Editorial suggestions

Cite the repo for I-D-Profile-Negotiation at first mention, update liaisons to the CGs for WGs that have closed.

charter/index.html

@@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ <h2>Goals</h2>
 <p>DCAT has known gaps in coverage, for example around time series and versions. DCAT has been successful and is in wide use, but these gaps must be addressed if usage is to continue to grow across different communities and the variety of metadata schemas is to reduce.</p>
 
 <p>Maximizing interoperability between services such as data catalogs, e-Infrastructures and virtual research environments requires not just the use of standard vocabularies but of <em>application profiles</em>. These define how a vocabulary is used, for example by providing cardinality constraints and/or enumerated lists of allowed values such that data can be validated. The development of several application profiles based on DCAT, such as the European Commission's <a href="https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/asset/dcat_application_profile/description">DCAT-AP</a> is particularly noteworthy in this regard.</p>
-<p>Rather than limit the number of metadata standards and application profiles in use, systems should be able to expose and ingest (meta)-data according to multiple standards through transparent and sustainable interfaces. We thus need a mechanism for servers to indicate the available standards and application profiles, and for clients to choose an appropriate one. This leads to the concept of content negotiation by application profile, which is orthogonal to content negotiation by data format and language that is already part of HTTP. A new RFC on this topic currently under development at IETF with input from the Dataset Exchange Working Group, is based on the <a href="http://profilenegotiation.github.io/I-D-Accept--Schema/I-D-accept-schema"> draft</a> presented at the <a href="https://www.w3.org/2016/11/sdsvoc/report#conneg">SDSVoc workshop</a>. The combination of DXWG's definition of what is meant by "application profile", together with the DXWG view of how clients and servers may interact in different ways based on these profiles, together with this external work will provide a powerful means to exchange data in any format (JSON, RDF, XML etc.) according to declared structures against which the data can be validated.</p>
+<p>Rather than limit the number of metadata standards and application profiles in use, systems should be able to expose and ingest (meta)-data according to multiple standards through transparent and sustainable interfaces. We thus need a mechanism for servers to indicate the available standards and application profiles, and for clients to choose an appropriate one. This leads to the concept of content negotiation by application profile, which is orthogonal to content negotiation by data format and language that is already part of HTTP. A new <a href="https://profilenegotiation.github.io/I-D-Profile-Negotiation/I-D-Profile-Negotiation">Internet Draft on profile negotiation</a> currently under development at IETF with input from the Dataset Exchange Working Group, is based on the <a href="http://profilenegotiation.github.io/I-D-Accept--Schema/I-D-accept-schema"> draft</a> presented at the <a href="https://www.w3.org/2016/11/sdsvoc/report#conneg">SDSVoc workshop</a>. The combination of DXWG's definition of what is meant by "application profile", together with the DXWG view of how clients and servers may interact in different ways based on these profiles, together with this external work will provide a powerful means to exchange data in any format (JSON, RDF, XML etc.) according to declared structures against which the data can be validated.</p>
 <p>The goals of the working group are to maintain the version 2 of DCAT and extend the standard to version 3 in line with work done to date and the ongoing work on dataset exchange being undertaken by communities more generally, and to develop to a recommendation the work undertaken in the 2017-2019 charter period on content negotiation by profile.</p>
 
       </section>
@@ -278,14 +278,14 @@ <h3 id="w3c-coordination">W3C Groups</h3>
 
 <dt><a href="https://www.w3.org/community/shex/">Shape Expressions Community Group</a></dt>
 <dd><p>The work of this CG is of direct relevance to the concept of application profiles.</p></dd>
-<dt>The <a href="https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/">RDF Data Shapes Working Group</a></dt>
-<dd><p>This WG is expected to have completed its work shortly after the DXWG is formed, however, efforts should be made to liaise with its community.</p></dd>
+<dt><a href="https://www.w3.org/community/shacl/">SHACL Community Group</a></dt>
+<dd><p>This CG is continuing work on the W3C <a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/">Shapes Constraint Language</a> Recommendation.  Efforts should be made to liaise with its community.</p></dd>
 
 <dt><a href="https://www.w3.org/community/schemaorg4datasets/">schema.org for datasets Community Group</a></dt>
 <dd><p>This CG is clearly of high relevance to the DXWG</p></dd>
 
 <dt id="odrl"><a href="https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/">Open Digital Rights Language (ODRL) Community Group</a></dt>
-<dd><p>Ensure that the mechanisms being standardized by the ODRL Community Group for machine readable permissions, obligations, licenses, rights etc. are given due consideration.</p></dd>
+<dd><p>Ensure that the mechanisms of the W3C <a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-vocab/">ODRL</a> Recommendation being maintained by the ODRL Community Group for machine readable permissions, obligations, licenses, rights etc. are given due consideration.</p></dd>
 
                     </dl>