– DRAFT –
Dataset Exchange Working Group Teleconference

<riccardoAlbertoni_> /

<riccardoAlbertoni_>

<riccardoAlbertoni_> //

approve last meeting minutes

<riccardoAlbertoni_> PROPOSED: approve last meeting minutes https://www.w3.org/2021/01/20-dxwgdcat-minutes

+1

<DaveBr> 0

<riccardoAlbertoni_> +1

Resolution: approve last meeting minutes https://www.w3.org/2021/01/20-dxwgdcat-minutes

agenda

<riccardoAlbertoni_> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2021.02.03

riccardoAlbertoni_: Any changes to agenda?

AndreaPerego: Maybe we can discuss the most recently created issues.

riccardoAlbertoni_: Fine.

Issue #1290

https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1290

riccardoAlbertoni_: Any objections to mark this issue as a requirement?

AndreaPerego: The source issue is here with some background: https://github.com/netwerk-digitaal-erfgoed/registry-api/issues/36
… They have also a spec: https://netwerk-digitaal-erfgoed.github.io/requirements-datasets/
… There is no fully elaborated use case.

riccardoAlbertoni_: We can still mark it as a requirement. But I am not sure it should be included into DCAT.
… There are many ways to harvest metadata records, and we don't have to support all.

DaveBr: It is also not clear to me which is the use case behind the requirement.
… Also not sure such a req should be part of DCAT. It is more on the CONNEG side.
… We need first to better understand the underlying use cases.

riccardoAlbertoni_: We actually have two types of reqs: those in UCR (the "official" ones) and those contributed afterwards.
… So we have been more flexible with the latter.

DaveBr: We need anyway to respond and to understand if it can be considered a Req.

riccardoAlbertoni_: Maybe it would be safest to mark it as "feedback" and ask them to elaborate the use case.

AndreaPerego: +1

<riccardoAlbertoni_> +1

<DaveBr> +1

Resolution: Mark issue #1290 as fedback and ask to elaborate the use case

Planning

riccardoAlbertoni_: During the last meeting some questions on editors availability was raised.
… It is important how much work we can do.
… Peter was going to ask editors how much time they can devote.
… AndreaPerego, DaveBr, which is your availability in the next month?

DaveBr: I should have time over the next few months.
… Don't know however how to quantify the time I can devote.

AndreaPerego: Same situation as DaveBr.

<riccardoAlbertoni_> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/projects?query=is%3Aopen+sort%3Aname-asc

AndreaPerego: But maybe we should go for Makx's proposal: we define a publication schedule, and we go out at the decided date with what we did.

riccardoAlbertoni_: We can then look at the projects on GitHub to decide where to focus on.
… In the FPWD the focus was on versioning and data series.

<riccardoAlbertoni_> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rqZElMXqxBjxQpo5Pt0Tf5dPpXPwnoSvBoh3Aqg_4-o/edit#gid=0

riccardoAlbertoni_: The feedback we are expecting is more on the versioning side.

riccardoAlbertoni_: I prepared a Google doc ^^ where you can find the projects, and select those we want to focus on in the next month.
… We can look at them and then decide the date for the next PWD.

AndreaPerego: plh, any suggestions about the schedule?

plh: Actually, you can do it when you want. Considering that the FPWD was in December, maybe the beginning of March is an option.

AndreaPerego: May be worth focussing on the versioning section. This could be done within the beginning of March.

riccardoAlbertoni_: Not sure about it. I would like to have some more feedback.
… I am not even sure about the direction to be taken - as defining new terms.

DaveBr: It seems anyway that versioning is something on which we should make some progress.
… We can try other ways of outreach, but this does not prevent us moving on.
… We need also to give people something to react on.

AndreaPerego: I agree with DaveBr.

riccardoAlbertoni_: I agree to give the priority on versioning. Let's try and see.

AndreaPerego: I can try and prepare a new version of the versioning section, so we can discuss on something tangible.

Action: AndreaPerego to prepare a new version of the versioning section

<trackbot> Created ACTION-438 - Prepare a new version of the versioning section [on Andrea Perego - due 2021-02-10].

riccardoAlbertoni_: Fine. Besides this, should we focus on data series, or something else?

AndreaPerego: I suggest we look at the projects to find what we should focus on.

riccardoAlbertoni_: Agreed.

<DaveBr> +1

Pending requirements

<riccardoAlbertoni_> Related vocabularies mapping [RVM] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/88

riccardoAlbertoni_: The first one is ^^
… During the last meeting we decided not to map them.

<riccardoAlbertoni_> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/87

riccardoAlbertoni_: Sorry, the right issue is #87
… It's about related vocabularies.
… Especially VoID and QB.

<riccardoAlbertoni_> PROPOSAL: Close issue https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/87 as joint use with other vocabulary are already discussed in the document. DCAT Recommendation works under the Open Assumption, prescribing specific mapping on other vocabularies might depend on the use cases, a deeper comparison among vocabularies seems not core at this stage of work.

+1

<DaveBr> +1

DaveBr: I suppose no work was done on a primer, where it can be shown how these vocabularies can work together, depending on the use case.

riccardoAlbertoni_: Yes, no work done so far on a primer. And probably we won't be able to include this issue in the primer.

<riccardoAlbertoni_> +1

Resolution: Close issue https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/87 as joint use with other vocabulary are already discussed in the document. DCAT Recommendation works under the Open Assumption, prescribing specific mapping on other vocabularies might depend on the use cases, a deeper comparison among vocabularies seems not core at this stage of work.

riccardoAlbertoni_: AOB?

[meeting adjourned]