Meeting minutes
proposed: Accept https://www.w3.org/2020/09/30-dxwgdcat-minutes
accept last call minutes
<AndreaPerego> +1
<riccardoAlbertoni_> +1
+1
Resolution: Accept https://www.w3.org/2020/09/30-dxwgdcat-minutes
<riccardoAlbertoni_> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2020.10.14
approving agenda
<AndreaPerego> +1
pending pulls
riccardoAlbertoni_: first pr has been merged
<riccardoAlbertoni_> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/1244
riccardoAlbertoni_: second is pending, reviewed by riccardoAlbertoni_ and simon has accepted, so needs another review
… any concerns then comment, otherwise let's move to merge
<AndreaPerego> Just approved.
<riccardoAlbertoni_> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/1244
<AndreaPerego> PR merged.
<riccardoAlbertoni_> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1243
riccardoAlbertoni_: this is connected to the pending issue which can now be closed (#1243)
<AndreaPerego> +1
<riccardoAlbertoni_> +1
+1
DCAT planning and publishing schedule
riccardoAlbertoni_: we need to look at what has to be done - priorities; and also look at the choice of process
… any views?
AndreaPerego: We should publish a new WD when we have something substantial added to DCAT2. But if we can address versioning and dataset series, we can proceed.
riccardoAlbertoni_: For versioning we still need some feedback.
… Maybe we can delay the WD to beginning of next year, so to include most of the open issues.
<PWinstanley> AndreaPerego: I wouldn't wait
<PWinstanley> ... I think we can proceed having sprints and publishing when we have something new
<PWinstanley> ... otherwise we will have even more delay
<PWinstanley> ... A roadmap would be nice
riccardoAlbertoni_: I agree but the concern is to engage with our stakeholders and ensure that we are replying to the comments received
… perhaps we can summarise the discussion
<plh> https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/milestones/
<plh> https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/milestones/#moratoria-list
proposed: cover the bulk of open issue/s and have a deadline for the next publication of before the W3C New year break
[this will be within 6 weeks time, as we have to give the plenary 10 days and the W3C Director 7 days to review]
<plh> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A%22DCAT3+FPWD%22+
<riccardoAlbertoni_> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/projects/9
riccardoAlbertoni_: we should try to finish this project
plh: make sure that other issues are removed from DCAT WD 3 so that it is not misleading
proposed: cover the bulk of open issue/s and have a deadline for the next publication of before the W3C New year break - 27 Nov 2020
proposed: cover the bulk of open issue/s and have a deadline for the next publication of before the W3C New year break - 24 Nov 2020
<riccardoAlbertoni_> +1
+1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<plh> +1
Resolution: cover the bulk of open issue/s and have a deadline for the next publication of before the W3C New year break - 24 Nov 2020
<trackbot> Error finding 'riccardoAlbertoni_'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/users>.
Action: riccardoAlbertoni to include feedback as issues in the DCAT spec
<trackbot> Created ACTION-432 - Include feedback as issues in the dcat spec [on Riccardo Albertoni - due 2020-10-21].
Action: AndreaPerego to drop non-relevant issues from FPWD milestone
<trackbot> Created ACTION-433 - Drop non-relevant issues from fpwd milestone [on Andrea Perego - due 2020-10-21].
versioning
<riccardoAlbertoni_> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1251
riccardoAlbertoni_ going through the thread of this issue is discussion about including new types of version in DCAT
… incl FRBR
… we are taking FRBR as inspiration, but we don't need to align with the work, expression, manifestation, etc
… but Karen wondered if we need a relation between the back bone of DCAT for versioning.
… Do we think we have to consider a new type of version in DCAT, or can we await external feedback and see what happens
AndreaPerego: we are identifying 3 types: revision, release & collection
… Should we try to revise the section and present these relationships as relationships between resources that share a common ancestor
… because we are not providing any definition of version
… ... Karen was also pointing out that if we look at the FRBR and other library domain vocabs they don't talk about version but they are explicit about relationships between types
… so we can do the same
… I can try to make a proposal
AndreaPerego: I also think that this approach would also help us address the dataset series issue.
riccardoAlbertoni_: I am a bit concerned on changing the current approach. There's a bunch of people interesting in this, and if we don't mark a given set of relationships as versioning relationship, this might not be what they expect.
… Also we may need to align the relationships we have in the document with versioning, especially the qualified ones.
… So, maybe we can keep the current section more or less as it is, and discuss more in detail in the section with qualified relationships.
AndreaPerego: I don't think there's a problem if we stick to what we have at the moment. We can change it afterwards.
riccardoAlbertoni_: Any other views on this?
PWinstanley: If we don't have an extended framework for qualified relationships, this might not work. I wonder whether RDF* may somehow help here.
… We should also think to move some work to a primer.
riccardoAlbertoni_: Some of the feedback is about when one should use qualified relationships. I think the problem is that we are not aligning the two solutions.
PWinstanley: This usually depends on how much provenance metadata you have.
riccardoAlbertoni_: The ideal situation is that un/qualified relationships are mapped to each other.
AndreaPerego: I think we can address this by doing some work in the guidance and examples section.
Action: AndreaPerego to see how the mapping of un/qualified relationships can be addressed in the current spec
<trackbot> Created ACTION-434 - See how the mapping of un/qualified relationships can be addressed in the current spec [on Andrea Perego - due 2020-10-21].
[meeting adjourned]