proposed: accept minutes last meeting
<azaroth> +1
<PWinstanley> https://www.w3.org/2018/08/28-dxwg-minutes
<dsr> +1
+1
<DaveBrowning> +1
<SimonCox> +1
<alejandra> +1
<roba> +1
<PWinstanley> +1
<annette_g> +1
Resolved: accept minutes last meeting
https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/open
close: action-188
discussed actions 86 & 163 - no change to either yet
close action-188
<trackbot> Closed action-188.
close action-110
<trackbot> Closed action-110.
DaveBrowning reports the subgroup is close to the 2PWD
ncar reported a series of changes had been made to the Guidance document
<PWinstanley> https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#ProfilesRequirements
<PWinstanley> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/ProfileRoundup
PWinstanley: we have some use cases, we have a'roundup' documents with different proposals
PWinstanley: we need structure of Guidance to be put out for wide discussion so the group as a whole can decide on work, e.g. whether profileDesc is a Rec, Note etc.
DaveBrowning: we should ask the group as a whole via email
PWinstanley: there is much work to be done if profileDesc is to become a Rec
PWinstanley: profileDesc would need to be supported by the work currently in GitHub & ncar has bullet pointed work in docs to indicate this & kcoyle has summarised work in wiki pages
PWinstanley: people seem hesitant to discuss document structure with people still wanting another look
PWinstanley: I think we can make headway today (i.e. not delaying)
PWinstanley: our charter says we can work on profiling but we need to make decisions about how to proceed with specifics regarding proposals
PWinstanley: profileDesc proposal needs to indicate the gap it is filling
ncar: there is a need for profileDesc - his opinion
AndreaPerego: for a Rec, we need 2 independent implementations, can we do this?
AndreaPerego: risk is if we identify gap and propose solutions, will we be able to implement in time for WG?
<roba> +1
AndreaPerego: we should go for a Note and then see if we can move to a Rec if it looks like we can meet requirements
<Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to discuss non editorial requirements of Rec such as testing
azaroth: Recs need independent implementations and a test suite testing specific features
azaroth: if we go for a Note to a Rec, we need to do this fast in order to complete process in time of WG
PWinstanley: is this (azaroth's comments) about Guidance overall or profileDesc?
azaroth: specifically profileDesc, a technical part of Guidance
PWinstanley: are you saying the rest of Guidance would be a Rec?
azaroth: I'm not certain about the process of Best Practices rather than tech docs
<roba> we dont have enough input to justify best practices about guidance
annette_g: I support profileDesc as a Note or Rec to allow us to point to the formal description (lack of which is holding us back)
<roba> +1
annette_g: it would be strange for Guidance as a Rec but profileDesc as a Note
<azaroth> I believe that a TR can't normatively refer to a Note, as that would backdoor informal documents as providing requirements
<azaroth> But can refer to a Note informatively
<alejandra> is the shacl python validator open source, ncar ?
ncar: my projects are building an implementation of profileDesc and will likely need a test suite
SimonCox: it's not necessary to have Recs refering to only other Recs since they can refer to all sorts of thing
roba: annette_g summarised his thoughts regarding the requirement to document/describe formally profiles
roba: go for a Note and see if we get to Rec - much time already lost
roba: no assumption yet that Guidance would require use of profileDesc, only that it may be a way
roba: noone on this call has proposed profileDesc alternatives, need seems assumed
kcoyle: analysis of requirements (for profile guidance) and which are mey by profileDesc
kcoyle: profileDesc seems to describe environment in which profile exists but not the profile itself
<roba> +1 we need to be careful about claims - and we can prioritise that triage of requirements in the guidance group
annette_g: should we include in profileDesc a more robust description of what a profile is?
PWinstanley: elaborate?
annette_g: languages can be use, anything missing in existing schema languages...
PWinstanley: we talk about machine readable and RDF but what about diagrams and had crafted
roba: we choose a formalism first and W3C uses ontologies
roba: profileDesc specifically includes a definition of 'profile' which will be updated
roba: profileDesc fills gap note catered for by constraint languages (SHACL, ShEx etc) which do not talk about relationships between objects relevant to profiling
PWinstanley: have you, roba, written a gap analysis for profileDesc vis a vis constraint languages
roba: a discussion would be reasonable
PWinstanley: we need this gap analysis in the doc
roba: we can include a comparison table in the doc
alejandra: we need formalism, Note/Rec can be decided later
alejandra: seems no alternative to profileDesc
ncar: an action item from this meeting to generate a gap analysis for the Guidance doc would be good
<roba> should we map requirements to profiledesc at this point then?
PWinstanley: this can be done quickly and would give us a clear steer for profileDesc arguments
Action: ncar to draft a profileDesc gap analysis for the guidance document
<trackbot> Created ACTION-210 - Draft a profiledesc gap analysis for the guidance document [on Nicholas Car - due 2018-09-18].
<roba> - we dont have counter arguments yet - only process cycles - so where shoiuld we address them - issues would seem logical
PWinstanley: a few people have indicated writeup of profileDesc as a Note
roba: issues on requirements seems to be the way to go since there are no counter proposals
PWinstanley: comparison of Dublin Core profiles needs to be included in gap analysis
PWinstanley: at least a comparison with Singapore Framework is required
roba: read and agreed with Singapore Framework, should refere to it more
<SimonCox> +1 to needing an implementable version of profile descriptions! (Singapore Framework does not provide an implementation)
https://github.com/CSIRO-enviro-informatics/csiro-epub-dcap
ncar: I have done a technical analysis/review of profileDesc v. Singapore Framework and put up an example of profile described using this in the link above
Action: ncar to construct profileDesc as a Note
<trackbot> Created ACTION-211 - Construct profiledesc as a note [on Nicholas Car - due 2018-09-18].
proposal: present profileDesc as a Note
<azaroth> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<annette_g> doesn't it have to say PROPOSED?
kcoyle: GitHub Issue 323 lists vocabularies that are Notes
<alejandra> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/323
proposed: present profileDesc as a Note
<annette_g> +1
+1
<kcoyle> +1
<roba> +1
<PWinstanley> +1
<SimonCox> +1
<DaveBrowning> +1
<azaroth> +1
<alejandra> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
Resolved: present profileDesc as a Note
PWinstanley: what are the requirements from W3C for Guidance document (non-technical) as a Rec?
ncar: we have positioned the IETF doc v W3C work
ncar: we have included requirements for conneg in the doc
<azaroth> Thanks all, got to run.
<alejandra> thanks all, and bye
<annette_g> bye all
<AndreaPerego> Thanks, bye bye!
Succeeded: s/PWinstanley -/PWinstanley: /
Succeeded: s/PWinstanley -/PWinstanley: /
Succeeded: s/propose:/proposed:/
Succeeded: s/profileDesc as a Rec/profileDesc as a Note/
Succeeded: s/necissary/necessary/
Succeeded: s/holiding/holding/
Succeeded: s/cafreful/careful/
Succeeded: s/contraint/constraint/
Succeeded: s/resonable/reasonable/