IRC log of dxwgcneg on 2019-09-12
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 11:50:05 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #dxwgcneg
- 11:50:05 [RRSAgent]
- logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/09/12-dxwgcneg-irc
- 11:50:07 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs public
- 11:50:07 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #dxwgcneg
- 11:50:09 [trackbot]
- Meeting: Dataset Exchange Working Group Teleconference
- 11:50:09 [trackbot]
- Date: 12 September 2019
- 11:50:25 [LarsG]
- Meeting: DXWG CNEG Subgroup Telecon
- 11:50:37 [LarsG]
- RRSAgent, please make logs public
- 11:50:46 [LarsG]
- present+
- 11:50:58 [LarsG]
- RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
- 11:50:58 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/12-dxwgcneg-minutes.html LarsG
- 12:02:53 [roba]
- roba has joined #dxwgcneg
- 12:07:58 [roba]
- * i dont think so... we could switch to skype or hangouts?
- 12:11:50 [roba]
- * Nick is on a plane i think and dont think we can resolve this easily.
- 12:14:24 [roba]
- * i was able to dial in the the australian number so the meeting itself is valid
- 12:18:48 [roba]
- * ok coming up
- 12:20:26 [roba]
- * try this https://hangouts.google.com/call/MbTSvGuKXd1X73Rv4C81AEEM?no_rd
- 12:22:58 [roba]
- * you show up but i cant hear anything
- 12:25:44 [roba]
- * OK
- 12:26:21 [LarsG]
- Topic: Confirm Agenda
- 12:26:37 [LarsG]
- (it's pretty full, let's see how far we get)
- 12:26:43 [LarsG]
- https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:CNEG-Telecon2019.09.12
- 12:26:50 [LarsG]
- +1 (I wrote it...)
- 12:26:58 [roba]
- +1
- 12:27:07 [LarsG]
- RESOLVED: Agenda confirmed
- 12:27:16 [LarsG]
- Topic: Approve minutes from last meeting
- 12:27:23 [LarsG]
- https://www.w3.org/2019/08/29-dxwgcneg-minutes
- 12:27:35 [roba]
- +1
- 12:27:43 [LarsG]
- +1
- 12:27:54 [LarsG]
- RESOLVED: Minutes from last meeting approved
- 12:28:09 [LarsG]
- Topic: Check list of open action items
- 12:28:16 [LarsG]
- https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/products/4
- 12:28:28 [LarsG]
- Action-193?
- 12:28:28 [trackbot]
- Action-193 -- Rob Atkinson to Move jmeter test suite to within w3c systems -- due 2018-09-05 -- OPEN
- 12:28:28 [trackbot]
- https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/193
- 12:28:44 [LarsG]
- Can you say anything about that, roba?
- 12:29:56 [roba]
- both still open - though 358 probably moot now - I'll coordinate with Nick during implementation when I have choices to make - we can provide any changes needed back as comments.
- 12:30:11 [LarsG]
- OK
- 12:30:31 [LarsG]
- Topic: Discussion of schedule for moving to REC before end-of-year
- 12:30:43 [LarsG]
- See steps to recommendation https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/wiki/Steps-to-Recommendation-2019
- 12:30:46 [roba]
- the last PR frees me up to complete the HTTP part of the implementation I'm doing
- 12:31:34 [LarsG]
- which is the last PR, roba?
- 12:32:03 [roba]
- https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/1066
- 12:32:36 [LarsG]
- OK, fine.
- 12:32:50 [LarsG]
- Ready to move on to the next topic?
- 12:32:57 [roba]
- ok
- 12:32:59 [LarsG]
- Topic: Discussion of schedule for moving to REC before end-of-year
- 12:33:07 [LarsG]
- See steps to recommendation https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/wiki/Steps-to-Recommendation-2019
- 12:33:46 [LarsG]
- We need to ask the group for review and possibly other communities, too
- 12:34:14 [LarsG]
- ... Do you know if Nick is available tomorrow?
- 12:34:56 [roba]
- Yep - OGC can be wider than the CSW spec WG - I'm about to present on the benefits of it to a session at OGC in a couple of hours, and I have a contact at the US NGA interested I will urge to look at it.
- 12:35:39 [roba]
- ... possibly - he arrives back in the afternoon apparently
- 12:36:34 [LarsG]
- LarsG has joined #dxwgcneg
- 12:37:10 [LarsG]
- Can you add those to the list in today's agenda?
- 12:37:15 [roba]
- Obviously we need a final editorial clean up to flag "features at risk"
- 12:37:26 [roba]
- ok - edit agenda?
- 12:37:39 [LarsG]
- Which features would you see as "at risk"?
- 12:38:34 [roba]
- IETF and the registration of the headers itself I guess as we dont fully control that..
- 12:39:45 [LarsG]
- That's an interesting point. Do we need to show implementation evidence
- 12:39:59 [LarsG]
- ... or do we need to show that they have been standardised?
- 12:40:01 [roba]
- This community has little idea what they mean by profiles but conneg makes it clear what the implications are so that should be an issue - if they cant define conformance maybe they cant use this spec, but that doesnt invalidate the spec
- 12:40:20 [roba]
- we do - but not till end of Oct I think
- 12:40:33 [LarsG]
- When you say "this community" do you mean "IETF"?
- 12:41:07 [roba]
- no, DXWG
- 12:42:18 [LarsG]
- OK, so let's mark the http stuff as "feature at risk"
- 12:42:31 [LarsG]
- ... I can take an action on that
- 12:42:37 [roba]
- I cant see how to avoid it..
- 12:43:10 [LarsG]
- ACTION: LarsG to mark http implementation as "feature-at-risk" since we don't know what IETF will say about it
- 12:43:11 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-371 - Mark http implementation as "feature-at-risk" since we don't know what ietf will say about it [on Lars G. Svensson - due 2019-09-19].
- 12:43:40 [roba]
- If we implement the rest, and we have no counter-proposals active for an alternative (or proof it wont work) then I say its not at-risk
- 12:44:39 [LarsG]
- OK, so are you confident there will be two indenpendent implementations of QSA?
- 12:44:39 [roba]
- ...as there are no external dependencies. Functionally its a very light spec.
- 12:45:26 [roba]
- Yep Nicks Australian Government Linked Data stuff and my OGC stuff - using different code bases and strategies.
- 12:45:38 [LarsG]
- Great
- 12:46:58 [LarsG]
- Regarding review, I can offer to contact IETF, DCMI, Europeana, DCAT-AP.
- 12:47:48 [LarsG]
- Shall we ping Nick that he contact OAI-PMH, ODRL and tool makers?
- 12:49:24 [LarsG]
- <silence>
- 12:49:25 [roba]
- there was a comment on issue https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1055 where people are saying that DCAT-AP doesnt support content-negotiation for data distributions (in general) - claiming DCAT specifies this
- 12:49:51 [LarsG]
- Yes, but is that an issue for our spec?
- 12:50:09 [roba]
- but its incorrect as it clearly states it supports access via API and the cardinality of dc:format is not restricted.
- 12:50:54 [roba]
- So no - i think its an issue for DCAT-AP - but if they really do hold that position then this spec isnt relevant to them.
- 12:51:17 [roba]
- (it makes no difference to this spec)
- 12:51:54 [LarsG]
- OK, but we can ask them through Andrea anyway. I think he knows enough of the context
- 12:51:55 [roba]
- I suspect its just misinterpretation and some slightly inconsistent wording in DCAT.
- 12:52:10 [roba]
- +1
- 12:52:25 [LarsG]
- I'd like to move on to review of the public comments list. OK?
- 12:52:36 [roba]
- Andrea will care about other APIs like OGC Web Feature Server which serve multiple formats..
- 12:52:51 [roba]
- OK
- 12:52:53 [LarsG]
- Topic: Review of comments on the public comments list
- 12:53:03 [LarsG]
- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-comments/
- 12:53:13 [LarsG]
- Are there any open comments we need to address?
- 12:53:51 [LarsG]
- There is https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-comments/2019Aug/0004.html from TomB
- 12:54:55 [roba]
- did you get a response from Tom after answering all his questions?
- 12:54:56 [LarsG]
- ... this is repeated in #1017 where Nick has asked (https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1017#issuecomment-526164813) TomB and Karen if they are fine with the response
- 12:55:04 [LarsG]
- ... no comments so far
- 12:55:29 [LarsG]
- ... so no, I haven't got a response from TomB
- 12:55:47 [LarsG]
- ... I'll ping them on the comments list
- 12:56:15 [LarsG]
- Action: LarsG to ping Karen and TomB regarding the answer listed in https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1017#issuecomment-526164813
- 12:56:15 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-372 - Ping karen and tomb regarding the answer listed in https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1017#issuecomment-526164813 [on Lars G. Svensson - due 2019-09-19].
- 12:57:05 [LarsG]
- I think that apart from that we have no open comments we need to respond to
- 12:57:16 [roba]
- At some point these conversations drift off into lack of clarity about what they mean by profiles and the conformance implications - which are not actually relevant to this spec - so how do we draw a line under these threads
- 12:57:53 [LarsG]
- That's difficult. We need to show that we have addressed all original questions coming in through the comments list
- 12:58:33 [LarsG]
- ... Questions and comments coming through GitHub are solved when we're allowed to tag them as "due-for-closing"
- 12:59:26 [LarsG]
- Can we move on to open GH issues?
- 12:59:29 [roba]
- ok
- 12:59:40 [LarsG]
- Topic: Open GitHub Issues
- 12:59:42 [LarsG]
- https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A%22Conneg+3PWD%22
- 12:59:55 [LarsG]
- 7 open...
- 13:00:13 [LarsG]
- ... in this milestone
- 13:00:54 [LarsG]
- ... 19 as a whole: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Aprofile-negotiation
- 13:01:12 [LarsG]
- Let's start from the bottom
- 13:01:23 [LarsG]
- #290 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/290
- 13:01:31 [roba]
- well 1031 - PR has now been done it can be closed
- 13:02:13 [roba]
- i dont have that im my list of 7 ?
- 13:02:39 [LarsG]
- There is emerging consensus on #290 (three +1 votes), if you add yours, it's four
- 13:02:50 [LarsG]
- (no it's in the list of 19)
- 13:03:28 [roba]
- done - its a requirement issue anyway - just a check off its covered.
- 13:03:53 [LarsG]
- #389 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/389 what can we say about the OGC implementation?
- 13:04:22 [roba]
- in progress - been wiating for finalisation of HTTP token mappings which are necessary
- 13:04:42 [LarsG]
- OK, then you should be ready to go now!
- 13:04:54 [roba]
- 387 can be closed - I'm ready to go..
- 13:05:41 [LarsG]
- #505 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/505
- 13:06:36 [LarsG]
- We haven't reached consensus there yet
- 13:07:14 [LarsG]
- ... perhaps we cannot give normative advice
- 13:07:31 [roba]
- i dont think there are any arguments for HTTP to take precedence over QSA are there?
- 13:07:50 [roba]
- so IMHO we just need to check its clear
- 13:08:10 [LarsG]
- No there isn't. In my view the URL trumps any http header.
- 13:08:29 [LarsG]
- ... can you make a text proposal?
- 13:08:41 [LarsG]
- (needs to be merged by Monday...)
- 13:08:57 [roba]
- OK
- 13:09:40 [LarsG]
- ACTION: roba to provide text for order of precedence (#505)
- 13:09:41 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-373 - Provide text for order of precedence (#505) [on Rob Atkinson - due 2019-09-19].
- 13:10:26 [LarsG]
- #546 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/546 RobS hasn't answered to Nick's comment
- 13:11:36 [LarsG]
- We're well past the hour... How long can you hang on?
- 13:12:10 [roba]
- as long as you wish
- 13:12:26 [roba]
- this issue is moot as list tokenbs was removed long ago..
- 13:12:34 [LarsG]
- OK, then let's continue!
- 13:13:14 [LarsG]
- #548 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/548 Nick needs to look at that one. I'll ping him
- 13:14:25 [LarsG]
- #549 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/549 I can check with RobS on that one
- 13:14:48 [roba]
- Actually also #548 also solved by PR 1031
- 13:16:23 [LarsG]
- Oh good! I'll add that.
- 13:16:29 [LarsG]
- #575 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/575
- 13:17:17 [LarsG]
- Here there's still work to do (listed in https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/575#issuecomment-530362099)
- 13:17:43 [roba]
- - sorry just catching up on 549 - its a "nice to have" we might leave as an open issue pending availability of a canonical representation?
- 13:18:07 [LarsG]
- Can you take care of Antoine's issue 15 since it's about 303 redirects?
- 13:18:47 [LarsG]
- Yes, we can tag #549 as "profile-negotiation future work"
- 13:19:24 [LarsG]
- PROPOSED: Tag GH #549 as "profile-negotiation future work"
- 13:19:48 [roba]
- +1
- 13:19:54 [LarsG]
- +1
- 13:20:12 [LarsG]
- RESOLVED: Tag GH #549 as "profile-negotiation future work"
- 13:20:36 [LarsG]
- I'll ask RobS if that's fine with him
- 13:21:22 [LarsG]
- #678 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/678
- 13:21:28 [roba]
- I think we need to have an action on editorial for #575 - but I dont see any substantial changes are required - just better examples and explanation (we've updated several examples to use http-range14 friendly options anyway)
- 13:21:57 [LarsG]
- OK, can you take that action?
- 13:22:47 [roba]
- I've been hammered by deadlines this week - will try to find some time on weekend
- 13:22:57 [LarsG]
- ACTION: roba to perform final editorial changes from #575 (https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/575#issuecomment-530362099)
- 13:22:58 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-374 - Perform final editorial changes from #575 (https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/575#issuecomment-530362099) [on Rob Atkinson - due 2019-09-19].
- 13:23:11 [LarsG]
- Thanks, roba!
- 13:24:16 [LarsG]
- OK, back to #678. Kam hasn't responded to Nicks question. We should ping him again. I'll do that
- 13:24:44 [roba]
- yep nothing to do otherwise
- 13:25:01 [LarsG]
- #976 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/976
- 13:26:32 [LarsG]
- I cannot determine of this issue is resolved yet. We should ask antoine about that.
- 13:27:54 [LarsG]
- ... pinged him in the issue.
- 13:28:02 [roba]
- Its another rambly discussion that doesnt seem to have any effect on the spec - communities can decide what they call profiles and make up any conformance rules - conneg just provides a means to deliver what they ask for..
- 13:28:55 [LarsG]
- #1002 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1002
- 13:31:50 [LarsG]
- I've pinged antoine if the issue has been discussed to satisfaction
- 13:32:07 [roba]
- again - its just exploratory questions - not a concrete issue
- 13:32:37 [LarsG]
- OK, and it's not tagged for the milestone
- 13:33:04 [LarsG]
- #1017 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1017 we had that one further above with a corresponding action
- 13:33:17 [LarsG]
- #1022 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1022
- 13:35:13 [LarsG]
- Antoine has re-opened saying that "the current text (especially the hyperlinks) do blur the differentiation between functional and data profiles."
- 13:35:19 [roba]
- OK antoine has said this a "potential showstopper"
- 13:36:09 [LarsG]
- Yes, but that seems to be partly terminology. IIUC it could be fine to call the document "Content Negotiation by Data Profile"
- 13:37:15 [roba]
- It could be fine - but its actually fairly obvious. "content negotiation" implies data
- 13:38:07 [LarsG]
- True, although not all content is data...
- 13:38:21 [LarsG]
- ... depends on your definition of "data" of course
- 13:39:43 [LarsG]
- #1031 https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1031
- 13:40:12 [LarsG]
- There is a description and examples in the document, so perhaps we can mark this as due-for-closing
- 13:40:37 [roba]
- yep PR was merged
- 13:41:38 [roba]
- 1041 is dealkt with - Nick Raised it so needs a statement from him it addressed.
- 13:43:56 [roba]
- 1064 is an editorial cleanup we can close when PR removes note.
- 13:44:44 [LarsG]
- I can take care of #1064 now that #1063 has been merged
- 13:44:50 [roba]
- +1
- 13:45:13 [roba]
- which leaves #1042
- 13:45:13 [LarsG]
- OK, done with issues
- 13:45:44 [LarsG]
- Topic: Who updates the changelog in the document?
- 13:45:49 [LarsG]
- I can do that
- 13:46:01 [LarsG]
- Action: LarsG to update changelog in ED
- 13:46:02 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-375 - Update changelog in ed [on Lars G. Svensson - due 2019-09-19].
- 13:46:08 [LarsG]
- Topic: AOB
- 13:46:13 [LarsG]
- AOB?
- 13:46:48 [LarsG]
- <seemingly not...>
- 13:46:54 [roba]
- can we discuss #1042 - I think it might address the issue Antoine has by showing how its necessary in practice
- 13:47:10 [roba]
- is resolve 1022 ?
- 13:47:18 [roba]
- s/is/i.e/
- 13:48:32 [roba]
- ... i.e. how and why data and functional profiles are necessary in the grand scheme of things - as well as provide guidance for how to describe a service offering conneg-by-ap
- 13:49:20 [roba]
- I'll create a PR and ask Antoine to review ?
- 13:49:46 [LarsG]
- Yes please, and I'd like to review, too (then perhaps I understand what's meant...)
- 13:50:10 [roba]
- of cource you and Nick must review too!
- 13:50:42 [LarsG]
- ACTION: roba to create PR to resolve #1042 by showing how data and functional profiles work together
- 13:50:43 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-376 - Create pr to resolve #1042 by showing how data and functional profiles work together [on Rob Atkinson - due 2019-09-19].
- 13:50:58 [roba]
- its not a feature, so informative appendix - but perhaps might cut through the abstractness
- 13:51:02 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #dxwgcneg
- 13:51:21 [roba]
- zakim says we're done!
- 13:51:42 [LarsG]
- OK, so it wouldn't be normative content (i.e. it's editorial)?
- 13:52:06 [roba]
- hmm - open minded on that - its significant example
- 13:52:25 [LarsG]
- The point is that it's important for the review process
- 13:52:35 [roba]
- yep
- 13:52:46 [roba]
- (IMHO)
- 13:52:56 [LarsG]
- ... if it changes or adds normative content, we must highlight that
- 13:54:03 [roba]
- no its example DCAT metadata illustrating use of (and nature of) the idenfied functional profiles, not a requirement
- 13:54:38 [LarsG]
- OK.
- 13:54:48 [LarsG]
- So shall we call it a day?
- 13:54:52 [roba]
- (if we cant get the PR through we just dont provide an example)
- 13:55:03 [roba]
- yep - good work - thanks!
- 13:55:22 [LarsG]
- Thank you! Sleep well
- 13:55:25 [roba]
- Bye
- 13:55:35 [LarsG]
- RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
- 13:55:35 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/12-dxwgcneg-minutes.html LarsG
- 13:57:15 [LarsG]
- Chair: LarsG
- 13:57:25 [LarsG]
- Scribe: roba, LarsG
- 13:57:29 [LarsG]
- RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
- 13:57:29 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/12-dxwgcneg-minutes.html LarsG
- 13:58:03 [LarsG]
- regrets+ ncar
- 13:58:05 [LarsG]
- RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
- 13:58:05 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/12-dxwgcneg-minutes.html LarsG