[Minutes] 2017-06-05

The minutes of today's meeting are at 
https://www.w3.org/2017/06/05-dxwg-minutes with a text snapshot below.

After agreeing that the editors of DCAT will be Simon, Thomas, Alejandra 
and Peter, the meeting mostly focussed on use cases and how they're 
going to be set out, the reqs that comes from them etc.



                            DXWG Weekly Telco

05 June 2017

    [2]Agenda [3]IRC log

       [2] https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2017.06.05
       [3] http://www.w3.org/2017/06/05-dxwg-irc

Attendees

    Present
           alejandra, annette_g, chile, Ixchel, Jaroslav_Pullmann,
           kcoyle, mbruemmer, MJ_Han, PWinstanley,
           RiccardoAlbertoni, roba, RubenVerborgh, SimonCox, Thomas

    Regrets
           Andrea, Caroline, Lars, Newton

    Chair
           Karen

    Scribe
           Alejandra

Contents

      * [4]Meeting Minutes
          1. [5]Preliminaries
          2. [6]DCAT Editors
      * [7]Summary of Resolutions

Meeting Minutes

Preliminaries

    First agenda item: approve meetings from last time

    <Thomas> No corrections

    No additions / corrections

    Resolved: Last week's minutes approved

    Kcoyle: we will spend some time on discussing how we are going
    to organise ourselves

DCAT Editors

    kcoyle: discussing role of editors and contributors

    <PWinstanley> I am up for editor

    I'd like to be an editor

    <phila> [8]Data on the Web Best Practices had 3 editors and
   https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/

    *loads* of contributors

    <RubenVerborgh> Editor of what?

    DCAT editor

    <phila> DCAT, RubenVerborgh

    <phila> phila has changed the topic to: DXWG Weekly telco

    <Thomas> I'd be willing to paricipate also

    <RubenVerborgh> *sorry, missed "topic", sounded more general*

    <Thomas> As an editor

    <SimonCox> I can help edit - have done one before

    <Makx_Dekkers_> Can help with DCAT too.

    <SimonCox> 4 editors is an OK number

    potential editors: alejandra, thomas, Simon, Peter

    Resolved: DCAT editors will be Peter, Thomas, Simon, Alejandra

    <erics> +1

    <Thomas> +1

    <Makx_Dekkers_> +1

    <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1

    <annette_g> +1

    <present_Ixchel> +1

    <MJ_Han> +1

    +1

    <nandana> +1

    <Jaroslav_Pullmann> [9]https://docs.google.com/document/d/
    1z8UVjMEPoqp69ZHXk6asY6tCHHECglk4-3Lznd5dxS0/

       [9] 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1z8UVjMEPoqp69ZHXk6asY6tCHHECglk4-3Lznd5dxS0/

    kcoyle: Next discussion - the proposal of use case template

    kcoyle: another proposal on the reorganization of what the use
    cases are about and what the tasks are

    kcoyle: many use cases and requirements that people are
    considering DCAT requirements but may be better as requirements
    for Application Profiles

    Jaroslav_Pullmann: discussing the proposal for the use cases
    structures

    Jaroslav_Pullmann: status of use cases: new, open, stable,
    closed

    Jaroslav_Pullmann: describe the problem statement - current
    situation and missing aspect that should be considered and what
    is the motivation for an improvement

    Jaroslav_Pullmann: optionally, consider existing approaches

    Jaroslav_Pullmann: next mandatory part is 'requirements'

    kcoyle: continues discussing the template structure - links to
    related use cases

    RubenVerborgh: organization might require some tweaking

    RubenVerborgh: separation might be artificial in some cases

    RubenVerborgh: as some use cases are cross-cutting

    <RubenVerborgh> in particular: overlap between DCAT
    distribution and profiles / conneg

    <Jaroslav_Pullmann> seems I am muted, give me a second

    kcoyle: Now discussing re-organization

    <Makx_Dekkers_> My only pledge was to keep URLs to use cases
    persistent.

    Jaroslav_Pullmann: did we reach an agreement on extending the
    template?

    kcoyle: yes

    Jaroslav_Pullmann: it will often be the case that we will need
    to close duplicate use cases and continue one of the threads

    <RubenVerborgh> *ah woops, sorry for jumping ahead, thought
    that was settled*

    <annette_g> +1 to having less repetition

    kcoyle: moving to reorganization section

    Jaroslav_Pullmann: Main category are deliverables - 3
    deliverables at first

    Jaroslav_Pullmann: DCAT 1.1. core

    Jaroslav_Pullmann: catalog, datasets, distributions
    (representations of either static or dynamic datasets) - I
    agree that some elements are cross-cutting

    Jaroslav_Pullmann: conneg and distribution may overlap

    Jaroslav_Pullmann: so, we need to discuss the focus of the use
    case

    <kcoyle> alejandra: if we have aspects from the use case, for a
    different section, should we add a new one?

    kcoyle: Editors will be able to decide this after they have a
    look at the document

    erics: I had a similar question - in DWBP there were
    cross-cutting use cases, so perhaps consider a section with
    these cross-cutting use cases across the major focus areas

    SimonCox: I'd like to pull us back to the Use cases - the
    status flags are unclear to me

    SimonCox: the use cases should yield requirements

    SimonCox: does the status mean that the requirement has been
    satisfied?

    roba: we need to decide if we put up the use cases and then the
    WG decides if they are in scope

    roba: we also need to deal with the duplication

    roba: stable means that those are the ones that we pay
    attention to

    roba: I suggest we put cross-cutting use cases first

    <SimonCox> The easiest way to detect duplication is through the
    requirments

    roba: and then we deal with the others later

    SimonCox: to identify the duplications we need to look at the
    requirements level, which is what it needs to be carried
    through

    <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +Jaroslav_Pullmann

    <Jaroslav_Pullmann> sorry I was offline for a moment

    roba: we need to work out how much the group expects the editor
    to identify the duplication or we go through each use case one
    by one and the group decides

    <Makx_Dekkers_> I'd also prefer to gather use cases without
    considering duplication, and deal with de-duplication later.
    The requirements are what matter.

    Thomas: I was wondering if we are not focusing too much now on
    the use cases

    Thomas: but we need to make sure in the future that the
    requirements are described through the use cases

    <Makx_Dekkers_> I am seeing use cases that are similar to what
    I want to contribute, but I still would want to describe my use
    case. Otherwise, would I need to negotiate with the author of
    the similar use case to merge?

    annette_g: we've got the use cases divided into 3 deliverables,
    but it seems to me that Profile/Conneg use cases might be a
    single group

    <RubenVerborgh> +1 to tags (to an extent, they are already
    present now)

    <RubenVerborgh> this would address my concerns on cross-cutting

    <RubenVerborgh> we cannot pretend that conneg is entirely
    separate from the rest

    annette_g: but maybe grouping is not the way to do it - I tend
    to maximise the use cases that are considered for a single
    deliverable

    <phila> +1 to grouping/tagging requirements cf. grouping UCs

    <Zakim> RiccardoAlbertoni, you wanted to say not sure that
    duplication should be avoided at this stage

    RiccardoAlbertoni: I am not sure why we are focusing so much at
    duplication at this stage, as it can be very good now and it
    can be solved later on

    RiccardoAlbertoni: later on

    RiccardoAlbertoni: if we have more use cases, we have better
    ground for the requirements

    <Makx_Dekkers_> +1 to riccardo

    <PWinstanley> +1 to RiccardoAlbertoni comment about multiple
    forms of use cases

    +1

    <Makx_Dekkers_> we can do de-duplication on the requirements

    Jaroslav_Pullmann: we are not worried about duplication at the
    moment

    phila: tx

    Jaroslav_Pullmann: we want to have focus deliverables

    Jaroslav_Pullmann: cross-referencing is done via text

    Thomas: we shouldn't shift the problem to text managing

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about assumptions not in UCs

    phila: UCs documents usually forget to say 'we are assuming X,
    etc' - we don't need to make explicit all assumptions

    <SimonCox> I agree - need some pragmatism. But remember that
    the main purpose of UC is to generate requirements. It is the
    requirements which must be satisfied by the technology

    <Thomas> +1 for Phil

    phila: it allows to keep the number of UCs manageable

    <Jaroslav_Pullmann> example on using tags: [10]https://
    www.europeandataportal.eu/de/content/show-license

      [10] https://www.europeandataportal.eu/de/content/show-license

    <Thomas> +1 to Simon

    <Makx_Dekkers_> +1 to Simon

    Jaroslav_Pullmann: the use cases will always have multiple
    dimensions
    … refers to the example of using tags
    … allowing a selective view of particular use cases

    [11]https://www.europeandataportal.eu/de/content/show-license

      [11] https://www.europeandataportal.eu/de/content/show-license

    ... we can switch on and switch off relevant use cases

    <annette_g> nope

    kcoyle: has anyone contributed their use cases?

    <chile> no

    <erics> No

    <SimonCox> I have another!

    <chile> will do

    kcoyle: can we get all the use cases contributed as soon as
    possible?

    I have more to add too

    <annette_g> didn't we set a one month deadline last week?

    <Thomas> I have some more to add

    <Makx_Dekkers_> I am sitting on five to ten of them

    Jaroslav_Pullmann: do we have a resolution on the
    reorganization proposal?

    <Makx_Dekkers_> Need to find time to write them up

    PROPOSAL: the group will consider this reorganization of use
    cases

    <Thomas> +1

    +1

    <annette_g> +?

    <roba> +1

    <MJ_Han> +1

    <phila> [12]This reorganization

      [12] 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1z8UVjMEPoqp69ZHXk6asY6tCHHECglk4-3Lznd5dxS0/edit#heading=h.xs8j1li7rrbq

    <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1

    <Colleen> +1

    <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1

    <present_Ixchel> +1

    <erics> +1

    <mbruemmer> +1

    <Makx_Dekkers_> waht does 'consider' mean?

    <Makx_Dekkers_> 'we'' think about it and decide later'?

    PROPOSAL: the group will accept the reorganization

    <Thomas> +1

    <Colleen> +1

    <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1

    <annette_g> -!

    <annette_g> -1

    <roba> i guess we can look at the results and then change our
    minds via a new proposal :-)

    <roba> +1

    <present_Ixchel> +1

    annette_g: we discussed about doing it a little different

    annette_g: one suggestion was combining those UCs that are to
    do with APs

    annette_g: another option is to use the tags for grouping

    annette_g: the last grouping from the document is looking
    rather small

    annette_g: it seems to me that they cross-cut those too

    annette_g: I think that tags would be better

    Jaroslav_Pullmann: both approaches are proposed to be applied
    in parallel

    Jaroslav_Pullmann: we have both: tags and the grouping

    <SimonCox> {Jaroslav_Pullmann breaking up too much?}

    alejandra: why don't consider the 3 deliverables as other tags?

    <roba> one reason for reordering is to deduplicate easier - we
    shouldnt worry too much about final order perhaps.

    Jaroslav_Pullmann: we want to harmonize UCs

    <Thomas> @alejandra : isn't that the same in the end?

    <phila> alejandra: The separation in the 3 deliverables is in
    the tags

    <kcoyle> alejandra: one use case could be tagged with multiple
    tags

    <phila> ... We can tag each UC/Req with the relevant
    deliverable(s)

    <Makx_Dekkers_> @roba: I don't think we should try to
    deduplicate use cases; we can deduplicate requirements

    Jaroslav_Pullmann: we were using the google doc for discussion,
    then we move this reorganization will be more apparent

    Jaroslav_Pullmann: reorganizing this in the wiki page

    kcoyle: I understood that we should use tags rather than
    reorganization

    yes

    <PWinstanley> +1 to tagging

    annette_g: yes

    <Makx_Dekkers_> +1 to tagging

    <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1 to tagging

    <PWinstanley> we should have a dynamic document

    phila: there are bits where the javascript will take the
    requirements and generate a list of the use cases that yielded
    them

    <PWinstanley> +1 to phila

    phila: there are tables that are autogenerated

    <Thomas> +1 to phila

    <annette_g> +1 to phila

    phila: it is a web document

    <PWinstanley> tagging can help with curation

    roba: I think we may be getting ahead of ourselves, we have a
    list of candidate use cases with duplication in them - group
    them to facilitate discussion is the first step

    roba: if we had a technology where we could tag them and get
    dynamic grouping, then we could do it

    <MJ_Han> like this? [13]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/
    1EmojqR3nQo3ioj-qG_C0UeGJ0prcNZFom9th0AzaN0c/edit?usp=sharing

      [13] 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EmojqR3nQo3ioj-qG_C0UeGJ0prcNZFom9th0AzaN0c/edit?usp=sharing

    <phila> +1 to Rob

    roba: but to organize the document to coherently look at them
    to reduce the number of use cases, it is the first step

    +1 to Rob

    <Thomas> +1 rob - keep it manageable and proceed for now

    <MJ_Han> +1 to Rob

    kcoyle: we should get all the use cases and continue the work,
    maybe we leave it to the UC editors to organize them

    <SimonCox> I'm still concerned about focus on UCs as the end
    point. The UCs are there to expose requirements.

    kcoyle: yes, requirements are at the core of what will define
    our work in the future

    <Makx_Dekkers_> +1 to Simon; requirements is what we're looking
    for

    <erics> I thought we voted last time that we were given a
    month?

    kcoyle: can we stop here with the discussion then?

    Jaroslav_Pullmann: I'm convinced that we will end up with some
    grouping

    Jaroslav_Pullmann: so we need some simple structure, we can go
    on with our work and we'll see

    <Makx_Dekkers_> Deadline for use cases is still end of June,
    correct?

    <kcoyle> [14]https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/
    Use_Case_Working_Space#Dataset_Versioning_Information

      [14] 
https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Use_Case_Working_Space#Dataset_Versioning_Information

    <Makx_Dekkers_> Can I reiterate request for persistent URLs for
    use cases?

    kcoyle: deadline for providing the use cases is end of June

    Before we finish, reminder for everyone to indicate their
    intention to attend the F2F meeting please

    kcoyle: discussing use case on dataset versioning

    <annette_g> +1 to the use case

    phila: definitely support the use case, this brings me to
    mention that if the UC Editors find it helpful, they can look
    at the report of the workshop we had last year

    <erics> +1 to the use case that covers dataset and
    distributions

    <phila> [15]SDSVoc Workshop report

      [15] https://www.w3.org/2016/11/sdsvoc/report

    Jaroslav_Pullmann: I support the versioning, but there is much
    discussion about what a dataset is

    Jaroslav_Pullmann: discussion on the notion of dataset, as it
    clarifies what is going to be versioned

    roba: I support the use case, I have some issues on how the
    requirement is expressed

    roba: I personally think that the requirement is not an
    extension to DCAT

    <phila> +1 to Rob - Reqs shouldn't include solutions

    <Makx_Dekkers_> Versioning is much more complicated than in
    this use case. I have one on my list that identifies at least
    four types of versioning.

    roba: it sounds to me as putting the solution forward too early
    on

    kcoyle: can we accept the use case with the caveat that the
    requirements need to be reworded?

    <erics> +1 to accepting a use case topic but not necessarily
    the content

    <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1

    Jaroslav_Pullmann: we could put it in the Open state with a
    comment on it

    <kcoyle> PROPOSED: accept UC ID4, with possible rewording of
    requirements

    annette_g: just looking at the description, I didn't get the
    sense that we needed to do it in a specific way, but pointing
    out that there is some ways of dealing with it somewhere else

    <phila> PROPOSED: Accept the versioning Use Case, modulo
    rewording the requirements not to include the solution
    [16]https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/
    Use_Case_Working_Space#Dataset_Versioning_Information

      [16] 
https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Use_Case_Working_Space#Dataset_Versioning_Information

    roba: the requirement says 'an extension to DCAT'

    +1

    <erics> +1

    <annette_g> +1

    <roba> +1

    <Thomas> +1

    <mbruemmer> +1

    <PWinstanley> +1

    <Jaroslav_Pullmann> +1

    <MJ_Han> +1

    <RiccardoAlbertoni> +1

    <present_Ixchel> +1

    <SimonCox> +1

    <Colleen> +1

    Resolved: Accept the versioning Use Case, modulo rewording the
    requirements not to include the solution [17]https://
    www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/
    Use_Case_Working_Space#Dataset_Versioning_Information

      [17] 
https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Use_Case_Working_Space#Dataset_Versioning_Information

    <SimonCox> (though still not fully clear what 'Accept' means in
    relation to a UC)

    <Makx_Dekkers_> apologies, I do not agree with the versioning
    use case

    <phila> [18]Skeleton DCAT doc alejandra SimonCox Thomas
    PWinstanley

      [18] https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/

    <Thomas> Thx phil

    <RiccardoAlbertoni> thanks and bye

    <erics> take care everyone

    <PWinstanley> bye

    <annette_g> bye!

    <Makx_Dekkers_> bye

    <Thomas> Bye

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [19]Last week's minutes approved
     2. [20]DCAT editors will be Peter, Thomas, Simon, Alejandra
     3. [21]Accept the versioning Use Case, modulo rewording the
        requirements not to include the solution https://
        www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/
        Use_Case_Working_Space#Dataset_Versioning_Information

Received on Monday, 5 June 2017 15:17:32 UTC