Echidna. We only passed resolution for WD on PROF however..

pchampin: Oh, then CONNEG-P is also ok.

nicholascar: Right, we just need to resolve the automation.

Slack

FranckC: We had a proposal by Annette

FranckC: On the need of more interactive tool and what to use

nicholascar: I propose we don't use Slack. Reason: we have this channel on video, and email, and tickets on GitHub. I think that's quite a bit. If certain members want to chat on another platform, that'd be okay. But I probably won't use. For the WG 2-3 channels is probably sufficient.

RiccardoAlbertoni Agree with nicholascar. It may be too much to track.

csarven: I generally agree; note that W3C has a Slack space (not just for WGs)

<Les> Agree with nicholascar

csarven: it may be useful for people outside of the group to have ways to track what the group is doing and also to interact with implementers from that space
… some people may find Slack easier
… if we are going to have task forces, that might also be useful
… but I don't have a strong opinion

csarven: actually, I think it would be a good idea
… this group has a wide scope and stretching over several years
… the group itself probably does not need it, but it may be useful to other people

<pchampin> FTR, it does not look like there already exists a channel for DXWG on the W3C slack

RiccardoAlbertoni: Re F2F meeting, is there any advancement?

FranckC: No, but we thought it is not a good idea at TPAC or ISWC

FranckC: We could perhaps discuss that with the chairs tomorrow. Thanks for the reminder. Something we have to go over again.