– DRAFT –
Dataset Exchange Working Group

<Dan> present

<antoine> FranckMichel: what should be scribed?

<antoine> pchampin: there are some technical guides. It doesn't need to be word-for-word

<antoine> ... if people disagree they can make comments

<antoine> https://www.w3.org/guide/meetings/zakim.html

<antoine> https://www.w3.org/guide/meetings/irc.html

<antoine> https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html

<antoine> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/wiki/Scribing_Instructions

<antoine> pchampin: the 101 is to mention names then colon then what they say, and keep line short

<antoine> ... if you need longer lines use 3 dots

<antoine> ... It can be a name or an IRC nickname (the good thing of using them is autocompletion)

<Les> https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html

Approval of previous minutes

<antoine> https://www.w3.org/2026/07/02-dxwg-minutes.html

antoine: proposal to accept last week's minutes

<RobA> +0

<YoucTagh> +1

<pchampin> +1

<bartkl> +0

<Dan> +1

<antoine> +1

<FranckC> +1

<Arofan> +0

RESOLUTION: no objection, minutes approved

<Les> +1

Editors

<antoine> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Main_Page#Deliverables_2026

antoine: following discussion in past call, group has a wikicite, ltos of legacy material
… tried to recap all deliverables and people who expressed interests as editors or task force members
… accept this as a beginning
… open one more time for candidates if any others
… Les still with question mark

Les: remove the "?"

bartkl: interested in working on Prov as task force member

antoine: not fixed in stone, everyone welcome.
… For editors this is a bit more formal.
… we don't intend to make this too formal though.
… there is understanding that people may also drop out later iftoo much load

Les: confirm participation in Prov

<RobA> i hope to be able to contribute to Data Cube too.

antoine: good thing because little people on QB for now.

RobA: strong interest in QB, worked with semantic description in the past
… i'll see where I can contribute

<Arofan> I thought it was QB

<annette_g> I'm interested in helping with vivid

FranckC: 'FranckC' on QB and DQV but probably too much spreading myself. I won't be able to commit for the 4 streams that I declared interest into
… possible to make light contribs - particularly for QB and DQV

<RobA> likewise, i should probably contribute to DQV since i am working on ISO 19157 Data Quality Measures Register

<RobA> and can probably explore implementations

<Arofan> I also want to follow DQV, but am afraid of being spread too thin. Would be happy to review, etc.

antoine: sorry for typos on acronyms :)

antoine: annette_g interested with VVD
… RobA to contribute to DWV

<Dan> I am in the same box. Data Quality is an interest of mine.

antoine: expect task force to report regularly to the whole group, plenty of opportunities for people to report

Dan: cant be in both VVD qnd DQV at the same time
… I'm happy with reviewing

<RobA> i will follow VVD - in discussions re collaboration via CDIF and if possible will contribute indirectly that way.

csarven: no exclusion of anyone to contribute to various things

<pchampin> +1 csarven

antoine: yes, many ways to contribute, task forces mostly for organization but everyone can comment and raise issues
… when using Github for discussions issues on specs, all is visible to everyone
… we should be ready for having comments from everyone including beyond the group and task forces

<csarven> https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#ReqsAllGroups re "task forces"

YoucTagh: agree, usually in the task forces tab there is a link to suscribe to the meetings

<YoucTagh> https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/dx/task-forces/

antoine: I guess it is the chair's responsibility to create the task forces (tabs?)

pchampin: it is on me probably.
… the system team at W3C is improving the features
… we might be ginny pigs on the new features

<antoine> s/chari's/chairs'

antoine: should we record a formal action to fill the site?

pchampin: we'll discuss that with the chairs

antoine: many things on the agenda, including for the task forces to explain their actions
… I propose to postpone that to the next call

<RobA> +1

<Les> +1

<Arofan> +1

RobA: related to Github issues.
… keep the philosophical debates from the technical actionable specification production debates
… These are different types of issues

one way is to organize this as projects with separate issues

antoine: it's difficult to manage this way, actionable aspects can move to philosophical issues

annette_g: was indeed challenging
… option is to boundd the time spent on specific issues

annette_g: better job integrating the two types of issues

<RobA> sounds good

bartkl: managing projects on Github is more complex but discussions on issues can be sufficient

Les: I support the idea of having multiple Github projects

<RobA> the mechanisms are not mutually exclusive i think

Les: in pratices some issues don't progress much in a long time
… a project is useful and flexible as well

antoine: long issues could stay in the back log?

Les:

Les: projects would decide what is in scope or not

<csarven> Aside: from the W3C Process: "The scope of these assignments must not exceed the scope of the group’s charter."

Dan: I'm concerned, using projects for existing specs may be an pb.

<RobA> I quite like the idea of moving issues to discussions if necessary rather than clogging up the backlog, and having clean production workflows via projects for spec refinement

Dan: For VVD this is a new spec so we can start from scratch.
… no one fits all approach

antoine: individually making the decision of what's manageable or not.

Dan: each project in the WG must have freedom to approach the orgnization as they like

RobA: we can have projectless specs, while keeping a backlog of actions

RobA: having the backlog can become big
… so projectless discussion issues may work for some specs not for all

annette_g: we could make a project for the high-level discussions

Les: what is not done well is labelling
… I support the idea of projects but no pb if the group decides differently

YoucTagh: labels needed and useful to keep track of interest for issues
… prjects vs. labels: important is to have a clear way of dealing with things

Summer calls

FranckC: I asked for people to respond and it was a flop :(
… information is very partial now
… 2 meetings at risk : begining of August
… I propose to discuss at the call for chairs and W3C staff
… I'll send the link again

Physical meeting - brainstorming

antoine: good thing to have physical meetings,
… chairs intend to come back to that and have a proposition during the coming call

<annette_g> great job doing minutes for the first time, FranckM!