Meeting minutes
<RiccardoAlbertoni> /me alejandra we are meeting on meet.google.com/ywn-krwh-pjp
<RiccardoAlbertoni> PROPOSED: approve last meeting minutes https://
Minutes of last meeting
<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<alejandra> +0 (absent)
+1
Resolution: approve last meeting minutes https://
<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://
approve agenda
<AndreaPerego> +1
+1
<RiccardoAlbertoni> +1
Resolution: Agenda approved
Accessibility Considerations
<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://
<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://
RiccardoAlbertoni: request to add specific section, and I have drafted a pull request (early draft)
<AndreaPerego> Link to relevant section: https://
RiccardoAlbertoni: Matches what was asked for (superficially) - but should we go further
… haven't added any detailed guidance
<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://
RiccardoAlbertoni: Any views or comments
AndreaPerego: Somewhat puzzled by the request, have tried to think of alternatives, didn't come up with anything
AndreaPerego: Is this really in scope? Is it more about publishing (so DWBP rather than DCAT)
AndreaPerego: Only thing we have in the requirements is a request to add thumbnail (for geospatial)
AndreaPerego: Perhaps we could consider how the metadata could be read?
DaveBrowning: Concerned that we will need to do something in the examples
RiccardoAlbertoni: They have only really asked for something equivalent to what we did for Security etc
alejandra: we probably need to go back to them for a bit more guidance/clarification
… have looked for other examples/standards (eg JSON-LD) and can't find anything
+1 to suggestion that we ask,
AndreaPerego: We can point back to our draft section....
AndreaPerego: We already have descriptions (textual) for some of the URLs(e.g for distributions) in the metadata....
<alejandra> adding some other of my comments from before - perhaps we could consider a new property on the distributions for the alternative text
<alejandra> ... but as the issue is around a section at the same level of Security and Privacy, perhaps they want us to raise awareness of data accessibility by mentioning it, as Riccardo did in the proposal
Action: RiccardoAlbertoni to ask for feedback in https://
<trackbot> Created ACTION-450 - Ask for feedback in https://
<RiccardoAlbertoni> Issues #1364 and #1153 related to dcat:theme
<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://
Issues on dcat:theme
<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://
RiccardoAlbertoni: Some discussion on changing the range of dcat:theme
<RiccardoAlbertoni> see example, in https://
RiccardoAlbertoni: some concern that even if allowed by REC that we are putting as object both instance and class
… not clear on the impact
… tried with Protege and didn't cause a problem
RiccardoAlbertoni: 2 possible solutions - either use owl classes as object or alternatively use union of skos concept and owl class...
… could be useful to clarify that both could be expected
<AndreaPerego> I think this issue is more or less about the same point: https://
alejandra: Interesting issue. We do need to clarify. If we allow owl classes then we need to explain that its okay by usage note or other comment
… discussion on dcterm:subject is also relevent. (History of the evolution of DC is kind of lost)
… Need to make this clear
AndreaPerego: Yes, it needs to be clarified. Looking at how its used - theme tends to be thematic 'environment'; 'public sector', essentially the main topic
… Generally we try to be inclusive and different groups do different things
… They have their own ways and we risk creating confusions.
… Could include owl individuals, but as said - people are using DCAT as owl ontology, but although we do use owl DCAT wasn't designed to be used like that
… A lot of these issues could be resolved via SHACL or profile ...
… We do have conficting issues raised
… Different communities pulling in different directions
RiccardoAlbertoni: People are confusing that range: is really guidance not a constraint
RiccardoAlbertoni: To summarise - is the feeling that we should explain more?
AndreaPerego: We risk upsetting one party if we change/say anything, so we need to something more
alejandra: If we add clarification, but ranges are guidance. Are you suggesting adding to RDF?
RiccardoAlbertoni: I was suggesting both, but now think we should go for the lightweight touch of note only
<alejandra> https://
alejandra: Example 48...
<alejandra> https://
<alejandra> so, is this a bug? https://
<AndreaPerego> Issue about dc:subject and dcat:keyword: https://
RiccardoAlbertoni: So looks like the ttl needs fixing.
… What should we be adding to the examples to explain?
alejandra: I'll raise an issue for the errata
RiccardoAlbertoni: I'll put together a draft for the clarification and we can review. Key is we don't want to change the range of dcat:themes
… yet
<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://
<RiccardoAlbertoni> https://
alejandra: Thought we weren't doing the alignments?
AndreaPerego: Part of the idea was to see if people would want to collaborate on alignments, but not in the standard. Do we want an 'official' place?
RiccardoAlbertoni: Might be a good idea. github wiki or W3C?
<alejandra> I will follow up - and I agree to put the link for reference (but won't go into the spec)
AndreaPerego: Main collection point is on the W3 page
AOB: none