Meeting minutes
<Rachel> sure go ahead
<Ana> yes
admin
proposed: accept https://
<AndreaPerego> +1
<Caroline_> +1
<Ana> +1
<riccardoAlbertoni> 0 (I was not there)
<DaveBrowning> +1
+1
Resolution: accept https://
DCAT PWD poll ratification
<annette_g> oops, I forgot about the separate poll
<AndreaPerego> https://
Caroline_: any questions on the DCAT 3?
annette_g: if there are small changes, is there an opportunity to raise them?
<annette_g> +1 to publish
PWinstanley: it is expected that there will be some rough edges, this is a draft for comment
proposed: ratify the poll (n=9) unanimously supporting publication of the draft of DCAT v3 for comment
+1
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
<DaveBrowning> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<Caroline_> +1
<Ana> +1
<annette_g> +1
<Rachel> +1
Resolution: ratify the poll (n=9) unanimously supporting publication of the draft of DCAT v3 for comment
Caroline_: congratulations to the team
… we need to work together to promote the draft and so please can colleagues circulate among contacts and social networks
… Also, we have a moratorium coming up, so need to check with W3C staff to get the publication done ASAP
riccardoAlbertoni: Is there a checklist for ensuring that pubrules etc are satisfied?
AndreaPerego: I've not checked yet
riccardoAlbertoni: the stylesheet has changed a little bit
<AndreaPerego> Might be this one: https://
DaveBrowning: I don't have the list from dcat2, but the rules for working drafts are relatively lax and as long as PLH is happy then we can move ahead afaik
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to have a common template
<Caroline_> https://
<riccardoAlbertoni> closing action 444
<Caroline_> The poll was completed
<AndreaPerego> close action-444
<trackbot> Closed action-444.
riccardoAlbertoni: Action 442 was done as documented in the action itself
close action-442
<trackbot> Closed action-442.
riccardoAlbertoni: Also 440 was done
close action-440
<trackbot> Closed action-440.
riccardoAlbertoni: The same for 438
close action-438
<trackbot> Closed action-438.
riccardoAlbertoni: Action 443 was addressed by alejandra, so we can close it.
close action-443
<trackbot> Closed action-443.
Caroline_: AOB?
AndreaPerego: Maybe check the issues on GitHub
… e.g., those about UCR: https://
AndreaPerego: About this one https://
riccardoAlbertoni: This was related to the fact that the ODRL spec was still under way when we published DQV.
… We added an alignment that is not up to date.
… I guess that we can close it as DQV is not in scope with DXWG.
… But DQV is used so it may be worth updating it in the future, not necessarily inside DXWG.
<Caroline_> +1 to errata about the dqv
<PWinstanley> AndreaPerego: can this be added as an erratum document?
riccardoAlbertoni: That could be an option.
Action: riccardoAlbertoni to check with PLH how to add errata to DQV - ref: https://
<trackbot> Created ACTION-445 - Check with plh how to add errata to dqv - ref: https://
Caroline_: About https://
… AndreaPerego, are you suggesting to close it?
AndreaPerego: I think an option is just to drop the UCR tag, and keep it only for Profile Guidance.
Caroline_: The question is whether having it would be useful if we issue another UCR document in the future.
riccardoAlbertoni: I am not sure we are going to have a new UCR, considering the deadline for the WG.
<PWinstanley> +1 to the idea that we have timed out on the UCR situation
<PWinstanley> AndreaPerego: maybe just the 'safe' option of dropping the UCR tag?
proposed: drop https://
+1
<Caroline_> +1
<annette_g> +1
<Ana> +1
<DaveBrowning> +1
<PWinstanley> +1
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
Resolution: drop https://
Caroline_: Anything else?
all: [silence]
<riccardoAlbertoni> thanks all for the discussion, bye
[meeting adjourned]
<Rachel> Apologies my meeting collapsed , bye