– DRAFT –
DCAT working group

<riccardoalbertoni> me I would wait 5 min as I guess andrea is joining, is that ok?

admin

<riccardoalbertoni> PROPOSED: approve last meeting minutes https://www.w3.org/2021/03/31-dxwgdcat-minutes

<riccardoalbertoni> +1

proposed: accept minute of last meeting https://www.w3.org/2021/03/31-dxwgdcat-minutes

<riccardoalbertoni> +1

0

<alejandra> +0 (not present)

Resolution: accept minute of last meeting

<riccardoalbertoni> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2021.04.14

<alejandra> +1 to agenda

Action: alejandra to update the change history to changes about languages

<trackbot> Created ACTION-443 - Update the change history to changes about languages [on Alejandra Gonzalez Beltran - due 2021-04-21].

PWinstanley: suggesting a poll

AndreaPerego: we need to make it clear that this is a draft - so we need to ensure that they only consider stopping it if there is something critical

AndreaPerego: we can repeat this point

Action: PWinstanley to create a poll

<trackbot> Created ACTION-444 - Create a poll [on Peter Winstanley - due 2021-04-21].

<AndreaPerego> The URL to be sent for review: https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/

riccardoalbertoni: so PWinstanley writes the poll and the email, then we get the poll completed before the next plenary and sign off the poll at the next plenary

<Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to ask what we do with the open PRs

<riccardoalbertoni> Policy for translations in the RDF of DCAT https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1352

policy for translation in the RDF of DCAT

alejandra: although it is Simon's PR, it should be straightforward

AndreaPerego: it is also a matter of timing - the link should have been circulated yesterday, but these are minor changes and we can wait

alejandra: do we just have English as the main language and do others as best efforts, but otherwise rely on Google or DeepL

AndreaPerego: was wondering if our domain suits automatic translation
… we can always just look at changes, because some parts of texts have been created and QA'd since DCAT v1
… this would make the job smaller

proposed: accept a policy of deciding on the best efforts we will provide to translations when we get to the CR stage

<alejandra> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1

+1

Resolution: accept a policy of deciding on the best efforts we will provide to translations when we get to the CR stage

<riccardoalbertoni> +1

outstanding issues

<riccardoalbertoni> Specification of range restrictions #1129

riccardoalbertoni: I've selected 2 issues:

<riccardoalbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1129

riccardoalbertoni: we are restricting the range of media-type using a controlled list
… using the meaning in the RFC spec indicating that the IANA media file must be used unless there is a good reason not to

<riccardoalbertoni> q1: Is there another Machine readible document, like shacl, that expresses then the restriction?

riccardoalbertoni: we have decided we are not going to provide other resources because the spec in the document is sufficient. I don't know if we will change this.

AndreaPerego: I think that there might be a mismatch between the spec and what people think is in the spec - it is a 'should' not a 'must'. This is just like dcterms.
… sometimes people read the spec and thing that everything is 'must' rather than a recommendation
… given a choice then we would recommend IANA, but if a community already has its list then that's fine to continue using

riccardoalbertoni: I think part of the problem is how people read the usage note

<riccardoalbertoni> The “usage notes” provide guidance that might be useful indications but generally are not mapped as machine readable constraints. We use the RFC 2119 to express the level of expected compliance. In the specific case, we use “SHOULD” explicitly referring to the RFC 2119, which implies that iana mediaType are recommended unless there is a valid reason to ignore the indication. The full implications must be u[CUT]

AndreaPerego: I think that even the explanation would be misunderstood
… so we just say that unless we use 'must' (which is only seldom used) we should indicate that everything is just a recommendation - some guidance
… but we should approach this case by case

<riccardoalbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1195

<riccardoalbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1195#issuecomment-818063968

alejandra: I was assigned to this issue a while back. I've looked at the whole conversation

riccardoalbertoni: they are looking for an update to the DCAT definition of 'dataset' in order to accommodate their definitions. We are generally refraining from varying to the needs of specific communities. I didn't see any of the examples provided as being outwith the DCAT definition

+1

riccardoalbertoni: we can deal with objections on a case by case basis, but perhaps we need to make more about the design principles?

<alejandra> alejandra: I had made a proposal on how to address a minor change to the definition, but I don't think any of the "note to entries" are necessary, as we cover those cases

riccardoalbertoni: AndreaPerego had a good wording for the issue ...

<AndreaPerego> proposal: Review the use of SHOULD, MAY, MUST, etc. to check if they should be lowercase or uppercase

<riccardoalbertoni> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1

<alejandra> +1

+1

Resolution: Review the use of SHOULD, MAY, MUST, etc. to check if they should be lowercase or uppercase

<riccardoalbertoni> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/1326

alejandra: Revised PR ^^ as decided.

https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/1354

alejandra: Created PR ^^ for the changes in the basic example.

<riccardoalbertoni> ... Discussion continued on closing some PRs...

riccardoalbertoni: Thanks everyone.

[meeting adjourned]