-
Opening of the meeting
-
Appointment of the minutes taker (Juha will act as the chair)
-
Approval of the agenda
-
Use of element-specific Github issues (in general).
a. Juha has created the issues, but content is for the time being copied from the SRAP proposal, with some element level discussion.
b. We are currently using properties from URIs from BIBO, DCMI and FOAF, plus Library of Congress Relator codes. Shall we use existing specifications for properties to be added (if any) as well?
-
A timeline for completing the profile.
a. The attendees are invited to provide their own views
-
SRAP-related communications – how can / should we inform others about the work?
a. Should we write a blog post about the need for SRAP, including the process for its review and publication. Such text could be featured on the home page and tweeted about. The blog post could also invite people to join the working group or post comments.
-
Next meeting
-
Closure of the meeting
- Juha
- Tom Baker
- Jan
- Sam Oh
- Karen Coyle
Juha: Issues have been created. Issue info is copied from the Google doc.
New elements, plus one issue for refinements.
Please comment.
Also, create additional issues if anything comes up. Presumably everyone can comment and add issues.
In future meetings we will focus on certain issues.
Tom: It would be good to announce this work more broadly, i.e. in a blog post and set some deadlines for public comment. Encourage participation. Also we are heading into vacation time.
Juha: Keep work within this group until we have a draft, then take it publicly.
Karen has added comments on embargo.
Karen: can we trust vocabularies that are not "blessed" by a major organization - FaBio as an example.
Juha: discuss this next meeting -
Tom: Bibo now under DCMI umbrella. It's a "frozen" specification, but if need in future to maintain it we have a framework within which we can do that.
Juha: probably ok to reuse Bibo elements.
Juha: also Karen's comments on Status. There are many different ones; we can look at them.
Karen: the DCTAP is just a draft - not to be considered complete. Tom and Karen can walk people through in a future meeting
Juha: will discuss issues one by one in future meetings.
Juha: can we do a timeline for a first draft?
Tom: There are questions of sequence. Proposals will need to go to the usage board. Perhaps we can work in parallel. But we need to clarify the order of things. Identify terms that are missing, then decide if those go to the usage board.
Juha: Question about the relation between this group and the usage board. There are 4 members of usage board (UB) in this group. Ideally usage board work should be straightforward. Perhaps UB could then rubber stamp the work. DCMI doesn't have a standards development process like IETF or W3C. Hopefully not too formal, but having some idea of the process would be helpful.
Sam: good suggestion. Maybe UB could develop that.
Tom: we have a draft document for the approval of application profiles. But UB doesn't approve application profiles as a whole. UB discusses creation of new properties, looking at the scope of DC terms. I don't see the UB getting involved in approval of the AP as a whole. We tried reviewing APs over 10 years ago but it didn't work well. Instead, working group should review profile as a whole. UB might say that a property is fine but it needs a more general definition.
Juha: some things that could be discussed, the data model. The working group accepting this doesn't seem authoritative enough. Someone needs to do the work of understanding and approving the profile. We could prepare a document that is standarized in ISO. Not clear how much effort ISO communitees can put into this. I'm disappointed if DC cannot formally approve the profile.
Sam: if we take the profile as an important aspect of DCMI, then we need to see if we have all of the expertise in this working group to formally endorse this profile. I can't think of a better group than the UB to take on this role, but we need to decide if we will do this.
Tom: Because of overlap with UB in this group, issues should surface here. But I wasn't expecting UB to make final decision on whether to publish.
Jan: What I was hoping for was formal approval of SRAP.
Tom: not questioning that DCMI would provide formal approval, but where would it come from? UB? Directorate?
Sam: I see it as formal approval by UB.
Juha: compromise: UB would not automatically take responsible for approval of profiles, which would be a lot of work. SRAP is different because several UB members understand SRAP well.
Karen: what is the desired status? hosted? published? approved?
Tom: This is new for DCMI. We should look at the new process document. Need to look at basic process and outputs.
Juha: we can look at other standards organizations.
Sam: put this on the agenda.
Juha: beyond this working group to create standardization workflow for DCMI. But we can look at it from our point of view. What I need is the process itself - one or two drafts, how you get to publication. Should have one process for all kinds of documents.
Sam: This working group is charting new territory
Tom: This is an opportunity
Sam: We want a reasonable flow, not too heavy or slow.
Juha: need a concrete proposal before this working group discusses it.
Tom: just created github issue about process with link to document
Juha: We should have a draft that we could share. Need a blog post, but not yet.
Tom: If DCMI endorses this, then we need publicity to community.
Jan: Will present DataCite possible profile at data conference.
Tom: is there a way to harmonize SRAP and research datasets?
Jan: hope so
Juha: we didn't include datasets in SRAP because of how complicated it is.
Sam: this could be interesting for the DCMI meeting in October. Could be an invited talk. SRAP is presenting.
Tuesday, 13 July. Same time?
Also propose July 20.