Meeting minutes
<PWinstanley> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2020.10.20
Admin
<PWinstanley> https://www.w3.org/2020/10/06-dxwg-minutes
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
<Ana_> +1
Peter: can we accept the minutes from Octber 6?
<PWinstanley> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
+1
Resolution: Minutes of October 6 approved
Keep the old REC path, or go with other alternatives?
Peter: any additional thought from the previous discussion?
… any opinions?
<AndreaPerego> May be worth updating annette_g who was not there.
annette_g: we discussed this before. leaning towards a regular REC track
… I'm leaning that way
Peter: if you wanted to make corrections, you got a lot more flexibility with the living standard model
… with DCAT in particular, a lot of large portions are progressing on their owns
annette_g: for a data catalog, you want to provide some stability among datasets
… for this, we'd want fewer versions. the main value for living standards is to develop features quickly
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to annette_g ( I share the same concerns ...)
annette_g: I don't get that sense in our ecosystem
Peter: Ana?
Ana: don't have any opinion
Peter: might want to discuss this with Caroline and other colleagues
Ana: will do
<AndreaPerego> I tend to support annette_g 's position.
Peter: Andrea?
<AndreaPerego> I tend to support annette_g 's position.
Peter: pretty much a consensus of the group. should we go broader to make sure folks are on board?
<AndreaPerego> At least for DCAT, we should try to have the vote from all editors, at least.
Riccardo: not sure I understood all of the implications. share same concern as Annette.
… considering the way we're proceeding with DCAT in last 3 months, we still use to get feedback before moving with the FPWD
… we discuss some of the items a lot but we want to double check the result of the discussion
… so Working Draft is the way to go
… at least in the short period, the usual process is more appropriate
… but it will depend how we proceed forward and may change later
<PWinstanley> plh: you can change your minds as a group, nothing is a permanent decision. You cannot add features, but corrections are fine
Peter: ok, lots of good points made. we don't have Simon or Alejandra
Peter: for conneg, it's more of a challenge. we have less and less contact
… any thoughts?
<annette_g> more people!
Peter: a lot of people are signed up to this group but only a small fraction is active
annette_g: lots of discussion in trying to get fresh blood into w3c
… maybe that kind favor the idea of reaching out in different places
Rachel: we need to find the big audience
… maybe we can expect DCAT to be more used and beneficial to companies
… the interest from our org was mainly interested in how other orgs are invested in W3C
… if we can map the interest and the profiles of the people involved
… my suggestion is to do a bit of research
Peter: tis is great but we've drawn a bit away from where we started
… we need to poll a few more people before we decide how we move forward
… but it's important we started this conversation
… Annette and Riccardo brought important points
DCAT versioning
<annette_g> +1 to getting input from the rest of the group
<AndreaPerego> Current draft: https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/#dataset-versions
AndreaPerego: we prepared this section following the discussion
… we have version types: different types and relationships that people relate to vesioning
… revisions of resources
… new version of the same resource
… dataset published on yearly basis
… and the adaptation arrangement
… then we have other versioning information
… and last one is about life cycle
… status that a resource can go through
… so we captured what was discussed and waiting for feedback
… would like some before the next DCAT call
… we recognize that it's not perfect
… still discussion happening on github
… whether we have a formal definition and whether we give up
… instead having community practices
peter: so the idea would be to have a primer, some illustration on how it can be deployed in different context
Andrea: possibly yes
… in this case, it would be very useful
Peter: yes, with real world examples
… first thing is to make you're reading through the proposal
… and come back with feedback here or github
… whether you agree with the approach or not
… if you got real world examples for what we're doing, that would be useful
… proposals for improvements are welcome
Riccardo: about the primer and use cases, some documents are providing guidelines but very abstract. perhaps it would be useful to check recommendations and see how they do it
Andrea: yes, it would be useful
… a possible option to get from the DCAT community some use cases. people running catalogs in different countries
… maybe they can provide some real world examples
Peter: would Nikos be the right person?
Andrea: don't think he is involved anymore
… we can get in touch with Bert (?)
Riccardo: was looking at the thread on data series and we could ask them
… we should draft an example in the wiki and then check with them
… to make sure we support their use cases
… I can draft a wiki page
Andrea: sure
<AndreaPerego> https://github.com/SEMICeu/DCAT-AP/issues/155#issuecomment-711944145
Andrea: found this discussion around DCAT AP
… this is one of the examples
… [reading from the issue: although administrations are encouraged, where possible, to limit the proliferation of datasets , in order to model their inter-relationships, some representation methods are listed below:]
… depending on the requirements of the organizations and countries, they provide different guidelines
… sometimes, they have no need to keep the older version
… in some cases, if you keep the different versions of dataset or part of it, you get proliferation of dataset and people can get lost
… this is one of the position in the community
… but others are stricter
Peter: maybe one of the area where the EU will have stricter requirements will be access to business registries
Delivery of draft DCAT3 public work to the group - November 24
Riccardo: at the last DCAT call, we made progress on the DCAT planning
… November 24 is to deliver the draft to the group
… so we can assess if it is suitable for publication as FPWD
… aggressive deadline but helpful
… since it's a FPWD, it's fine if we don't address all of the issues
… see https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/milestone/27
… if we can solve the issues, we could include a link to the issues in the draft
peter: point is to have a FPWD in time for Christmas break
… and giving time to the WG to review the draft after Thanksgiving
… any question?
… can we decide on this?
Proposal: accept November 24 as a target for delivery of FPWD draft
<AndreaPerego> +1
<annette_g> +1
<PWinstanley> +1
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
+1
<Rachel> +1
<Ana_> +1
Resolution: November 24 is the target for FPWD draft proposal
Subgroups Updates - report
Peter: we won't get anything from conneg
… we're updated on DCAT
[adjourned]
<AndreaPerego> Thanks. Bye bye
<riccardoAlbertoni> Thanks, bye..
<Ana_> yes I will talk with Caroline
<AndreaPerego> Current discussion on versioning here: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1251
<annette_g> Thanks, all!
<Rachel> thank you