Reviewing open DCAT actions; action required from Bernadette, Phil, John, Sandro

Hi Bernadette, Phil, John, Sandro,

Fadi and me reviewed all open actions that are related to DCAT. Many of them are actually done or no longer relevant. We'd like to do some housekeeping, so please take note of the following:


George had ACTION-71 to ping Ed Summers re issues 7 to 9:

I propose to drop that action, and instead ping Ed *after* Fadi and me have written up a proposal for resolving these issues. (We have the outline of a solution from today's call.) Does that sound reasonable?


You had an ACTION-60 to work on the abstract of DCAT:

Lacking further details, we're not sure if this is still to be done. Can you say if this was already done, and if not, if you still intend to do it, perhaps with a due date?

You had ACTION-73 to write up the outcome of a discussion with Rufus from OKFN.

I believe you can claim victory on that one; the link to your summary is on the action page.

You had ACTION-83 to clarify about dc:language:

You did that, and we had a long and productive discussion as a result, which culminated in a proposal that seemed to have consensus, and which Fadi will get on the DCAT agenda for voting shortly. So, claim victory on the action?

Finally, in non-DCAT business, you had ACTION-94 to ask me about ISSUE-46:

The answer is that I'm satisfied with the changes made to RegOrg in that regard, but I believe that the same question applies to ADMS and hasn't been answered or discussed in that context. I realise that doing these changes on ADMS would be a lot of work. I propose changing ISSUE-46 so that it applies only to the ADMS product.


You had ACTION-58 to annotate issues 2 and 3:

Since both are long close, I believe the action is completed or has become obsolete, and can be closed?


You took two actions related to making the DCAT namespace resolvable:

ACTION-68: to GET FPWD vocab?

ACTION-70: Put in place proper HTML and RDF for the dcat namespace

Are these the same thing? I notice that the namespace has content negotiation with Turtle, RDF/XML and HTML variants in place; the only issue seems to be that the HTML variant isn't particularly informative. So, are the actions done, or was there more that you were planning to do, or is there more to do here for someone else to do?

Thanks all for any updates!


Received on Thursday, 31 January 2013 20:50:42 UTC