Meeting minutes
<Ana> * Present+ Ana
admin
proposed: accept minutes of the last meeting - https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2020.01.21
https://www.w3.org/2020/01/14-dxwg-minutes
<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
<Caroline> +1
+1
<Ana> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<annette_g> +1
<alejandra> +1
Resolution: accept minutes of the last meeting - https://www.w3.org/2020/01/14-dxwg-minutes
DCAT update on key items
<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/milestone/24
RiccardoAlbertoni: we have closed some issues but some are still open. they are in a milestone 24.
<Caroline> ac RiccardoAlbertoni
<AndreaPerego> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/dxwg/andrea-perego-dxwg-errata/errata/index.html
RiccardoAlbertoni: the most important is the errata page. Andrea has recommended an approach in the link above
<AndreaPerego> Relevant discussion: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1182#issuecomment-575755992
RiccardoAlbertoni: Are we all happy with this? There has already been discussion
<Caroline> ac AndreaPerego
AndreaPerego: thanks to alejandra we found a standard / recommended approach for errata. We propose to follow the same approach.
<AndreaPerego> https://github.com/w3c/display_errata
AndreaPerego: The link from the W3C Github site I just posted in the minutes gives more detail
<AndreaPerego> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/dxwg/andrea-perego-dxwg-errata/errata/index.html
AndreaPerego: It is possible to bring into the one doc / framework errata from all of a workgroup's deliverables
… If we go this way then we have 1 doc for all deliverables. There is another option - one doc for each deliverable.
… So there is a decision to be made by the plenary
… so that we are consistent
<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1 to have a resolution about the approach
<alejandra> https://github.com/w3c/sdw
alejandra: I have a preference for one errata page per specification. If we split the repo then this makes it easier. It is also clearer for readers to know which deliverable any erratum refers to if they are in deliverable-specific pages
<alejandra> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/errata.html
alejandra: this is an example from the SSN W/G
<alejandra> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/time/errata.html
alejandra: and here is another for the time ontology
+1 to alejandra
proposed: to have one errata page for each deliverable
proposed: to use the W3C method for the errata page
<alejandra> +1 (it seems to me that it is the recommended method)
<Makx> +1
+1
<Caroline> +1
<Ana> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<annette_g> +1
<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
Resolution: to use the W3C method for the errata page
proposed: to have one errata page for each deliverable
<alejandra> +1
+1
<Caroline> +1
<Ana> +1
<AndreaPerego> 0
<annette_g> +1
<RiccardoAlbertoni> +0
Resolution: to have one errata page for each deliverable
PWinstanley: the benefits of having a single document. There are situations where we might have multiple deliverables
… if we are going to have separated pages would be nice to indicate because it would be easier on a single document
<alejandra> has anyone found an example on having a single errata document for several specs?
<alejandra> It might be good to see how it looks
AndreaPerego: we have to consider 1) in the W3C approach there is a section to give the specification, but there is also an option to capture errata that are not associated with a specific publications; 2) we have not yet decided on splitting the repo
… and this might cause changes in e.g. document name
<Zakim> RiccardoAlbertoni, you wanted to say at the moment we have one for dcat and then we might have a second thought about about using one or more errata document when the other rec are out
<annette_g> From the display_errata document: "Note that the workflow describes the case whereby a single repository is used for several documents. In case the Working Group follows the separate repository per document model, an errata file must be installed separately for each document."
RiccardoAlbertoni: the agreement on the W3C method is important. we have only one document out - perhaps we need to reconsider the decision on having separate docs when we have more deliverables
<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1177#issuecomment-576814380
RiccardoAlbertoni: we need to close the issue #1177 and to help I've created a summary. Can we close in the next few days.
<Makx> I agree RiccardoAlbertoni
PWinstanley: the deadline for all of this is the end of January. RiccardoAlbertoni is liasing it with Philippe. I kindly ask you to contribute quick with everything
PWinstanley: pointing out the deadline of 31 Jan for the completed DCAT doc and that RiccardoAlbertoni is leading on the delivery of the doc to PLH
AndreaPerego: I think we can close #1177 . We can point out that it is up to W3C to solve, and it shouldn't delay our progress
RiccardoAlbertoni: I agree. the point is that there are 2 actions - the summary that I've written could be passed to PLH so that he can attend to the conneg that needs to be put in place at their end
alejandra: both of these issues, errata, bibliography, and pointers to DCAT v1, probably have easy answers - can we write to him directly?
RiccardoAlbertoni: even after the DCAT2 publication, the errata publication/s are under our control as they are in github
… but I agree that we involve PLH and ask him to take forward the implementation
<alejandra> About the errata, I agree RiccardoAlbertoni - the question is the implications on splitting the repository
AndreaPerego: we need to get this message to W3C and then to see if there is anything that we need to do
Action: PWinstanley to write to PLH to ask about #1177 and the W3C actions/intentions
<trackbot> Created ACTION-386 - Write to plh to ask about #1177 and the w3c actions/intentions [on Peter Winstanley - due 2020-01-28].
conneg
PWinstanley: we have to wait for roba or nick and this is the same for profile vocab
DCAT v3
<PWinstanley> Caroline: The agenda has some questions - e.g. repo splitting
<PWinstanley> RiccardoAlbertoni: I'm concerned about the splitting the repo - we need to ensure that the issues and discussion are retained
<AndreaPerego> Some concern from my side.
<Makx> Me too, keep the same repo
<PWinstanley> I think the repo split is too late in the day and would take too long for little benefit and high risk
<Makx> maybe split off non-DCAT work and keep DCAT here
<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1 to PWinstanley let's wait for other opinion
<AndreaPerego> I agree, this is an issue that requires further discussion - and it is not so urgent, IMO. Let's have first DCAT2 out.
<Makx> Move this to next week?
PWinstanley: I don't think we should make decisions until other members of the group say what they think
alejandra: the idea to split was mentioned by PLH, but this risks giving us problems with the issues (the core text would be OK)
annette_g: would it still be possible to split the errata if we don't split the repos?
Caroline: perhaps we can discuss this by email in preparation for some decision at the next call
Action: annette_g to write to the group to get discussion about repo splitting in preparation for a decision on 28 Jan meeting
<trackbot> Created ACTION-387 - Write to the group to get discussion about repo splitting in preparation for a decision on 28 jan meeting [on Annette Greiner - due 2020-01-28].
RiccardoAlbertoni: I was just thinking about how to close the DCAT 2 document - before we discuss #1177 with PLH perhaps we should change the draft that Andrea has prepared so that we are giving PLH a well-reasoned proposal..
… I don't know how long W3C will take to publish after our delivery of the DCAT to them
<Caroline> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/open
<Caroline> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/242
Action: PWinstanley to send an email to the group about the publications deadline and W3C processes
<trackbot> Created ACTION-388 - Send an email to the group about the publications deadline and w3c processes [on Peter Winstanley - due 2020-01-28].
<alejandra> thank you, bye!
<RiccardoAlbertoni> Thanks you, bye !