20:49:01 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dxwg
20:49:01 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2020/03/17-dxwg-irc
20:49:10 <PWinstanley> rrsagent, make logs public
20:49:21 <PWinstanley> chair: PWinstanley
20:49:46 <PWinstanley> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2020.03.17
20:50:05 <PWinstanley> rrsagent, create minutes v2
20:50:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/03/17-dxwg-minutes.html PWinstanley
20:50:49 <PWinstanley> present+
20:52:46 <TomB> TomB has joined #dxwg
20:58:13 <roba> roba has joined #dxwg
20:58:20 <AndreaPerego> AndreaPerego has joined #dxwg
20:58:27 <AndreaPerego> present+
20:58:37 <kcoyle> kcoyle has joined #dxwg
20:59:27 <plh> plh has joined #dxwg
20:59:36 <kcoyle> PWinstanley: have you logged in as chair? no audio yet
21:00:08 <kcoyle> ah, ok, now i
21:00:38 <ncar> ncar has joined #dxwg
21:01:54 <AndreaPerego> meeting: DXWG Plenary
21:02:00 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
21:02:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/03/17-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
21:02:05 <riccardoAlbertoni> riccardoAlbertoni has joined #dxwg
21:02:06 <kcoyle> present+
21:02:18 <antoine> antoine has joined #dxwg
21:02:34 <antoine> present+
21:02:38 <riccardoAlbertoni> present+
21:02:41 <ncar> present+
21:03:02 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dxwg
21:04:50 <annette_g> webex is taking its time to connect...
21:06:37 <plh> https://mit.zoom.us/j/897135725
21:06:47 <plh> let's try with zoom instead
21:06:53 <plh> use the link above to connect
21:07:59 <Caroline> Caroline has joined #DXWG
21:08:17 <annette_g> present+
21:08:25 <Caroline> Present+ Caroline
21:08:32 <kcoyle> Caroline - we've moved to zoom https://mit.zoom.us/j/897135725
21:08:39 <plh> https://mit.zoom.us/j/897135725
21:10:05 <annette_g> scribe: annette_g
21:10:19 <roba> present+
21:10:30 <TomB> present+
21:11:39 <PWinstanley> proposed: accept minutes https://www.w3.org/2020/03/10-dxwg-minutes
21:11:51 <PWinstanley> =0 - not there
21:11:52 <Caroline> +1
21:11:55 <annette_g> +1
21:12:02 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
21:12:07 <kcoyle> +1
21:12:12 <plh> 0
21:12:17 <roba> +1
21:12:28 <antoine> 0
21:12:35 <PWinstanley> resolved: accept minutes https://www.w3.org/2020/03/10-dxwg-minutes
21:12:44 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
21:12:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/03/17-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
21:12:55 <PWinstanley> agenda https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2020.03.17
21:12:56 <kcoyle> ?+
21:13:02 <kcoyle> ??
21:14:16 <roba> +1 for zoom
21:14:31 <annette_g> action: on plh to set up a zoom for us
21:14:31 <trackbot> Error finding 'on'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/users>.
21:15:48 <annette_g> action: PWinstanley to update the links in our group wiki to include the new GitHub repos.
21:15:48 <trackbot> Created ACTION-404 - Update the links in our group wiki to include the new github repos. [on Peter Winstanley - due 2020-03-24].
21:16:04 <annette_g> action: plh to set up a zoom for us.
21:16:04 <trackbot> Created ACTION-405 - Set up a zoom for us. [on Philippe Le Hégaret - due 2020-03-24].
21:16:10 <annette_g> topic: DCAT 3
21:16:18 <riccardoAlbertoni> q+
21:16:23 <PWinstanley> acl riccardoAlbertoni
21:16:23 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
21:16:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/03/17-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
21:16:27 <PWinstanley> ack riccardoAlbertoni
21:17:16 <annette_g> riccardoAlbertoni: review of some discussion about issue 1121, whether software could be used as a DCAT dataset.
21:17:48 <Ana_> Ana_ has joined #dxwg
21:18:14 <annette_g> ...There is a long thread and some proposals for how to phrase a new sentence for the document that clarifies the issue. This is also related to issue 1105.
21:18:41 <AndreaPerego> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1221
21:19:15 <annette_g> ...The notion of a dataset in DCAT is intended to be very broad, to accommodate definitions coming from other sources.
21:19:22 <annette_g> PWinstanley: did we fix the typos spotted in version 2?
21:19:48 <annette_g> riccardoAlbertoni: it's still waiting for review by the editors. Just a matter of adding enough editors to take a look.
21:19:59 <annette_g> PWinstanley: do we need to have separate meetings as we have in the past?
21:20:21 <annette_g> riccardoAlbertoni: I'm not sure we have enough editors and participants.
21:20:44 <annette_g> PWinstanley: yes, Simon and Alejandra have not been able to meet for the past few weeks.
21:21:00 <annette_g> riccardoAlbertoni: I can take an action on this.
21:21:44 <annette_g> PWinstanley: I think it's useful for us to begin to make a decision, because everything's in place with the repos being split, we're starting to get discussion on version 2. We probably need to do a sprint.
21:22:36 <annette_g> action: riccardoAlbertoni to gather opinion from other DCAT editors as to whether we want to have a separate DCAT meeting in addition to the plenary.
21:22:36 <trackbot> Created ACTION-406 - Gather opinion from other dcat editors as to whether we want to have a separate dcat meeting in addition to the plenary. [on Riccardo Albertoni - due 2020-03-24].
21:23:01 <riccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1195
21:23:14 <riccardoAlbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1221
21:23:32 <annette_g> PWinstanley: ongoing discussion is happening in two threads. One was started by Odgard from Denmark, the approach to defining datasets; the other is about code and software being material for a dataset.
21:23:36 <AndreaPerego> s/1105/1195/
21:24:00 <annette_g> topic: Guidance Doc
21:24:01 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
21:24:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/03/17-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
21:24:26 <annette_g> PWinstanley: Nick sent an email around, do you want to introduce the topic of your email?
21:25:21 <annette_g> ncar: sure! It looks like we don't have tons of work left for the conneg document. That work is winding down. As for the profiles vocab, Rob and I are using it and we are finding that we really are lacking written guidance for people to use profiles in general.
21:25:55 <annette_g> ... I think the raison d'etre for that is stong.
21:26:16 <antoine> q+
21:26:32 <annette_g> ...I'd like to gauge the working group's interest in that. Do other people feel the need for it as well?
21:27:34 <PWinstanley> ack antoine
21:27:37 <annette_g> PWinstanley: One thing that I think is relevant is that we've probably got a few types of guidance doc that we want to be thinking about, not just the conneg. We talked previously about some DCAT primer work, and perhaps we should be thinking about a broad set of guidance to help people with the types of recs we are doing.
21:28:23 <annette_g> antoine: To Nick's question, I'm keen on working on that. I recognize a need for such a doc. My interest is strong, but my time is limited, especially with all the covid-19 developments in Europe.
21:29:24 <annette_g> ...To Peter's comment, I agree. I think it's not going to help if we try to consolidate everything at the level of all the group's outputs. That would complicate the discussion. I'm fine with a DCAT primer, but probably we shouldn't do that at the start. We may lose momentum that way.
21:29:25 <kcoyle> q+
21:29:30 <PWinstanley> ack kcoyle
21:29:53 <roba> q+
21:30:36 <annette_g> kcoyle: I was looking at where we left the guidance doc close to a year ago. I think some guidance for profiles is needed. There's quite a bit going on with Dublin Core. When we left the doc, it gave general guidance for profiles and then it described prof. I still see prof as having some quite serious technical issues.
21:30:54 <TomB> q+
21:31:17 <annette_g> ... I don't feel comfortable working on guidance that directs people to use prof. If prof does its guidance document and then we do a general guidance doc for application profiles, that would make sense to me.
21:31:56 <annette_g> PWinstanley: one of the things we did was, in recognizing prof was more data profiles than anything, we were thinking of some taxonomy of profiles, so we can talk about them in a more segmented, less generalized way.
21:32:16 <annette_g> ...perhaps there needs to be some preparatory organizational work so we define things first.
21:32:54 <annette_g> ... It was clear in previous discussion that things like prof were not fitting with the Dublin Core world. They were more a niche or a segment than a general approach to describing profiles.
21:33:06 <roba> a hem!
21:34:04 <annette_g> ... we were also talking about data profiles. I remember in the past we were talking about some small taxonomy that would enable us to determine what bit of the profile world it was actually referring to. Otherwise, we get caught up in discussions where people are thinking that what's being developed is general purpose, and it might not have been intended for that.
21:34:24 <AndreaPerego> AndreaPerego has joined #dxwg
21:34:35 <annette_g> ... so what I'm thinking is that we need a way of appropriately fencing things so we don't get caught in impasses in discussion.
21:34:37 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
21:34:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/03/17-dxwg-minutes.html AndreaPerego
21:34:45 <PWinstanley> ack roba
21:34:49 <annette_g> kcoyle: I don't think that was really the issue, but maybe we should move on.
21:35:04 <annette_g> roba: maybe let the discussion happen before we try to wrap it up.
21:36:13 <annette_g> ... Karen's underlying point is that there were some disonnances between what people thought. Some of us were more interested in making profiles testable, some more concerned with readable documents. The formalism of profiles is one issue, how to go about building your community is another set of issues.
21:36:27 <annette_g> The DCAT profiling issues seem to be in the former.
21:36:36 <annette_g> s/The/...The
21:37:13 <kcoyle> They are all already in the github issues - about 50 of them
21:37:39 <annette_g> roba: if you can point to a technical problem or provide some detail about an issue, that works. Making claims without evidence tends to poison the well. There are many issues in github that are too vague.
21:38:38 <annette_g> kcoyle: I find that insulting. Yes, they are technical issues. We are again being told that issues we've brought up don't matter. I would not be willing to work on a document where they type of thing is being brought in because it's not going to be useful for me.
21:39:11 <annette_g> PWinstanley: Is it possible to put ring fences around specific pieces of work so that it's very clear in what context they are meant to be considered, or would that be too artificial?
21:39:57 <annette_g> ...I'd like to try and find a way through this. We have to be careful to avoid getting into any sort of heated debate. We have to try and recognize what the general and individual interests are.
21:40:39 <annette_g> ... We have to at least be very clear for those who will be following in our wake what the key arguments were.
21:40:39 <PWinstanley> ack TomB
21:40:42 <Ana> Ana has joined #dxwg
21:40:48 <roba> More than willing to look at cases for improvements backed by examples that match documented UCR, or supported by new UCR proposals
21:41:57 <annette_g> TomB: This working group started almost four years ago, and the guidance doc was on rec track at that time. If it's still on the table, there are two documents I can envision. One is the one in the original charter. I'm getting some negative flashbacks now, though. I think there are not enough people in this group to do a general guidance doc. I think we need a larger group with more input.
21:43:51 <annette_g> ...Antoine and I co-chaired with Emmanuel xxx, another group. I don't think this one has the right kind of input. I can't say that I'd be interested in putting effort into that because I agree with Karen. We haven't understood inheritance, roles. Right now the vocabulary looks similar to how it did a year and a half ago.
21:43:59 <roba> claiming technical issues have been dismissed without debate or consideration is neither accurate nor fair.
21:44:02 <antoine> s/xxx/Bermes
21:44:34 <annette_g> ... I think it might be doable within this working group to do application profiles guidance, but not something that tries to take into account different levels of profiles.
21:44:50 <antoine> q+
21:44:59 <annette_g> ... putting a ring fence around it as PWinstanley said.
21:45:28 <roba> Tend to agree with Tom here. (the vocabulary looks similar because we havent found concrete cases that cannot be handled or could be handled in better ways )
21:46:49 <annette_g> PWinstanley: There's an awful lot of debate between people who are fairly fundamental RDF people. The sorts of issues that are brought up by the RDF people are different from what people in the neo4j world, for example. I see that it is being used by Rob and Nick for example. Perhaps this is where it might be extremely helpful, but if brought to play in every circumstance it falls over.
21:47:44 <annette_g> ... There's a big difference between doing that and putting out a fairly general guidance or generalization. That usually needs much more hard work.
21:48:05 <annette_g> ... It requires us to cope with challenges in a way that people doing practical things in finite time don't have time for.
21:48:09 <PWinstanley> ack antoine
21:48:34 <annette_g> antoine: I like the idea of fences. That could be a way to move forward.
21:49:44 <annette_g> ... I'm not going to try to answer the debate about prof. There are still many discussions open. For the guidance doc that can be okay. There was an agreement where the guidance doc would serve as an introduction for the role of prof, to say it's one solution to handle some of the requirements but not everything. I think there can be some useful material coming form a higher level.
21:49:52 <annette_g> s/form/from
21:51:24 <annette_g> antoine: if we're going to make progress, we're going to have to say when something is not in scope. This has plagued us in the past. It's been easy for us to lose attention on this. Sometimes we need to say, now this is getting into a prof discussion. It's a matter of discipline.
21:51:35 <annette_g> topic: Conneg Guidance
21:53:47 <annette_g> ncar: There's been no real progress on the conneg doc. There are items that came up as a result of testing. There needs to be an appendix. There's a change in the relationship between profiles labled by a URI and a token.
21:53:59 <annette_g> PWinstanley: didn't the token map to a URI?
21:54:36 <annette_g> ncar: yes, but the token is actually fixed in the profile definition. It shouldn't be that way.
21:54:52 <annette_g> PWinstanley: do we still have connection with Lars and Ruben on this?
21:55:23 <annette_g> ncar: yes, and I recently got feedback from Lars. They are preparing their document still, and he gave me some timelines.
21:55:50 <annette_g> PWinstanley: It's good to know they're still working with the group and that the IETF draft is still moving forward.
21:56:29 <annette_g> ncar: Lars said that there's been some changes to the IETF doc, so they are releasing a major rewrite. I venture to think the changes came from what we noted in testing.
21:56:51 <annette_g> PWinstanley: we've got the definition for the new accept header.
21:56:58 <annette_g> ncar: yes, those things are moving in sync.
21:57:08 <annette_g> topic: Prof Vocabulary
21:57:29 <annette_g> PWinstanley: is this a plenary or working group thing, or a smaller group?
21:59:00 <annette_g> roba: there were a couple actions on me from before. One on conneg, one on Prof. I put an issue in, a response in the general case, identifications for specifications that people are already using for dct:conformsTo. That's to support implementation work. I'm continuing to work on the implementation, trying to establish URIs for my agency's specifications.
21:59:26 <annette_g> PWinstanley: could you supply a screen capture or something to show us what you are working on?
21:59:57 <annette_g> roba: I'll bring an overview when I'm ready. I need to solve some problems first.
22:00:15 <annette_g> PWinstanley: it can be helpful to see how that will be working.
22:00:35 <annette_g> PWinstanley: anything else?
22:00:37 <annette_g> silence
22:00:57 <annette_g> PWinstanley: happy St. Patrick's day, but nobody will be going to the pub, eh?
22:01:14 <annette_g> plh: I did send out new zoom info.
22:01:14 <riccardoAlbertoni> thanks, have good night/rest of day
22:01:25 <PWinstanley> rrsagent, create minutes v2
22:01:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/03/17-dxwg-minutes.html PWinstanley
22:01:33 <Ana> thank you all