ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAAABAC
1
GroupIssue TitleKind of IssuePull RequestStatus (Close to finalization in green)AffectsAssigness
2
Closed966dcat:Resource description edits, section 5.1feedback982PR merged, issue closedDave
3
Closed967dcat conformance questionfeedback977PR merged, issue closedDave
4
Closed968Segregate namespaces into normative and non-normative setsEditorial969PR merged, issue was already marked as due for closing. Now closed
5
Closed934URL/URI inconsistency in dcat:endpointURL commentFeedback999A proposal, waiting the review from Editors and commenters who provided the feedback. (Now merged, and commenters have given thumbs up). Now closedTranslationsRiccardo
6
Closed935dcat:compressFormat and dcat:packageFormat description inconsistencyFeedback986PR merged - updated as discussed in DCAT meeting, except for the UsageNote saying " distribution are often a file", as it is already explicitly say in other Usage NoteTranslationsRiccardo
7
Closed949DCAT: ODRL CG reviewFeedbacklabelled "Due for closing" more than three weeks agoTranslationsAndrea
8
Closed970Basic Geo vocabulary considerationsFeedback988Ready To Merge - Agreed - see PR #988. Now merged, and prompt to commenters added Simon
9
Closed974notes on 6.15.4 and 6.15.5 latitute and longitude FeedbackMarked due for closing pending PR #988)Can be closed (because of #970)
10
Closed920dcat.ttl - editorialNotesEditorialDone - issue closedSimon
11
Closed937DCAT: Inconsistent use of "profile" / "application profile"EditorialDone - issue closedSimon
12
Closed939DCAT: Subtitle not included in SpecRef entries EditorialDone - issue closedSimon
13
ClosedAdd Czech translationTranslation PR 936Merged
14
Closed9736.7.19 mention other data package formatsFeedback1005Agree to action text in issue, now merged
15
Closed980dcat:Resource usage noteEditorial1003PR 1003 and 1004 mergedTranslations
16
Closed984indicate DCAT version in the `skos:changeNote`sEditorial997PR mergedTranslationsRiccardo
17
Closed944Current https://raw.githubusercontent.com/w3c/dxwg/gh-pages/dcat/rdf/dcat.ttl is inconsistent Feedback1006in progress, inconsistence probably due to Protege OWL API Bug, not dcatsimon
18
Closed955vCard and FOAF? FeedbackLong discussion, discussed in call with resolution. Response now sent (github and email)Makx
19
Closed923property/etc added in this revision of DCATEditorialall the PRs merged, can we closed this? the part related to TTL is addressed in Issue #984 ..
20
Closed1009Range of dct:type Feedback / QuestionDialog complete?
21
Closed987usage note and definition for odrl:hasPolicy need to be updated in TTLEditorial996Merged, Otherwised It would have conflicted with PR 1010 for issue #725TranslationsRiccardo
22
Closed957[I18N] Various date types could be more specific Feedback1012Followed suggestion in github. Ready for review/mergeDave
23
Closed1025Features at risk/Implementation evidenceEditorial1044Needs alignment with implementation evidence and transition request
24
Closed531Profiles and distributions Feedback1008Now mergedSimon picked it up and ran with it!
25
Closed945Update acknowledgements section before progressingEditorial1021Should be ready for closing. Update on the acknowledge are now track on Issue 1051Andrea
26
ClosedCompleting dcat.ttl translation in italianEditorial1035Unfortunately this PR https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/985 about translation was in progress and in the meanwhile It has been superseded by the PR working on dcat.ttl annotation. Riccardo has prepared a new PR 1035, which builds on top of PR1034
27
Closed983do we want to use skos:definition or rdfs:comment in the dcat.ttl?Editorial#1034do we want to use skos:definition or rdfs:comment? Answer: we have skos:definition for all the DCAT terms (terms from DCAT 2014 and DCAT 2). We have maintained the rdfs:comments that were present in the dcat2014 for backward compatibility. Translations
28
Closed922Editorial comments on DCAT EDEditorial ??#1056 2 outstanding points (cardinalities and tweaking text on bytesize)Discuss
29
Deferred to future work959[I18N] References to ISO-639 vs. BCP47FeedbackOutline response in review and now added to github. Issue moved to 'Future Work' to help ensure it is reviewed.Dave
30
Deferred to future work958[I18N] Examples provide no language or direction metadataFeedback1007Raises questions on interoperability if not using URIs. Also we should acknowledge the direction metadata comment - for future work? All immediate changes mergedRiccardo provided PR adding language tags where missing in examples. Dave to update issue
31
Deferred to future work806Examples for dataset series Feedbackissue currently not in the DCAT CR Milestone; Have we decided not to address it in DCAT2?Now in Future Work milestone
32
Deferred to future work960DCAT: Request for clarification on dcat:endpointDescriptionFeedbackNot neededAndrea provided a preliminary reply, to be validated / confirmed by the WG.
Doesn't require changes to documents		No concerns raised re: Andrea's reply. Issue contains good ideas for future work, so moved to Future Work
33
Deferred to future work1020Minor editorial comments on DCAT CR candidateFeedbackSee statusAddressed across PRs #1021 (merged), #1023 (merged) and #1023 (also merged). One remaining suggestion for dct:conformsTo example held over for now - best to align with future work? (Agreed)Issue updated to make likely Future Work status clear
34
Deferred to Future Work975better link for ISO19115-1 codelist, section 13 Feedback1001PR uses Andrea's suggestion and applied consistently. It has reached the two reviews, and It is merged. Left to align with any changes from ISO XML github issueDave
35
Due for closing725Reflect all 'Usage notes' into DCAT RDF representation Feedback #1034Discussed 24th July, good work. Some new comments arised recently, and seems suggesting modifications, what do we want to do? We have separated DCAT in two ontologies. The first includes all the dcat-defined elements, the second groups all the dcat extra-annotations for third-parties vocabularies.

No agreement on whether to use skos:definition or skos:usageNote in the second ontology.

However, the issue has lost part of the importance after splitting DCAT in two ontology. In fact, the problem impacts only the second ontology, which is an optional resource with extra annotations.

Waiting for objections?		Translations, #983Riccardo setting up a first PR/ Now Simon
36
Deferred to Future Work 971JSON examplesFeedbackAutomation?Alejandra to assess how much this takes.
Proposed to not do in Recommendation
37
Deferred to Future Work 972Scope notes for URL propertiesFeedbackCan we close it?/Lets discussSimon is having a look
38
979Change owl:versionInfoEditorialThis needs to be done for CR, but what would it say?TranslationsNot critical for WG review?
39
377Updated namespace fileEditorial881Is separate from recommendation, but good to get done. Will we only publish dcat.ttl or other forms such as RDF/XML. Draft story for Ralph/CRDaveB. Email query sent to Ralph, no reply (Assume our approach is okay). Not critical for WG review
40
72Profile definitionEditorialStatus unclear - have we addressed the DCAT part of this/is the DCAT tag incorrect? Think this is not tagged for DCAT recommendation work...directly but looks like we've done the work?
41
Needs to be done1051DCAT: Further updates to ack sectionEditorial1052Some updates from Andrea, suggestions from riccardo, do the other editors want to mention anyone else?
42
1065Express dct:contributor explicitly or via qualifiedAttributionFeedback
43
1084DCAT sotd needs updating for CREditorial
44
1055How to express available formats for a dcat:DataserviceFeedback
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100