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