- From: Pieter Colpaert <pieter.colpaert@ugent.be>
- Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 17:16:27 +0200
- To: "public-treecg@w3.org" <public-treecg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <ffc67ac8-cc21-4cde-a9ec-fe474b1470a8@ugent.be>
Hi all, Thanks for a very interesting TREE CG Meeting today! *Decisions:* 1. The next TREE CG meetings will not happen strictly on the first Wednesday of the month due to agenda constraints. The pace of once per month is kept. Check the agenda (https://calendar.google.com/calendar/u/0/embed?src=4b04fcfb0103a4f96d703b8b8255f15378d5f4729b9083bfc0129b676ae783d1@group.calendar.google.com&ctz=Europe/Brussels) - the *next one is the 14th of May* **2. PR 123 solves multiple issues: 1) ambiguity in the spec on tree:view; and 2) making sure a collection IRI after redirects can also be used in the initialization. The biggest issue is that the discovery spec itself is not solved yet and it was argued that correcting the sentence in the overview to reflect this would make the spec consistent again, until the discovery spec is finalized in its own pace. Pieter C proposed a different approach, as we’re working with a living document at this moment for the discovery part, and proposed to, instead of changing the overview sentence, that we actually move selecting a rootnode based on the `tree:view` property as a first idea in the 3. PR 116 on relation to SPARQL comparators (Bryan-Elliott) can be merged on the condition that the minor comments that were left are solved. 4. PR 125 The TREE profile: we will first investigate whether and how we will allow adding relations at the end of the page before merging the PR. This can be discussed on the mailing list (and accepted for merging in case of consensus) or during the next TREE CG meeting, depending on how fast this progresses. 5. For the next meeting on the 14th of May, we will prioritize Thomas Bergwinkl’s issue on SHACL relations as a discussion point as we already postponed this one twice. Then we moved to *updates from the work items:* 1. On the *discovery spec*, Julián started collecting use cases within the DiSHACLed project, where there’s a work package on discovery from DCAT-AP data portals using SHACL. The use cases are collected here: https://github.com/DiSHACLed/discovery-specification/issues - and you can add your own, even if you’re not participating in the project! 2. On the *test suite: *tests were added since last time and comments from Ieben were processed. Once we have completion of a test suite of the full spec, we will notify the group again and request a review! https://github.com/TREEcg/specification/pull/120 We also then continued to the *core discussion* on the *Member Extraction Algorithm* (continued) and proposed to re-discuss the requirements and really scope it to TREE Web APIs, instead of trying to solve member extraction for any possible Web API out there. In that sense we came to the possibility of having 2 different ways: 1) the TREE MEA, which works specifically for TREE, is relatively easy to implement and contains what we want to promote for server providers; and 2) a Generalized MEA, which can work on any type of API. Rediscussing the requirements for the TREE ecosystem specifically is however a good next step for making further decisions. Kind regards, Pieter
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2025 15:16:36 UTC