Report on the 9th TREE CG Meeting

Dear TREE CG members,

We just finished the 9th TREE CG meeting. Here is a report:

  * A small PR was opened to fix the member extraction algorithm (#88) 
https://github.com/TREEcg/specification/pull/91/files - please review 
this by the 10th TREE CG meeting because then we’re going to click the 
merge button if nobody objects

  * By the 10th TREE CG meeting, Pieter will open a PR for the README.md 
and adding how we reach consensus in the TREE CG spec, also including a 
changelog and semantic versioning

  * A separate read-through session will be organized. We plan to do 
read-throughs in 2 iterations: one iteration for our internal group, a 
second iteration with a larger audience once an initial review has been 
done. If something functionally needs to change during these 
read-throughs, it needs to become an issue that can be discussed during 
the standardization meetings

  * Attracting more people: read-through and README.md as a first 
instrument. Other people who joined the CG but didn’t join any meetings 
yet will be reminded.

  * Redirection: a PR can be opened to add in the spec that both URLs 
before and after redirection need to be tested: 
https://github.com/TREEcg/specification/issues/86 - Pieter will do this 
by the 10th CG meeting.

  * A new issue was opened with a request for guidelines on common HTTP 
use cases - please discuss here: 
https://github.com/TREEcg/specification/issues/92

  * We’ve had a longer than expected discussion on conditional imports 
and importing streams. No full consensus yet, but we’re thinking in the 
same direction. i) things that are stream related should move to LDES, 
ii) conditional imports are not needed if we would just understand from 
the DCAT on the landing page that 2 collections are 
interconnected/interlinked cfr. foreign key relations in RDBs. Use 
cases: a) linking the observations stream to the context of the sensors, 
b) in Linked Connections, stations and the connections are 2 separate 
collections, but the connections can be fragmented based on the location 
of a station.

  * We lacked time to dive into:

     - minor issue #76 (the tree:NotEqualToRelation),

     -  the bigger issues #85 (graph vs. search trees)

     - Discussing a path forward on standardized test cases

    → We will add these again to the agenda of the 10th TREE CG meeting

  * Our TREE spec has some visibility at the International Semantic Web 
Conference: 
https://mastodon.social/@dylanvanassche@fosstodon.org/111375286143692355

A *dedicated read-through session will be organized the 22d of November 
14:00 CET* on the usual link 
<https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3Ameeting_NDkwMWZlMzMtM2FjZi00MjZhLTlhZTMtNjAwMjU5Yjc3YWVi%40thread.v2/0?context=%7B%22Tid%22%3A%22a72d5a72-25ee-40f0-9bd1-067cb5b770d4%22%2C%22Oid%22%3A%22074b6191-940e-49de-964e-f2919f3f8501%22%2C%22MessageId%22%3A%220%22%7D>. 
Put this in your schedules now as there won’t be an automated invite.

*The 10th TREE CG Meeting* will be the week after on the 29th of 
November at 14:00 CET, on the same link. Put this in your schedules now 
as there won’t be an automated invite. The slides can already be found 
here 
<https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/13TeYhoBec9C8ocncKIOTsB0320P6hZauki8x0KazEmw/edit?usp=sharing> 
- feel free to ask edit rights if you want to help preparing them by now.

This sense that this is the right pace of making the spec better - 
looking forward to seeing you next time!

Kind regards,

Pieter

-- 
https://pietercolpaert.be
+32486747122