– DRAFT –
DXWG CNEG Subgroup Telecon
07 November 2018
<roba> * the link for webex i have says its expired :-(
<roba> * yep - but you dont seem to be on audio
<roba> * i cant hear you at all and it shows no mic symbol next to you
<roba> * it not making the join meeting button green - so i guess that means you are not on as host?
<roba> * go to skype?
agenda confirmed
<roba> proposed: accept minutes https://www.w3.org/2018/10/10-dxwgcneg-minutes.html
+1
<roba> +1\
<roba> +1
Resolved: accept minutes https://www.w3.org/2018/10/10-dxwgcneg-minutes.html
https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/products/4
action-231
<trackbot> action-231 -- Robert Sanderson to Submit topic for face to face meeting about test runner/ results repositories -- due 2018-10-17 -- OPEN
<trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/231
action is still open
<trackbot> Created ACTION-257 - Still open [on Ingo Simonis - due 2018-11-14].
close action-257
<trackbot> Closed action-257.
the action is still open
action-233?
<trackbot> action-233 -- Lars G. Svensson to Extract definitions from IETF document to form basis of abstract model -- due 2018-10-17 -- OPEN
<trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/233
LarsG has written up something, action can be closed
close action-233
<trackbot> Closed action-233.
action-234?
<trackbot> action-234 -- Nicholas Car to Use definitions to create abstract model diagram and text -- due 2018-10-17 -- OPEN
<trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/234
there is no diagram for the diagram yet, so this issue is still open
roba: wanted to create a sequence diagram, perhaps that is not really necessary
… or do we need to have more text
… will revisit this
Keep action open
action-235?
<trackbot> action-235 -- Rob Atkinson to Create sequence diagram from abstract model and definitions -- due 2018-10-17 -- OPEN
<trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/235
roba: this depends on 233 and 234. Will revisit this one
… we were discussing a formal UML one or is a easier pictogram easier
LarsG: a pictogram should do, we're not doing formal UML modelling here
action-240?
<trackbot> action-240 -- Lars G. Svensson to Make a suggestion to deal with #288 -- due 2018-11-01 -- OPEN
<trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/240
LarsG: Wrote up https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/288#issuecomment-434213949
ncar has removed the label already
close action-240
<trackbot> Closed action-240.
action-249?
<trackbot> action-249 -- Lars G. Svensson to Add note about qsa to the conneg document -- due 2018-11-02 -- OPEN
<trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/249
LarsG: handled in https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/511
Note is in the document
close action-249
<trackbot> Closed action-249.
action-251?
<trackbot> action-251 -- Robert Sanderson to Write up something for others to reflect on - places in issue 261 -- due 2018-11-02 -- OPEN
<trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/251
handled in https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/261
rob Sanderson's comment https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/261#issuecomment-435325246
close action-261
<trackbot> Closed action-261.
close action-251
<trackbot> Closed action-251.
action-261?
<trackbot> Sorry, but action-261 does not exist.
roba: we met for editorial review
… reviewed actions
… and issues
… the document is ready for review from the group
… will send email to list as soon as we've cleaned up the can-be-closed issues
roba: #378 not marked for closing, leave it in the document
… #513 seems done, we can close and remove from the document
… #379 content is de-duplicated. close.
<roba> A client requesting the representation of a resource conforming to a profile MUST identify the resource by a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) [rfc3986] and MUST identify a profile either by a URI or a token that unambiguously identifies the profile for the server within that request/response session.
roba: #515 seems to be addressed in the paragraph above. We can close that one, too
… that one is handled in an open PR
… [browsing the document]
… #391 versioning of profile identifiers. We have not handled that one yet
… we need to write some useful text
<roba> if we use URIs for profiles but the profile definition changes, how will clients know? Do we need to make strong statements about versions and URI uniqueness?
<roba> * we have been meeting for last 30 mins on skype after webex failed on us
<roba> * skype_id and I'll dial you in
+1 to roba's proposal
<roba> https://rawgit.com/w3c/dxwg/conneg-doc/conneg-by-ap/index.html
roba: describing the process, any problems with publishing this as FPWD?
azaroth: no, it looks ok
roba: [recaps the decisions on the issues and actions]
… talked to Holger Knublauch on the difference between SHACL shapes
… and JSON-LD frames. Is this well-known?
azaroth: SHACL is geared towards validation (does it validate or crash?).
… frames is for structuring the data. the problem it tries to solve is,
… how do I shape a graph into a structure the user can understand
roba: so it's a bridge between a shape and a profile
azaroth: correct.
roba: continuing with issue #462. There is content in the abstract model
… so we can close
… #500 (order of negotiation). The issue is still under discussion, so we leave it open
azaroth: [discusses time-based negotiation.] We need to say something like
… "if there are other dimensions, we need to handle them in the right order"
<roba> Do we need to specify the order in which negotation headers are processed? Memento specifies that time-based negotiation MUST take place before any other negotiation
roba: proposes that we extend for FPWD "it would appear that it will be necessary
<azaroth> +1
roba: to negotiation for profile before media type or language"
<roba> It would appear that it will necessary to negotiate for profile before language or content-type. Memento specifies that time-based negotiation MUST take place before any other negotiation.
azaroth: the profile might specify languages or other things, so that's a super-structure
LarsG: which means time-based first, then profile-based negotiation
azaroth: correct.
roba: has made the change
… #510 (http options) still under discussion, leave it in
… #461 (security and privacy) text is good enough, we can close
… #287 (indication of conformance) has been addressed in the document
LarsG: We leave it open since it also is labelled profile-guidance,
… but remove it from the document.
roba: shall we freeze the document now or try to make more changes
… ?
<LarsG_> LarsG: Ruben and I are having a writing session on November 23
<LarsG_> ... so we should have something substantial towards the end of the month
<LarsG_> Meeting adjourned
<LarsG_> ... slightly awkward minutes at the end since IRC suddenly died...