19:44:11 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dxwg
19:44:11 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/06/19-dxwg-irc
19:44:19 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dxwg
19:49:59 <dsr> dsr has joined #dxwg
19:56:26 <PWinstanley> PWinstanley has joined #dxwg
19:56:35 <roba> roba has joined #dxwg
19:57:08 <PWinstanley> present+
19:57:26 <kcoyle> present+
19:57:33 <kcoyle> chair: Karen Coyle
19:57:34 <LarsG> LarsG has joined #dxwg
19:57:42 <LarsG> present+
20:00:03 <kcoyle> regrets+ antoine
20:01:03 <roba> present+
20:01:36 <alejandra> alejandra has joined #dxwg
20:02:17 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dxwg
20:02:23 <ncar> ncar has joined #dxwg
20:02:38 <ncar> present+ (Nicholas)
20:03:19 <annette_g> present+
20:03:36 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> Jaroslav_Pullmann has joined #dxwg
20:04:23 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> present+
20:04:25 <SimonCox> SimonCox has joined #dxwg
20:04:54 <PWinstanley> scribenick: PWinstanley
20:05:40 <alejandra> present+
20:05:44 <kcoyle> https://www.w3.org/2018/06/12-dxwg-minutes
20:06:15 <PWinstanley> Topic: Minutes of previous meeting
20:06:38 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: accept minutes of 06/12
20:07:30 <Ixchel> Ixchel has joined #dxwg
20:07:35 <Ixchel> present+
20:07:51 <PWinstanley> Topic: UCR
20:08:06 <DaveBrowning> DaveBrowning has joined #dxwg
20:08:21 <DaveBrowning> present+
20:09:31 <kcoyle> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13hV2tJ6Kg2Hfe7e1BowY5QfCIweH9GxSCFQV1aWtOPg/edit#heading=h.m03bsvydfkcm
20:09:34 <SimonCox> present+
20:10:02 <PWinstanley> Profiles may be written in or may link to a validation language (ShEx, SHACL, XMLschema). ID41 (5.41)
20:10:17 <kcoyle> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13hV2tJ6Kg2Hfe7e1BowY5QfCIweH9GxSCFQV1aWtOPg/edit#heading=h.gx1l7t7tl8iq
20:10:22 <PWinstanley> Profiles may be coordinated with validation schemas. ID48 (5.48)
20:10:34 <ncar> An obvious pair of in scope I think
20:10:39 <kcoyle> q?
20:10:43 <alejandra> +q
20:10:51 <kcoyle> ack alejandra
20:10:55 <roba> +1 in scope - what does coordinated mean?
20:11:16 <roba> reference?
20:11:17 <PWinstanley> alejandra: what does coordinated mean
20:11:22 <roba> include?
20:11:39 <alejandra> +1 to changing the wording
20:11:42 <alejandra> associated?
20:11:52 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: may point to a validation schema   -- could use a different form of words.  Associated, etc
20:11:53 <ncar> s/coordinated/related to/ ?
20:12:03 <alejandra> +q
20:12:09 <kcoyle> ack alejandra
20:12:27 <PWinstanley> alejandra: I can't see the difference between the two.
20:12:36 <annette_g> q+
20:12:48 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
20:12:51 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: there may be a link, but it might be server information (eg with conneg)
20:13:28 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
20:13:31 <ncar> +q
20:13:31 <PWinstanley> annette_g: giving a human readable description might be put here - not necessarily machine-redable
20:13:35 <kcoyle> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
20:14:00 <alejandra> ok, the mention of validation language vs validation schema is implying two different associations
20:14:33 <PWinstanley> Jaroslav_Pullmann: what are we going to express with linking schema to profiles - a hint on where to find a schema, or an idea of which schema the instance has been validated with?
20:14:37 <annette_g> I think whatever gets validated should be machine-readable.
20:14:56 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: none of the use cases say that the instance should be valid
20:15:22 <PWinstanley> Jaroslav_Pullmann: the resource might link the the validation source to state formally what validated
20:15:55 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: I am nervous of people declaring that their instances are valid.
20:16:01 <ncar> me!
20:16:07 <ncar> +q
20:16:28 <PWinstanley> ncar: can I suggest that we vote on these separately
20:16:55 <alejandra> +q
20:17:04 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept Profiles may be written in or may link to a validation language (ShEx, SHACL, XMLschema). ID41 as in scope
20:17:12 <ncar> 1+
20:17:16 <roba> +1
20:17:18 <annette_g> +1
20:17:19 <ncar> +1
20:17:26 <kcoyle> ack ncar
20:17:29 <kcoyle> ack alejandra
20:17:33 <PWinstanley> +1
20:17:56 <SimonCox> +1
20:18:13 <DaveBrowning> +1
20:18:32 <LarsG> +1
20:18:55 <PWinstanley> alejandra: the first discusses validation language, so we need to adjust the wording
20:19:06 <alejandra> +1 with rewording, clarifying that it points to a document written in a validation language
20:19:36 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: accept Profiles may be written in or may link to a document or schema in a validation language (ShEx, SHACL, XMLschema). ID41
20:19:36 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1
20:20:06 <AndreaPerego> AndreaPerego has joined #dxwg
20:20:09 <annette_g> +1
20:20:16 <roba> -1 on basis of redundancy
20:20:19 <AndreaPerego> present+ AndreaPerego
20:20:43 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept as in scope Requirement: Profiles may be coordinated with/associated with validation schemas that would validate the instance data.
20:20:48 <ncar> -1
20:21:00 <roba> now i mean  -1 on basis of redundancy
20:21:01 <alejandra> -1 as it is redundant and equivalent to the previous one
20:21:22 <annette_g> q+
20:21:30 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
20:21:31 <DaveBrowning> -1 - redundant
20:21:38 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, make logs world
20:21:39 <roba> the second...
20:21:45 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
20:21:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/06/19-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
20:21:54 <PWinstanley> annette_g: are people giving -1 to the first, or to the second proposal
20:21:57 <LarsG> q+ to ask about policy of duplicates
20:21:59 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: to the second
20:22:03 <kcoyle> ack LarsG
20:22:03 <Zakim> LarsG, you wanted to ask about policy of duplicates
20:22:23 <PWinstanley> LarsG: do we have a policy about duplicate requirements, or are we normalising?
20:22:48 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: we can have duplicate or overlapping requirement - we can remove or blend during the UCR process
20:22:50 <LarsG> in that case +1
20:23:06 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
20:23:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/06/19-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
20:23:16 <roba> q+
20:23:26 <kcoyle> ack roba
20:23:36 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: we haven't resolved this - do we think additional discussion will resolve? if not then we should drop
20:24:23 <PWinstanley> roba: I've been through the UCR and people can't trace back.  I think we should avoid the UCR and just drop but make sure that the UCR traceability is clear
20:25:21 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: we need 1:1 or 1:n links.  Can you link a single requirement to the use case?
20:25:45 <PWinstanley> ... let's resolve in the following sense...
20:26:11 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: Requirement: Profiles may be coordinated with validation schemas. is redundant; ID 48 will be linked to the same requirement
20:26:18 <annette_g> +1
20:26:20 <PWinstanley> +1
20:26:20 <roba> +1
20:26:21 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1
20:26:27 <alejandra> +1
20:26:29 <DaveBrowning> +1
20:26:31 <LarsG> +1
20:26:43 <ncar> +1
20:26:55 <kcoyle> ID2 https://docs.google.com/document/d/13hV2tJ6Kg2Hfe7e1BowY5QfCIweH9GxSCFQV1aWtOPg/edit#heading=h.bdr07yfzu6h
20:26:58 <PWinstanley> profiles must have identifiers that can be served with a response to an API or http request. ID2 (5.2)
20:27:09 <kcoyle> Requirement: profiles must have identifiers that can be served with a response to an API or http request. ID2
20:27:13 <ncar> +1
20:27:15 <annette_g> +10
20:27:19 <PWinstanley> +1
20:27:22 <alejandra> +1
20:27:26 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1
20:27:27 <roba> +1
20:27:31 <AndreaPerego> +1
20:27:32 <DaveBrowning> +1
20:27:43 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: in scope: Requirement: profiles must have identifiers that can be served with a response to an API or http request. ID2
20:27:44 <LarsG> +1
20:27:45 <SimonCox> +1
20:27:55 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> ... but why mentioning concrete protocol/interface?
20:28:26 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
20:28:38 <kcoyle> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
20:28:56 <PWinstanley> Jaroslav_Pullmann: does it mean profiles are resolved by URLs?
20:29:33 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: looking at the use case, it is specific to conneg
20:30:16 <PWinstanley> Jaroslav_Pullmann: the resolution isn't mentioned in the use case.  are these concrete terms (API, HTTP request, etc) clearly in the use cases?
20:30:33 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: why don't we just say that profiles will have identifiers?
20:31:05 <PWinstanley> ... but if you still have issues with the use case then put the discussion on github
20:31:43 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: the next is from that same use case (ID2)
20:31:59 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept as in scope Requirement: Clients should be able to determine which profiles are supported by a server, and with which content types. ID2
20:32:07 <annette_g> q+
20:32:13 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
20:32:41 <AndreaPerego> meeting: Dataset Exchange Working Group Teleconference
20:32:51 <AndreaPerego> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2018.06.19
20:32:53 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
20:32:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/06/19-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
20:33:04 <PWinstanley> annette_g: here's where we start getting into conneg where the use cases seems to describe how conneg should work - it is getting circular.  I would like a motivating use case.  there have been some in the mailing list discussion
20:33:19 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: are you wanting the use case revised ?
20:33:49 <PWinstanley> annette_g: yes
20:33:50 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
20:33:57 <ncar> q+
20:34:16 <kcoyle> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
20:34:42 <PWinstanley> Jaroslav_Pullmann: it goes into detail, but I understood the underlying motivation. we could make it more generally
20:34:55 <ncar> I volunteer
20:34:57 <kcoyle> ack ncar
20:35:04 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: can someone take this offline and rewrite?
20:35:45 <annette_g> q+
20:36:15 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: the use case must provide some sense of intent
20:36:16 <roba> the main thing UC should really do is specify pre and post-conditions..
20:36:18 <LarsG> q+ to give a reason
20:36:49 <PWinstanley> ... you need to present the problem, not the solution
20:37:02 <PWinstanley> annette_g: it is a matter of finding the underlying problem
20:37:09 <kcoyle> ACTION: ncar to re-create ID 2
20:37:10 <trackbot> Error finding 'ncar'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/users>.
20:37:12 <ncar> ok, I accept!
20:37:13 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
20:37:17 <PWinstanley> LarsG: the point is the client needs to know if it can process the data, or not
20:37:20 <kcoyle> ack LarsG
20:37:20 <Zakim> LarsG, you wanted to give a reason
20:37:31 <annette_g> problem, with context
20:37:55 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
20:38:16 <kcoyle> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
20:38:28 <PWinstanley> Jaroslav_Pullmann: is this a general motivation for profiles?
20:38:36 <roba> q+
20:38:48 <PWinstanley> ... to assure they are served in a way the client can use them
20:39:14 <kcoyle> ack roba
20:39:15 <PWinstanley> ... do we have a statement of why profiles matter?
20:39:36 <PWinstanley> roba: profiles are a statement of interoperability
20:39:56 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: if you can't find that in any use cases, then you need to add one expressing this
20:40:30 <kcoyle> Requirement: There should be a way for a client to look up additional information about a profile.
20:41:14 <annette_g> q+
20:41:21 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: ncar  can you look at what Antoine did with the Europeana use case - rewrite and then re-extract the requirements
20:41:23 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
20:41:29 <annette_g> What I'm seeing a requirement for is a standardized way to indicate the
20:41:29 <annette_g> availability of alternative forms of a dataset with different profiles
20:41:29 <annette_g> and to enable the end user (human or script) to receive the most
20:41:29 <annette_g> appropriate one for their use.
20:42:01 <kcoyle> Profiles offered by a service must be discoverable through a machine-readable graph of metadata that describes what is offered and how to invoke the offered profiles. ID5
20:42:59 <roba> q+
20:43:07 <kcoyle> ack roba
20:43:23 <kcoyle> q+
20:43:30 <annette_g> q+
20:43:35 <kcoyle> ack kcoyle
20:43:38 <PWinstanley> roba: this is just addressing the previous point about need for profiles, the difference being that it is a statement about macine readability
20:43:52 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: does the use of 'graph' limit it to RDF?
20:44:08 <PWinstanley> roba: it just refers to objects and associations
20:44:38 <PWinstanley> ... there are databases without graph models, but they can be expressed in graph terms
20:44:40 <kcoyle> ack annette_g
20:45:16 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> .. +1 for dropping graph, and what about turning service to web resource: Profiles offered by a web reesource must be discoverable ..
20:45:45 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: we are getting to the point where this should be made less specific as it refers to solution space
20:46:25 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> q+
20:46:58 <PWinstanley> Jaroslav_Pullmann: what about service, because conneg is related to web resources
20:47:54 <roba> q+
20:47:55 <PWinstanley> q+
20:48:27 <kcoyle> ack Jaroslav_Pullmann
20:48:30 <kcoyle> ack roba
20:48:48 <PWinstanley> roba: I think that resources may or may not be backed by a service -I'm happy as it reflects the use case
20:48:55 <kcoyle> ack PWinstanley
20:49:52 <roba> I'm agnostic - all resources are backed by a service.. so its kind of redundant and can be removed
20:50:00 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept as in scope PROPOSED: Profiles must be discoverable through a machine-readable metadata that describes what is offered and how to invoke the offered profiles. ID5
20:50:19 <PWinstanley> +1
20:50:22 <SimonCox> +1
20:50:26 <alejandra> +1
20:50:26 <roba> +1
20:50:27 <DaveBrowning>  +1
20:50:37 <annette_g> +1
20:50:39 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1
20:50:45 <AndreaPerego> +1 - but I'm unsure about the MUST
20:50:52 <LarsG> +1
20:51:56 <AndreaPerego> Agreed. Thanks, kcoyle.
20:51:56 <kcoyle> RESOLVED: accept as in scope Profiles must be discoverable through a machine-readable metadata that describes what is offered and how to invoke the offered profiles. ID5
20:52:10 <annette_g> It must be possible for profiles to be made discoverable through machine-readble metadata that describes what is offered and how to invoke the offered profiles.
20:52:18 <PWinstanley> rrsagent, create minutes v2
20:52:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/06/19-dxwg-minutes.html PWinstanley
20:52:25 <annette_g> yes
20:52:44 <annette_g> np
20:53:04 <kcoyle> Requirement: Profiles must support discoverability via search engines (UC 5.40) #222 (Github discussion) ID40
20:53:41 <SimonCox> must? or should?
20:53:48 <kcoyle> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/222
20:54:11 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: yes, it probably is a 'should'
20:54:17 <roba> shuld
20:54:22 <SimonCox> 'support discoverability' or 'be discoverable'
20:54:30 <ncar> +1 if should - we *should* aim for this
20:54:50 <alejandra> +1 if changed to should
20:54:55 <annette_g> +1
20:54:58 <PWinstanley> +1
20:55:17 <AndreaPerego> q+
20:55:20 <alejandra> +q
20:55:28 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: in scope Requirement: Profiles should support discoverability via search engines (UC 5.40) #222 (Github discussion) ID40
20:55:37 <PWinstanley> AndreaPerego: still unsure about what this requirement is about
20:57:00 <alejandra> https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#ID40
20:57:20 <kcoyle> ack roba
20:57:41 <PWinstanley> roba: it was about exposing DCAT content .  the requirement was originally related to schema.org equivalents
20:57:41 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> would we like to distinguish both cases - profiles should be modeled in a way supporting their discoverability by search engines <->  search engines may use profile links to support the discoverability of compliant data instances
20:57:56 <SimonCox> ack AndreaPerego
20:58:01 <kcoyle> ack AndreaPerego
20:58:47 <PWinstanley> AndreaPerego: it still isn't clear to me - there can be alignment between dcat and schema.org, but we are dependent on how search engines work
20:59:19 <PWinstanley> ... this is about best practices in the publication of metadata, and is related to the DCAT/Schema.org alignment
20:59:36 <PWinstanley> ... we are unable to control how search engines index profiles
20:59:44 <SimonCox> ack alejandra
21:00:24 <PWinstanley> alejandra: I agree with AndreaPerego - it isn't a good idea to be specific abotu things that we cannot control, such as how search engines work.
21:00:50 <roba> this isnt about profiles, other than delivering schema.org instead of DCAT may be done by profile negotiation.
21:00:55 <PWinstanley> ... there may already be a requirement for the same metadata expressed in different vocabularies
21:01:32 <PWinstanley> kcoyle: let's try to resolve this in the github discussion.  when we return we might have a rewording (put that in the github discussion)
21:01:37 <alejandra> +1 to roba, the requirement should be about having profiles referring different vocabularies (different context files for the same data)
21:01:45 <SimonCox> RRSAgent: draft minutes v2
21:01:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/06/19-dxwg-minutes.html SimonCox
21:02:01 <annette_g> bye all!
21:02:04 <AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!
21:02:15 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> bye!
21:02:16 <alejandra> thanks! bye all
21:02:19 <Jaroslav_Pullmann> present-
21:02:31 <LarsG> bye all
21:03:50 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
21:03:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/06/19-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
21:14:43 <annette_g> annette_g has left #dxwg
23:26:51 <Zakim> Zakim has left #dxwg