– DRAFT –
DXWG DCAT subgroup teleconference

approve last meeting minutes

<riccardoAlbertoni_> PROPOSED: approve last meeting minutes https://www.w3.org/2021/09/15-dxwgdcat-minutes

+1

<riccardoAlbertoni_> +1

<DaveBrowning> +1

RESOLUTION: approve last meeting minutes https://www.w3.org/2021/09/15-dxwgdcat-minutes

<riccardoAlbertoni_> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2021.11.16

agenda

+1

<DaveBrowning> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni_> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni_> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1418

Outstanding issues

<riccardoAlbertoni_> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1418

riccardoAlbertoni_: It's about metadata for describing tabular data.
… This is not exactly in scope with DCAT, and there was a WG working on this.
… We have already the dcterms:conformsTo that may cover this use case.
… But this property is quite generic, as reported in the discussion.

<riccardoAlbertoni_> https://resources.data.gov/resources/dcat-us/#distribution-describedBy

riccardoAlbertoni_: There was also some discussion about the fact that a specialization of this property should be moved to future work.

<riccardoAlbertoni_> https://resources.data.gov/resources/dcat-us/#distribution-describedByType

riccardoAlbertoni_: The DCAT US case was also reported ^^ where a specific property is used for this purpose.
… So, should we keep things as they are, or we should provide a minimal solution?

<riccardoAlbertoni_> AndreaPerego: I think this is for future version of DCAT 4

<riccardoAlbertoni_> ... not only tabular data should be consider

AndreaPerego: And for tabular data there is already a standard that can be re-used - Tabular Data on the Web.
… There's actually a property defined in their vocabulary that can be used to link to the description of a table.

DaveBrowning: Agree we should move it to future work.
… I'm also not sure which would be the impact on the vocabulary.
… We need probably to discuss this in a broader group of people, not limited to the DCAT ones.

riccardoAlbertoni_: I agree we don't have the bandwidth and people to address this.

<riccardoAlbertoni_> https://www.w3.org/TR/tabular-data-model/#link-header

riccardoAlbertoni_: Maybe approached as ^^ can be provided as suggestions on the approach to be followed.
… But the approach above does not concerns the actual metadata, but how to add the link in HTTP headers.
… So, you cannot query this information via SPARQL, for instance.

https://www.w3.org/TR/tabular-metadata/#introduction

https://www.w3.org/TR/tabular-metadata/#introduction

AndreaPerego: In this other spec ^^ there's a specific property to describe a table: tableSchema

riccardoAlbertoni_: Actually the Tabular Data WG provided different options on how to do that.

AndreaPerego: If used in DCAT, we should give guidelines on which of the possible approaches should be used.

riccardoAlbertoni_: So, maybe even a note can be dangerous or confusing.

AndreaPerego: +1

<DaveBrowning> +1

riccardoAlbertoni_: So, I would suggest we create a new milestone for DCAT4, close this issue, and create another one.
… This issue should not be limited to tabular data.
… Actually, the person who created the issue agreed that there is no need to add things in DCAT on this.

<riccardoAlbertoni_> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1418#issuecomment-957883773

proposed: Create a new issue not limited to tabular data and add it to the DCAT4 milestone, and deleted the current one

<DaveBrowning> +1

proposed: Create a new issue not limited to tabular data and add it to the DCAT4 milestone; close the current one

<riccardoAlbertoni_> +1

<DaveBrowning> +1

+1

RESOLUTION: Create a new issue not limited to tabular data and add it to the DCAT4 milestone; close the current one

DaveBrowning: May be worth raising this issue in the plenary.
… It is not just a DCAT issue.

Status of ED for 3PWD

proposed: Current ED ready for 3PWD after merging https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/1369

<DaveBrowning> +1

<riccardoAlbertoni_> +1

RESOLUTION: Current ED ready for 3PWD after merging https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/1369

+1

<riccardoAlbertoni_> +1

Plan for DCAT

riccardoAlbertoni_: The idea we discussed is to have the REC out in May 2022.
… February is not feasible due to W3C schedule.
… Is this a problem?

AndreaPerego_: Not for me.

DaveBrowning: It shouldn't be a problem for me.
… I saw that some work we may need to do is to clean up the issues in GH.
… If we go for May, it may be worth doing some proper housekeeping to give a clearer indication on what might be addressed in future work.

AndreaPerego_: +1

riccardoAlbertoni_: I agree.
… About what we would like to bring into the REC this concerns versioning, dataset series, and inverse properties.
… So, maybe we should prioritize on related issues.

AOB?

[meeting adjourned]