IRC log of dxwg on 2020-02-25
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 20:40:36 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #dxwg
- 20:40:36 [RRSAgent]
- logging to https://www.w3.org/2020/02/25-dxwg-irc
- 20:40:43 [PWinstanley]
- rrsagent, make logs public
- 20:40:54 [PWinstanley]
- chair: PWinstanley
- 20:41:25 [PWinstanley]
- meeting: DXWG Plenary
- 20:41:28 [PWinstanley]
- agenda: https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2020.02.25
- 20:42:17 [PWinstanley]
- regrets+ SimonCox, Makx, RiccardoAlbertoni, DaveBrowning, RobA
- 20:42:29 [PWinstanley]
- rrsagent, create minutes v2
- 20:42:29 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/02/25-dxwg-minutes.html PWinstanley
- 20:58:35 [antoine]
- antoine has joined #dxwg
- 21:02:02 [ncar]
- ncar has joined #dxwg
- 21:02:12 [ncar]
- present+
- 21:02:19 [annette_g]
- present+
- 21:02:57 [antoine]
- present+
- 21:03:22 [antoine]
- Scribenick: antoine
- 21:03:32 [antoine]
- rrsagent, please draft minutes v2
- 21:03:32 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/02/25-dxwg-minutes.html antoine
- 21:05:51 [antoine]
- Topic: admin
- 21:06:24 [antoine]
- proposal: accept minutes of last call https://www.w3.org/2020/02/18-dxwg-minutes
- 21:06:34 [antoine]
- annette_g: they were mixed up
- 21:06:52 [antoine]
- philippe: I've cleaned it
- 21:07:24 [antoine]
- PWinstanley: there are some warning
- 21:07:39 [antoine]
- ... in the diagnostics
- 21:07:48 [antoine]
- philippe: I'll fix that as well.
- 21:08:04 [AndreaPerego]
- AndreaPerego has joined #dxwg
- 21:08:23 [PWinstanley]
- +1
- 21:08:23 [antoine]
- +1
- 21:08:23 [annette_g]
- +1
- 21:08:26 [ncar]
- +1
- 21:08:30 [antoine]
- oops no 0 I was not here
- 21:08:45 [AndreaPerego]
- present+
- 21:08:46 [antoine]
- but it seems there's been some attention to the minutes :-)
- 21:09:05 [antoine]
- resolved: accept minutes https://www.w3.org/2020/02/18-dxwg-minutes
- 21:09:16 [antoine]
- Topic: DCAT V3
- 21:09:51 [antoine]
- PWinstanley: we agreed to split the repos
- 21:10:00 [antoine]
- ... open two new ones for Conneg and PROV
- 21:10:19 [plh]
- plh has joined #dxwg
- 21:10:25 [antoine]
- and do a bulk closure of Conneg and PROV in the current repo
- 21:10:37 [plh]
- dxwg, dx-prof-conneg
- 21:11:02 [antoine]
- philippe: not done yet. You want dxwg, dxwg-conneg and dxwg-prof ?
- 21:11:05 [plh]
- dxwg, dx-prof-conneg, dx-prof
- 21:11:18 [ncar]
- yes please!
- 21:11:36 [alejandra]
- alejandra has joined #dxwg
- 21:11:43 [ncar]
- did we make a call about UCR & Guidance?
- 21:12:03 [ncar]
- q+
- 21:12:22 [plh]
- https://github.com/w3c/dx-prof-conneg
- 21:12:30 [ncar]
- yes
- 21:12:48 [antoine]
- PWinstanley: the current one would be for DCAT
- 21:12:49 [antoine]
- q+
- 21:13:19 [ncar]
- dx-connegp
- 21:13:21 [ncar]
- dx-prof
- 21:13:34 [ncar]
- dx-prof-conneg is fine
- 21:13:47 [antoine]
- nooo!
- 21:14:07 [PWinstanley]
- q?
- 21:14:08 [ncar]
- copnnegp is my personal preferred term
- 21:14:11 [PWinstanley]
- ack ncar
- 21:14:12 [ncar]
- make that connegp
- 21:14:39 [antoine]
- ncar: did we discuss UCR and Guidance
- 21:14:45 [antoine]
- PWinstanley: no we didn't have time
- 21:14:47 [PWinstanley]
- ack antoine
- 21:15:25 [ncar]
- preferred dx-prof & dx-connegp
- 21:15:57 [PWinstanley]
- antoine: I am arguing against dx-prof-conneg
- 21:16:15 [plh]
- https://github.com/w3c/dx-connegp
- 21:16:16 [antoine]
- ncar: would it be possible to change the short name of prof-conneg?
- 21:16:25 [antoine]
- philippe: open an issue in the new repo!
- 21:16:35 [antoine]
- ... and assign the issue to me.
- 21:17:33 [antoine]
- PWinstanley: do you see issues for expedite the new github repo arrangement?
- 21:17:54 [antoine]
- philippe: connegp is created and I gave you access.
- 21:18:01 [antoine]
- ... do you want me to transfer issues?
- 21:18:11 [antoine]
- PWinstanley: pretty certain that yes
- 21:18:42 [antoine]
- ncar: for connegp and prof, yes, and we'll tidy them up
- 21:19:05 [antoine]
- q+
- 21:19:11 [PWinstanley]
- ack antoine
- 21:19:21 [antoine]
- https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1211
- 21:20:03 [ncar]
- q+
- 21:20:06 [PWinstanley]
- antoine: question about shared issues, esp 1211. It was originally about DCAT but spans two topics
- 21:20:13 [PWinstanley]
- ack ncar
- 21:20:42 [antoine]
- ncar: we'll have to do what we do with other work. Maybe create copy issues.
- 21:20:44 [PWinstanley]
- I think we just do as in other projects and make reference across repos. Perhaps create peer issues if necessary
- 21:20:47 [plh]
- https://github.com/w3c/dx-prof now exists
- 21:20:47 [antoine]
- q+
- 21:20:48 [alejandra]
- present+
- 21:20:55 [PWinstanley]
- ack antoine
- 21:21:17 [antoine]
- ncar: we'll lose neatness but I think it's fine.
- 21:21:21 [PWinstanley]
- antoine: I can live with that, but if done automatically, which repo does it end up in?
- 21:21:32 [PWinstanley]
- ncar: in this case leave in DCAT
- 21:21:35 [antoine]
- ncar: in this one we can leave it with DCAT
- 21:21:38 [antoine]
- q+
- 21:21:45 [alejandra]
- question: should the prefix be dxwg rather than dx?
- 21:21:46 [PWinstanley]
- ack antoine
- 21:22:02 [alejandra]
- due to the existing repo: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg
- 21:22:05 [PWinstanley]
- antoine: good - so can we take a note of the shared issues?
- 21:22:38 [PWinstanley]
- ... I'm concerned that we lose info if this is done automatically
- 21:23:05 [antoine]
- PWinstanley: this is something we can identify by queries
- 21:23:37 [antoine]
- ncar: the tags are free-floating so they would retain the original labels
- 21:24:58 [antoine]
- alejandra: so we would create mirror issues? My concern is that we would still have to go back to original issues.
- 21:25:18 [antoine]
- PWinstanley: there may not be many, but there could be the important ones
- 21:25:30 [antoine]
- https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1216#issuecomment-587788504
- 21:26:03 [antoine]
- alejandra: also shouldn't we keep the same prefix, i.e. dxwg?
- 21:26:09 [antoine]
- ... for consistency
- 21:26:34 [annette_g]
- q+
- 21:26:38 [antoine]
- PWinstanley: yes we probably should want to do this
- 21:26:51 [antoine]
- alejandra: especially if DCAT remains in the original repo
- 21:27:02 [PWinstanley]
- ack annette_g
- 21:27:10 [antoine]
- annette_g: wouldn't it create inconsistencies with the W3C websites?
- 21:27:24 [antoine]
- philippe: we track repos based on their configuration not their name
- 21:27:45 [antoine]
- ... what we recommend is that the name of the repo is the one of the short name of the spec
- 21:27:57 [alejandra]
- about the overlap of issues... there is now only 1 issue that shares the labels dcat and profiles-vocabulary: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Aprofiles-vocabulary+label%3Adcat
- 21:27:57 [antoine]
- ... if one changes then the other should change
- 21:28:16 [antoine]
- q+
- 21:28:41 [antoine]
- PWinstanley: maybe we should do this once we start working with these new repos
- 21:28:46 [PWinstanley]
- ack antoine
- 21:28:52 [antoine]
- ... and the UCR
- 21:29:30 [alejandra]
- +q
- 21:29:41 [alejandra]
- and no issues between dcat and profiles-negotiation
- 21:29:47 [alejandra]
- -q
- 21:29:47 [PWinstanley]
- antoine: I wanted to point to the statistics on the shared issues that Riccardo / Karen were pointing out were not overlapping, but there is 1211
- 21:30:07 [alejandra]
- +q
- 21:31:26 [PWinstanley]
- ack alejandra
- 21:32:02 [antoine]
- alejandra: I agree that it falls into profile guidance but are we sure we don't want to add something in DCAT?
- 21:32:13 [antoine]
- ... the original post was about the description in DCAT
- 21:32:48 [ncar]
- Create a peer Issue Alejandra?
- 21:32:53 [antoine]
- ... there could be an issue created for the original spec
- 21:33:07 [antoine]
- philippe: we can create a peer issue if needed
- 21:33:18 [plh]
- https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/389
- 21:33:34 [alejandra]
- sure - I will comment on the issue later - I think it has to stay in DCAT and we can create a peer issue in the guidance doc
- 21:33:36 [annette_g]
- nice!
- 21:33:52 [antoine]
- PWinstanley: alejandra is it something that you want to track?
- 21:34:08 [antoine]
- q+
- 21:34:53 [antoine]
- action: alejandra to keep an eye on #1211 as a shared issue
- 21:34:53 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-398 - Keep an eye on #1211 as a shared issue [on Alejandra Gonzalez Beltran - due 2020-03-03].
- 21:34:59 [antoine]
- q-
- 21:35:01 [PWinstanley]
- ack antoine
- 21:35:58 [antoine]
- PWinstanley: next topic is future work and UCR
- 21:36:04 [AndreaPerego]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
- 21:36:04 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/02/25-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
- 21:36:24 [antoine]
- q+
- 21:36:29 [PWinstanley]
- ack antoine
- 21:36:49 [antoine]
- antoine: what needs to be done?
- 21:37:32 [antoine]
- PWinstanley: at the moment we have a list of future work and things in UCR that haven't be dealt with
- 21:37:43 [antoine]
- ... we need to check they are in line, and in scope
- 21:37:54 [antoine]
- q+
- 21:38:01 [antoine]
- ... we need to do some triage
- 21:38:03 [PWinstanley]
- ack antoine
- 21:38:25 [alejandra]
- +q
- 21:38:42 [PWinstanley]
- antoine: I was concerned that we would be re-doing UCR
- 21:38:44 [antoine]
- antoine: I thought this would be about doing a new UCR
- 21:38:45 [PWinstanley]
- PWinstanley: NO
- 21:38:48 [PWinstanley]
- ack alejandra
- 21:39:07 [antoine]
- alejandra: we don't even need to look at the UCR again, I believe
- 21:39:19 [annette_g]
- q+
- 21:39:39 [PWinstanley]
- ack annette_g
- 21:39:49 [antoine]
- ... in principle we've handled them, either solved them or they are open as github issues
- 21:40:03 [antoine]
- ... so we shouldn't have to look again at the original UCR
- 21:40:15 [alejandra]
- also note that we do have new use cases from those written in the UCR, but they are in github issues
- 21:40:20 [antoine]
- annette_g: do we have new people coming as per the re-chatering?
- 21:40:49 [antoine]
- PWinstanley: there should be people around, whom we could ask
- 21:41:10 [antoine]
- ... do you see anything appropriate for inclusion?
- 21:41:17 [PWinstanley]
- s/chatering/chartering/
- 21:41:26 [antoine]
- annette_g: I think I might have seen something, but it was late in the process
- 21:41:42 [antoine]
- ... it was about the need to streamline things
- 21:41:52 [antoine]
- ... I would need to write it in a coherent way
- 21:42:22 [antoine]
- ... We should consider how people put things into practice
- 21:42:40 [antoine]
- ... For example what we're asking in Conneg can be burdensome
- 21:42:52 [antoine]
- PW: user experience - user research?
- 21:42:56 [antoine]
- annette_g: yes
- 21:43:06 [antoine]
- PW: there are groups to which we could throw things
- 21:43:27 [antoine]
- ... a number of them from W3C members
- 21:43:40 [antoine]
- ... We tend to look at accessibility but there are other aspects of usability
- 21:44:14 [antoine]
- ... Anything else, e.g. on FAIR?
- 21:44:20 [antoine]
- q+
- 21:44:28 [PWinstanley]
- ack antoine
- 21:45:23 [PWinstanley]
- antoine: alejandra said that there are some use cases that are new (not in the UCR, but are in github issues). Do these need to be put into the UCR?
- 21:45:51 [antoine]
- PWinstanley: I'm going to ask philippe where we're going in terms of agile method
- 21:46:01 [antoine]
- ... the UCR was waterfall-y.
- 21:46:26 [antoine]
- ... How should we think of our compentency questions?
- 21:46:39 [antoine]
- ... the UCR is not complete
- 21:46:52 [antoine]
- ... wrt competency questions
- 21:47:07 [antoine]
- s/compentency/competency
- 21:47:17 [antoine]
- philippe: UCR is not a REC, it's a NOTE
- 21:48:33 [antoine]
- PWinstanley: at this stage do we need to update the UCR doc with things in the github issues?
- 21:48:46 [antoine]
- philippe: no it's not needed
- 21:49:10 [antoine]
- ... I would recommend that before moving to CR that you mention where the requirements are
- 21:49:29 [antoine]
- ... because you'll need to prove you've met there.
- 21:49:32 [alejandra]
- Good! To be more agile is good to keep the use cases in github only
- 21:49:51 [antoine]
- PWinstanley: ok so as long as we're explicit on where the requirements came from and that we've handled them then we're good to go.
- 21:50:26 [plh]
- https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues?page=1&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Aprofiles-vocabulary
- 21:50:37 [antoine]
- philippe: I've moved all the open issues for the two deliverable except these which had dual labels
- 21:50:52 [antoine]
- +1!
- 21:51:14 [antoine]
- PWinstanley: alejandra and ncar can look at them and mirror them if needed
- 21:51:18 [alejandra]
- +1
- 21:51:24 [annette_g]
- +1 to moving them
- 21:51:27 [antoine]
- philippe: do you want me to migrate the closed issues?
- 21:51:43 [ncar]
- =1
- 21:51:44 [ncar]
- +1
- 21:51:45 [antoine]
- ncar: I don't think it's a good idea but I won't object
- 21:52:08 [antoine]
- philippe: ok I'll do them one by one
- 21:52:09 [antoine]
- q+
- 21:52:28 [PWinstanley]
- ack antoine
- 21:53:08 [PWinstanley]
- antoine: asking plh - will the closed issues be moved with the same criteria as the live one - esp relating to issues spanning deliverables?
- 21:53:13 [PWinstanley]
- plh: yes
- 21:53:41 [antoine]
- philippe: something else: for the moment I've cloned the repo, keeping the structure and milestones
- 21:54:01 [antoine]
- ... for DCAT there could still be links to editor's drafts
- 21:54:21 [antoine]
- ... I can update the REC to point to the right place but it needs some coordination.
- 21:54:27 [antoine]
- Topic: Conneg
- 21:54:51 [antoine]
- ncar: Rob are going to check the test suite in the next day or two
- 21:55:33 [antoine]
- ... we don't think there will be a lot of change but will check
- 21:55:48 [antoine]
- ... the main change will be adding a list of requirements
- 21:55:53 [antoine]
- Topic: PROF
- 21:56:18 [antoine]
- ncar: I've made a profile hierarchy-based validation tool
- 21:56:52 [antoine]
- ... the tool is fed with a data graph and a profile hierarchy and hunts for the SHACL files available for the hierarchy.
- 21:57:07 [antoine]
- ... it implements one of our use cases.
- 21:57:34 [antoine]
- ... I've implemented this tool because we need to validate data for another project [???]
- 21:57:48 [antoine]
- ... which will make conformance claims based on the outcome
- 21:58:53 [antoine]
- PWinstanley: maybe you can check and move the drafts to the new repo
- 21:58:56 [antoine]
- q+
- 21:59:20 [antoine]
- ncar: ok but how about the issues?
- 21:59:28 [antoine]
- PWinstanley: they are moved
- 21:59:36 [antoine]
- q-
- 21:59:56 [antoine]
- ... it would be good to have visibility for the group, with links
- 22:00:25 [antoine]
- action: ncar to mail the group with a proposal to move the prof and connegp drafts from the original repo to the new ones
- 22:00:25 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-399 - Mail the group with a proposal to move the prof and connegp drafts from the original repo to the new ones [on Nicholas Car - due 2020-03-03].
- 22:01:01 [antoine]
- rrsagent, please draft minutes v2
- 22:01:01 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/02/25-dxwg-minutes.html antoine
- 22:01:02 [alejandra]
- thanks all, and bye!
- 22:01:15 [AndreaPerego]
- Thanks, bye!
- 22:01:29 [PWinstanley]
- rrsagent, create minutes v2
- 22:01:29 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/02/25-dxwg-minutes.html PWinstanley
- 23:18:31 [plh]
- plh has joined #dxwg