Meeting minutes
admin
<PWinstanley> proposed: accept https://
<PWinstanley> +1
<kcoyle> +1
<Ana> +1
<DaveBrowning> presents+
0 (not attending)
<Rachel> +1
PWinstanley: we had a doodle poll for the call time
20 for the current time
10 for one hour later
7 for two hours later
… more people don't want the other time than these who want it
… can we do a compromise for the Pacific zones?
plh: we could rotate
… several groups do this
No objection for trying
PWinstanley: the compriomise would be to go for the middle one
… this would put CET towards midnight
antoine: some of the DCAT groups are in the same situation
roba: I'm in Melbourne
PWinstanley: would you turn up?
roba: PROV needs to move through open issues
… and then we could delegate someone to report in the general calls
… the earlier one is ok for EU and US and my feeling would be to go for it
PWinstanley: we could rotate sometimes
Resolution: accept https://
roba: simon, nick and I are the ones impacted
… 20:00 UTC would be 22:00 CET
plh: ... and 6am Melbourne
… and 4pm Boston
<PWinstanley> proposed: timing of next meetings is 20:00 UTC
plh: roba if you have something to report you can ask to shift!
roba: it should be alright
plh: I wouldn't have to change
… the reservation
PWinstanley: how are people feeling about 20:00 UTC?
<Rachel> +1
+1
<roba> +1
<Ana> +1
<DaveBrowning> +1
<PWinstanley> +1
<plh> +1
<kcoyle> +1
Resolution: timing of next meetings is 20:00 UTC
plh: there is a new calendar system
… when I will set up you will receive a calendar invitation
<PWinstanley> antoine: will that invitation include a direct webex link?
<PWinstanley> plh: yes, and you can add to outlook etc
Antoine: hurray!
DaveBrowning: is this going to use the email of the members?
plh: it's going to use the member list
DaveBrowning: I have problems accessing it
… I'll drop you an email
PROF
roba: I've reviewed the open issues
… we need to have a doodle to find time to discuss them
… there was a discussion on naming elements
PWinstanley: this was related to the github?
… the cleanup?
roba: issued have been moved when the new repos were created
… there are some related issues in the DCAT space though (e.g. on the semantics of profiling and conformance)
… there are some implementation things
… it works fine as is
… The Conneg-P got deployed to the OGC environment
… there is discussion inside the IETF
… on where it could have a home inside IETF
… I can try to get a report from the people involved
Action: roba to get report on IETF situation for Conneg-P from Lars & Ruben
<trackbot> Created ACTION-441 - to get report on ietf situation for conneg-p from lars & ruben [on Rob Atkinson - due 2021-03-30].
roba: there's a chicken-and-egg wrt implementation by OGC and standardization by IETF
… I don't know when it will resolve
<PWinstanley> s/UGC/OGC/
DCAT
AndreaPerego: in the last two weeks we've looked at open issues
… mainly working on dataset series
… we've got a section in the editor draft
… requires more work as there is ongoing discussion
… new class DatasetSeries and related properties
… there is discussion about inverse properties
… this is a more general discussion on DCAT
… for example request for inverse properties for the link between dataset and distributions
… we may use the PROV approach to deal with inverses.
… i.e. "we don't provide them but we give guidance for implementers to create them for their use cases"
PWinstanley: is there a showstopper for inverse properties?
AndreaPerego: Defining a property and its inverse may have impact on implementation and interop
… if some implementations use only one of them (and not all systems use inference)
… On the other side for some use case the 'other way round' helps
… We're trying to find a compromise between the two.
… For the moment the approach of implementing only one direction and follow the PROV approach
PWinstanley: how about non-RDF implementation? We should be implementation-agnostic
AndreaPerego: some DCAT would-be implementers have XML-based systems
… and could implement DCAT via XML schemas
… [gives two examples]
PWinstanley: could colleagues have a look at them?
<PWinstanley> antoine: it could help if some issues were highlighted - sometimes it is difficult to find the most important issues
<PWinstanley> ... among many other things
AndreaPerego: I'm also getting many notifications :-)
… we're trying to reduce the scope of each issue
+1
… the result is that it increases the amount of notifications
PWinstanley: two aspects: atomic PRs vs number of issues
<roba> thats the same problem we have had with prof - too many general discussions about wider guidance and too hard to focus on issues of either vocab or api capability.
AndreaPerego: discussions extend and that creates proliferation
<PWinstanley> antoine: would it be helpful for an email to be sent following the DCAT meeting with a pointer to key issues that need feedback?
<roba> +1
<DaveBrowning> +1 to antoine
<PWinstanley> AndreaPerego: yes, will do
Github cleanup
PWinstanley: there are issues on Use Cases and Profile Guidance to be tidied up
… this needs to be done when people have time
<AndreaPerego> Thanks, bye bye
<PWinstanley> bye
<DaveBrowning> Bye
<Ana> thank you, bye