IRC log of swd on 2007-01-22

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:49:04 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #swd
13:49:04 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:49:10 [RalphS]
Meeting: SWD Boston F2F
13:49:13 [RalphS]
Chair: Guus
13:49:25 [RalphS]
13:51:30 [RalphS]
rrsagent, please make record public
13:51:39 [Zakim]
SW_SWD(f2f)8:30AM has now started
13:51:46 [Zakim]
+ +1.617.253.aaaa
13:55:18 [RalphS]
zakim, aaaa is MeetingRoom
13:55:18 [Zakim]
+MeetingRoom; got it
13:55:33 [RalphS]
zakim, MeetingRoom is really MIT-Kiva
13:55:33 [Zakim]
+MIT-Kiva; got it
13:55:49 [RalphS]
zakim, MIT-Kiva is MeetingRoom
13:55:49 [Zakim]
+MeetingRoom; got it
14:02:52 [TomB]
TomB has joined #swd
14:03:01 [TomB]
RalphS, hi!
14:03:29 [RalphS]
zakim, meetingroom has Alistair, Antoine, Bernard, Guus, Diego, IvanHerman, TimBL, Ralph
14:03:29 [Zakim]
+Alistair, Antoine, Bernard, Guus, Diego, IvanHerman, TimBL, Ralph; got it
14:03:31 [ivan]
ivan has joined #swd
14:03:40 [berrueta]
berrueta has joined #swd
14:04:45 [berrueta]
scribenick: berrueta
14:05:27 [Guus]
Guus has joined #swd
14:05:38 [aliman]
aliman has joined #swd
14:05:43 [Zakim]
14:05:56 [RalphS]
zakim, ??p5 is Tom
14:05:56 [Zakim]
+Tom; got it
14:06:49 [RalphS]
zakim, Fabien just arrived in meetingroom
14:06:49 [Zakim]
+Fabien; got it
14:07:12 [Antoine]
Antoine has joined #swd
14:08:04 [RalphS]
zakim, Ben just arrived in meetingroom
14:08:04 [Zakim]
+Ben; got it
14:10:18 [berrueta]
tbl: meeting of a group of people interested in SW in the Cambridge area
14:10:28 [benadida]
benadida has joined #SWD
14:10:51 [berrueta]
tbl: 15 people interested
14:11:01 [RalphS]
zakim, meetingroom also has Jon
14:11:01 [Zakim]
+Jon; got it
14:11:11 [berrueta]
tbl: no particular agenda
14:11:34 [berrueta]
... mainly a social thing
14:11:55 [berrueta]
... discussion, brainstorming
14:12:43 [berrueta]
tbl: in this room (Kiva)
14:13:55 [berrueta]
Guus: short round of introductions
14:13:57 [Jon_Phipps]
Jon_Phipps has joined #swd
14:13:58 [RalphS]
Topic: Introductions
14:14:19 [RalphS]
scribenick: berrueta
14:16:06 [RalphS]
Alistair: we have several implementations of SKOS nwo
14:16:09 [RalphS]
14:17:30 [Elisa]
Elisa has joined #swd
14:19:13 [FabienG]
FabienG has joined #swd
14:19:27 [RalphS]
Jon: picked up on SKOS at Dublin Core Madrid workshop
14:20:04 [Zakim]
14:20:51 [RalphS]
Bernard: U. Manchester is adding SKOS to COHSE
14:20:59 [Guus]
zakim, who is here?
14:20:59 [Zakim]
On the phone I see MeetingRoom, TomB (muted), Elisa_Kendall
14:21:01 [Zakim]
MeetingRoom has Alistair, Antoine, Bernard, Guus, Diego, IvanHerman, TimBL, Ralph, Fabien, Ben, Jon
14:21:05 [Zakim]
On IRC I see FabienG, Elisa, Jon_Phipps, benadida, Antoine, aliman, Guus, berrueta, ivan, TomB, RRSAgent, Zakim, RalphS
14:22:25 [RalphS]
Guus: interoperability of vocabularies is core to our work at Vrieje University
14:22:39 [RalphS]
14:23:45 [RalphS]
Diego: my research work is on semantic search
14:24:22 [RalphS]
Fabien: my research group is interested in graph-based reasoning on SemWeb
14:25:45 [RalphS]
Ivan: every day I take a tram that goes by Guus' office
14:25:56 [berrueta]
tbl: i'm not here as W3C director
14:26:46 [berrueta]
tbl: interested in the discussions on RDFa and recipes ("slash")
14:27:25 [RalphS]
Tim: I taught a 1-week course [2 weeks ago] and one of the biggest problems was how to configure apache
14:27:44 [RalphS]
... if it came out-of-the-box with application/rdf+xml support things would be a *lot* easier
14:28:30 [berrueta]
RalphS: the activity of this group is very important, great impact
14:29:27 [berrueta]
... very busy, reduced dedication to this group
14:30:00 [RalphS]
Ralph: but hope to increase my time in SWD again
14:31:06 [RalphS]
Tom: project looking at model-based metadata; includes Dublin Core and eventually SKOS
14:31:20 [RalphS]
Tim: calling from Berlin
14:31:26 [berrueta]
14:31:30 [RalphS]
Elisa: calling from Los Altos, California
14:31:47 [RRSAgent]
14:31:51 [RalphS]
14:32:11 [RalphS]
[Tom calling from Berlin, Elisa calling from Los Altos]
14:32:54 [RalphS]
Elisa: working with organizations who are keenly interested in metadata about their ontologies
14:33:02 [RalphS]
... core business of SandPiper is ontology development
14:34:19 [berrueta]
Guus: three objectives of this meeting
14:34:43 [berrueta]
... 1) skos use cases: discuss them
14:35:12 [berrueta]
... 2) as a result, obtain a list of requirements for SKOS
14:35:49 [berrueta]
... 3) review issue list, priorize them, select critical ones
14:36:31 [berrueta]
topic: SKOS use cases
14:37:29 [Antoine]
14:37:45 [berrueta]
Antoine: 12 use cases in the document
14:38:17 [berrueta]
... there are more than 20 contributions
14:38:37 [berrueta]
... some are not edited (yet), but available at the wiki
14:39:02 [Antoine]
14:39:20 [timbl]
timbl has joined #swd
14:40:14 [berrueta]
... thinks the response of the community was good
14:40:52 [berrueta]
... will summarize each one of the UC next
14:42:49 [berrueta]
... UC1: description incomplete
14:42:51 [berrueta]
Guus: two different hierachies for the same thesaurus, is this a requirement?
14:43:29 [berrueta]
aliman: multi-hierarchy is an important requirement
14:45:23 [berrueta]
Guus: shows an example of the getty vocab
14:45:55 [RalphS]
Guus: google for 'tgn getty', then enter 'boston'
14:46:19 [berrueta]
Guus: two record types: administrative and geographical, non exclusive
14:47:04 [RalphS]
... (shows Utrecht next)
14:47:31 [berrueta]
Guus: looks up for an example of a record with two types
14:48:22 [berrueta]
Antoine: complex lexical info in the context of this application
14:50:57 [berrueta]
RalphS searchs 'Boston' on the TGN
14:51:17 [berrueta]
Guus: Boston has several alternative names
14:51:30 [RalphS]
Guus: Getty shows English, Vernacular, and Historical names
14:52:43 [RalphS]
... e.g. Tokyo has 'Edo' historical name
14:54:22 [berrueta]
Aliman: multilingual labels are already solved
14:55:29 [berrueta]
Aliman: but language is not enough in some cases (see the Boston and Tokyo examples)
14:57:18 [berrueta]
... the issue is there are different scripts for some language, but only a language tag
14:57:58 [RalphS]
Alistair: potential issues with cardinality constraints and preferredLabel properties if there are multiple scripts in which the label might be written
14:57:59 [berrueta]
Guus: this is probably out of scope of this WG
14:59:38 [berrueta]
ivan: this WG should not worry about this issue. Maybe forward the issue to the RDF core WG
15:01:18 [berrueta]
RalphS: asks for clarification of the multi-hierarchy issue
15:01:27 [RalphS]
Alistair: a conceptual node may have more than one parent
15:02:34 [berrueta]
guus: back to the issue of making a statement about a label
15:03:04 [berrueta]
aliman: we should provide a framework to allow that
15:03:49 [Zakim]
15:04:09 [berrueta]
guus illustrates his point with an example in the whiteboard
15:04:46 [RalphS]
Guus: how would we say the label "Edo" is valid only between 1600 and 1800 AD ?
15:04:52 [RalphS]
Alistair: annotation properties
15:04:52 [Zakim]
15:05:05 [berrueta]
aliman: we you use an annotation propierty, you are not limited to a literal value
15:05:15 [RalphS]
zakim, ??p5 is probably Tom
15:05:17 [Zakim]
I already had ??P5 as TomB, RalphS
15:06:02 [berrueta]
aliman: you can use a resource as a value of the annotation property
15:06:05 [RalphS]
Alistair: model annotation as an n-ary relation
15:09:13 [berrueta]
ivan: is this a possible use of reification?
15:10:03 [berrueta]
guus: seems to be 2 options: to reify, or to loss information
15:11:00 [berrueta]
timbl: another option is to put the statement in another document
15:13:23 [RalphS]
-> SKOS annotated label whiteboard discussion
15:13:50 [TomB]
15:14:24 [RalphS]
-> meeting room right side
15:14:38 [RalphS]
-> meeting room left side
15:16:51 [aliman]
15:16:54 [Guus]
Guus has joined #swd
15:16:58 [aliman]
15:17:23 [RalphS]
Alistair: the old issue notes a place-holder item for this
15:17:43 [RalphS]
... "SKOS does not provide support for ... any type of annotation associated with a non-descriptor"
15:17:54 [timbl] are a few slides about options for modeling things which vary with time
15:18:01 [RalphS]
Guus: not sure this is the same thing
15:18:59 [RalphS]
ACTION: Alan write up the preferredLabel modelling issue
15:19:10 [RalphS]
zakim, AlanR has arrived in meetingroom
15:19:10 [Zakim]
+AlanR; got it
15:19:58 [RalphS]
AlanR: just joined the WG representing Science Commons ... active on HCLS IG
15:21:01 [RalphS]
Antoine: UC #2
15:21:22 [RalphS]
... has descriptor concepts and non-descriptor concepts
15:21:40 [RalphS]
s/#2/#2: Iconclass
15:22:08 [RalphS]
Guus: this case helps define SKOS scope
15:22:31 [RalphS]
... Iconclass is a grammar
15:23:04 [RalphS]
... permits adding things to parts of the vocabulary
15:23:18 [RalphS]
... I'd like to make this feature out of scope for SKOS
15:23:32 [RalphS]
... e.g. KEY; it's not pre-defined where in the vocabulary this is used
15:24:41 [berrueta]
berrueta has joined #swd
15:25:29 [RalphS]
Antoine: finding modifiers while browsing a vocabulary -- "post coordination"
15:26:50 [berrueta]
aliman: this mechanism allows to create new concepts by combination of existing concepts
15:28:17 [berrueta]
Guus: shows an example of the vocabulary ("Animal")
15:30:06 [berrueta]
aliman: this is related to the "qualifiers" of the ?? medical vocabulary
15:30:51 [RalphS]
15:31:33 [RalphS]
Alistair: terms in MESH have flags that indicate they can be used with an additional qualifiers vocabulary
15:31:41 [TomB]
15:31:47 [Jon_Phipps]
Jon_Phipps has joined #swd
15:31:50 [aliman] example of coordination
15:31:56 [RalphS]
Alistair: ... e.g. 'aspirin' combined with 'sideEffects' means 'sideEffectsOfAspirin'
15:32:44 [RalphS]
Alistair: BLISS classification scheme has similar aspects
15:33:57 [berrueta]
Antoine: we lost the possibility to attach qualifiers
15:34:07 [berrueta]
... cannot represent hierarchies of qualifiers
15:35:33 [Guus]
15:36:15 [berrueta]
aliman: ambiguity can arise from the use of qualifiers
15:36:47 [RalphS]
Alistair: in my master's thesis I conclude that it is an application-specific decision whether order of coordination is significant
15:36:54 [berrueta]
... if you don't have a mechanism to attach the qualifier to particular individuals
15:37:44 [RalphS]
Guus: Iconclass also has a notion of 'opposite', or counter-example, done by doubling the letter; e.g. 25FF
15:37:58 [aliman]
Examples of using bliss classification
15:38:35 [RalphS]
Guus: this feature is also used in Iconclass to do male-female distinction
15:39:50 [berrueta]
Antoine: 13,000 concepts
15:40:15 [berrueta]
... in this vocabulary
15:40:55 [berrueta]
... qualifiers allow to reduce the number of concepts
15:41:20 [berrueta]
... indexing can use multiple concepts
15:42:43 [berrueta]
ACTION: Antoine to provide more use cases of uses of qualifiers
15:43:38 [RalphS]
Alistair: library world talks about "synthetic" and "enumerative" classification schemes; "synthetic" scheme is meant to be used in combinations to synthesize categories
15:43:53 [berrueta]
Guus: we will continue with use cases after coffee break
15:44:10 [RalphS]
[15 minute coffee break]
15:59:24 [Zakim]
15:59:50 [Zakim]
16:07:02 [timbl_]
timbl_ has joined #swd
16:07:17 [berrueta]
berrueta has joined #swd
16:14:06 [RalphS]
16:14:06 [ivan]
scribenick: ivan
16:14:53 [aliman] Core requirements for automation of analytico-synthetic classifications
16:15:09 [aliman]
(I just found this paper, looks highly relevant to preceding discussion.)
16:15:56 [ivan]
antoine: we have to decide at some point what goes intot he document
16:16:10 [ivan]
guus: we should keep the overiew and the deails of examples
16:16:37 [ivan]
ralph: features in the use cases that are important for skos has to be brought out from the examples (for those who do not know the details)
16:17:17 [ivan]
alistair: we could move the examples from the vocabulary to the example, but what ralph said made me think again...
16:17:28 [RalphS]
zakim, meetingroom no longer has alan
16:17:28 [Zakim]
alan was not listed in MeetingRoom, RalphS
16:17:29 [Zakim]
-alan; got it
16:17:35 [ivan]
guus: it is good to have that on our list...
16:17:39 [RalphS]
zakim, who's in meetingroom?
16:17:39 [Zakim]
MeetingRoom has Alistair, Antoine, Bernard, Guus, Diego, IvanHerman, TimBL, Ralph, Fabien, Ben, Jon, AlanR
16:17:45 [RalphS]
zakim, meetingroom no longer has alanr
16:17:45 [Zakim]
-AlanR; got it
16:18:22 [ivan]
antoine: next use case an integrated view to mediaval manuscripts
16:18:35 [ivan]
... there are collections and bridges among these
16:18:53 [ivan]
... we always have info on which vocabularies are used
16:19:02 [ivan]
... an issue of alignment of vocabularies
16:19:13 [ivan]
... it uses the iconclass vocabulary
16:19:23 [ivan]
... and another one that comes from the French national library
16:19:42 [ivan]
... the latter is 15000 subject, simple labels (simple and alternate)
16:20:01 [ivan]
... it is probably a flat list, and they introduce a set of classes for browsing purposes
16:20:22 [ivan]
... you got between 15000 descriptors, and each is linked to a class that is more general
16:20:41 [ivan]
alistair: is it essentially a tree level hierarchy, but you can use the descriptors on the bottom only
16:20:44 [ivan]
antoine: yes
16:20:54 [ivan]
guus: this is a feature I have not distilled yet
16:21:07 [benadida]
benadida has joined #SWD
16:21:10 [RalphS]
s/yes/yes, only the leaves of the tree can be used as descriptors/
16:21:19 [ivan]
... this problem of representing mandragor
16:21:29 [ivan]
16:21:56 [ivan]
... there are 2 issues coming out: (1) requirement for mapping, you need equivalence
16:22:05 [ivan]
... (2) you have the notion of abstract classes
16:22:11 [ivan]
... things that are not for indexing
16:22:40 [RalphS]
Guus: abstract classes appear in AAT also
16:23:21 [ivan]
alistair: i think it is a use cases that has some basic requirements for vocabulary mapping amont themselves
16:23:36 [ivan]
... there is also a requirement to map between combination of concepts
16:24:00 [RalphS]
Alistair: "11U4 Mary and John the Baptist ..."
16:24:00 [ivan]
... 11U4 in the description
16:24:35 [ivan]
... i think that will be a common requirement
16:25:03 [ivan]
antoine: the mapping points that there could be a link between the non descriptor items
16:25:24 [ivan]
... a descriptor on the one side and a qualifier on the other side, the latter is never be found as a descriptor
16:25:49 [ivan]
guus: is it fair to say we have a mapping requirement and two basic requirements
16:25:50 [ivan]
16:26:11 [ivan]
... with respect to the conjunction type of thing, that is an issue (or a requirement)
16:26:23 [ivan]
alistair: it comes up often in my experience
16:26:42 [ivan]
... there is a british standard wg rewriting the thesaurus standard
16:26:57 [ivan]
... working on how to represent mapping between thesauri
16:27:07 [ivan]
... i would think that they will come up with something how to model it
16:27:34 [ivan]
bernard: is there a requirement to map the iconclass to mandragore to identify the ??
16:27:56 [ivan]
... it seems that mandragore is a different type of mapping
16:28:05 [RalphS]
Alistair cited ISO 2788 parts 3 and 4 (under development) work on mapping
16:28:38 [ivan]
guus: rephrase the question: do we need more specific than broad and narrow, ie, owl or rdfs vocabulary
16:28:53 [ivan]
bernard: yes, this is what I am asking
16:29:02 [ivan]
... what is the broader term of XX
16:29:22 [ivan]
alistair: there is a browser for mandragore, can we see how this looks like?
16:29:55 [ivan]
antoine showing the mandragore browser example
16:31:30 [ivan]
antoine shows the iconclass vocabulary, one can see the vocabulary and the specialization of the concept
16:32:05 [ivan]
... on the right are the images from the collection (from the BNF) which have not been indexed against iconclass
16:32:39 [ivan]
... you browse your vocabulary, then you have access to the images
16:32:56 [ivan]
alistair: can you browse against the mandragore images only?
16:33:57 [RalphS]
-> Project STITCH : Semantic Interoperability to access Cultural Heritage
16:34:14 [ivan]
(scribe was a bit lost:-(
16:34:57 [ivan]
antoine: when you do a mapping to mandragore, do you use a second level only?
16:35:02 [ivan]
16:35:21 [RalphS]
Antoine: there are 15,000 alignment relations in the mapping
16:35:28 [ivan]
guus: I try to summarize, three thiings
16:35:35 [ivan]
... (1) need for an equivalence mapping
16:35:53 [ivan]
... (2) a less or more specific mapping, should it be more specific than broad/narrow
16:36:10 [ivan]
... (3) links between compostionals
16:36:36 [ivan]
... we recently linked a nist vocabulary for video tracking
16:36:43 [ivan]
... we got into a similar situation
16:36:59 [ivan]
... we got both the conjunctive and disjunctive form
16:37:18 [ivan]
... may be it should be a requirement, or maybe we can handle outside skos
16:37:30 [ivan]
ralph: there a reference to optional rejective forms
16:37:39 [ivan]
... is that from iconclass?
16:37:46 [ivan]
antoine: this comes from the french vocabulary
16:37:59 [ivan]
ralph: guus showed the double letter example, is it similar
16:38:24 [ivan]
antoine: they are more similar concepts, synonyms
16:38:48 [ivan]
guus: it is quite similar to preferred and non-preferred label
16:39:08 [RalphS]
"optional rejected form" means "synonym but deprecated"
16:39:19 [ivan]
guus: move on?
16:39:51 [ivan]
alistair: when it comes to mapping requirement, we need to have in mind of the functionality it is used for and focus on that
16:40:06 [ivan]
... that might help us in passing by other representations
16:41:22 [ivan]
guus: in this particular domain mappings are the only thing that adds something to the existing functionalities to musea
16:41:37 [ivan]
... if you open up the collections to browse to other vocabularies that you get new things
16:41:45 [ivan]
... mapping is 100% crucial,
16:41:52 [ivan]
... the only added value, and a big one
16:42:12 [ivan]
... in medicine it may be different
16:42:27 [ivan]
antoine: 4th example bio-zen
16:43:05 [ivan]
... wait for AlanR to come back on that one
16:43:38 [ivan]
antoine: the 5th use case: semantic search accross multilingual thesauri (agricultural domain)
16:44:02 [ivan]
... these are mostly mulitlingual and to provide open access to these vocabularies
16:44:21 [ivan]
... it is an interesting use case is for multilingual vocabularies
16:44:34 [ivan]
... there are 12 languages, with other terms, related terms, etc
16:44:45 [ivan]
... illustrates some typical usage like skos notes
16:44:54 [ivan]
... use some more complex links
16:45:12 [ivan]
... you can also use more specialized versions, subclasses,
16:45:25 [ivan]
... you find again the links between terms
16:45:37 [ivan]
... representing the terms of, eg, translations
16:45:58 [ivan]
... there is also a representation for mapping links, at the end of the use case
16:46:22 [ivan]
... they are using equivalence links, links between a concept and a combination of concepts
16:46:36 [ivan]
... conjunctions and disjunctions
16:46:46 [ivan]
alistair: that may be like a union
16:47:31 [ivan]
... the last example in the use case they use the mapping vocabulary as it is right now in skos
16:47:45 [ivan]
... it also has 'and or not'
16:47:56 [ivan]
... the second example is exactly an 'or'
16:48:21 [ivan]
guus: ie, they also have the 'and or not' in their usage?
16:48:42 [ivan]
bernard: the more these vocabularies are mashed, they have similar like narrow and broader
16:48:54 [ivan]
alistair: these can be ambigous...
16:49:16 [ivan]
guus: we already have this on the list of the issues (whether we need to represent a specific semantics to broad and narrow)
16:49:58 [ivan]
ACTION guus: to check that this broad/narrow is on the issues' list
16:50:27 [RalphS]
s/this/this issue of more specialization than/
16:51:21 [ivan]
guus: you can say we build into the skos vocabularies that we define, eg, two subclasses
16:51:47 [ivan]
... or we can say that we leave that to the vocabulary, the authors has the guideline to present this as a subproperty to broad/narrow
16:51:53 [ivan]
... the issue is to resolve this
16:52:13 [ivan]
alistair: ie, if people want to do more specific, how would they do it?
16:52:26 [ivan]
guus: yes, and whether this is part of the skos vocabulary or not
16:54:21 [RalphS]
Ivan: were problems with representing multilingual scripts found?
16:54:31 [RalphS]
... is there enough in RDF to represent this?
16:54:49 [RalphS]
Alistair: there were some interesting language problems in the Chinese mapping
16:55:20 [RalphS]
Antoine: but I think they succeeded in representing everything they wanted to represent in RDF, though they needed more than SKOS
16:55:40 [aliman] a document about mapping between agrovoc and chinese agricultural thesaurus
16:56:07 [ivan]
guus: term-to-term relationship?
16:56:46 [ivan]
antoine: the problem of having several labels for the same concepts that comes up, they want o be able to line up the literal translations to one another
16:57:00 [ivan]
guus: why not use for each preferred and alternative lables
16:57:19 [ivan]
alistair: the the preferred label in chinese may be the third alternative example in english
16:57:55 [ivan]
timbl: cat translates to 'chat' in French, you have to label in french
16:58:15 [ivan]
alistair: you are making a link between translations and labels
16:59:12 [ivan]
antoine: a concept in one vocabulary has a latin name for the pref label, and an alternative label the common name
16:59:17 [ivan]
... the same in the french versions
16:59:35 [ivan]
... and you want to point ot the fact to translate from the two alternative labels
16:59:48 [ivan]
guus: then the latin is a lingua franca
17:00:23 [ivan]
alistair: another thing they wanted that the label in French has been derived from that and than alternative label in English
17:00:41 [ivan]
guus: we may have an issue of relationship of linguistic labels
17:00:54 [ivan]
... not clear to me what to do with this
17:01:12 [ivan]
alistair: we have to be careful with a use case like this is what they do to exactly with this information
17:01:23 [ivan]
... why do they use it
17:01:53 [JonP]
JonP has joined #swd
17:02:10 [ivan]
ACTION antoine: capture the issue on capturing relationships between labels
17:03:02 [RalphS]
Antoine: e.g. acronym link
17:03:16 [RalphS]
... an example of a semantic relationship between labels
17:03:37 [ivan]
antoine: examples 6 and 7 are similar on features
17:04:12 [RalphS]
s/examples/use cases/
17:04:15 [ivan]
... representing quite simple vocabularies, one is on tactical situation objects
17:04:21 [ivan]
... a list of unstructured terms
17:04:30 [ivan]
... each term has some label and a note
17:04:40 [ivan]
... when it should be used
17:04:51 [JonP]
JonP has joined #swd
17:04:57 [ivan]
... the support life cycle is similar
17:05:15 [ivan]
ralph: in #6 it was difficult to see what it says about skos
17:05:18 [ivan]
alistair: me too
17:05:33 [ivan]
... this is not the sort of use case i am familiar with
17:05:51 [ivan]
antoine: i tried to interpret it, but apart form simple labelling i did not find anything
17:06:12 [ivan]
alistair: we could ask them what they want to do
17:06:20 [ivan]
guus: this is what they have...
17:06:43 [ivan]
ralph: maybe we want to ask submittors to point at the wg on areas they want additional things
17:07:01 [ivan]
alistair: use case 7 actually adds a question mark on skos (or owl)
17:07:14 [ivan]
... it is not clear why they want to skos
17:07:35 [ivan]
guus: i could think of reasons
17:07:47 [ivan]
antoine: they were search of standard ways
17:08:10 [ivan]
guus: the problem with use case #7 that it is out of scope
17:08:30 [ivan]
... or am i misunderstanding
17:08:45 [ivan]
ralph: it would be interesting question to ask them what they want skos for
17:08:57 [ivan]
bernard: may be a marketing issue
17:10:08 [ivan]
action antoine: to contact the submittors of #7 to see what they want to use skos for (as opposed to, say, owl)
17:10:50 [ivan]
alistair: it seems that they have a requirement to capture lots of things, that may need to extend skos
17:11:04 [ivan]
antoine: no, they really need only flat things...
17:11:24 [ivan]
... they need a structure to represent a natural language representation without a reasoner
17:12:56 [ivan]
antonie: number #8 gtaa web browser, accessing thesaurus
17:13:15 [ivan]
... want to provide the user with a sophisticated vocabulary
17:13:27 [ivan]
guus: there is an archive for tv and radio programs
17:13:46 [ivan]
... they do annotation inside the content but also coming from broadcasting companies
17:13:57 [ivan]
... on the top level there are 8 different facets
17:14:11 [ivan]
... and several of the sub hierarchies have separate classifications
17:14:28 [ivan]
... and that is the whole thing
17:14:41 [ivan]
... they are specific for a facet
17:15:19 [ivan]
alistair: there is a thematic and a named hierarchy, and they are orthogonal
17:15:45 [ivan]
guus: we can get test cases out of it
17:16:18 [ivan]
ralph: 'only keyword and genres can also have broader/narrower relation', is that a restriction?
17:16:31 [ivan]
guus: this is a very flat structure, this is not really a restriction
17:17:00 [ivan]
antonie: use case #9, another use of the same vocabulary of use case #8,
17:17:13 [ivan]
... using a special algorithm that provides the user an indexer
17:17:28 [ivan]
... the idea is to explore the different links in the thesaurus to rank the concepts
17:17:58 [ivan]
... if you have to index a document with a set of candidate terms, if the thesauri includes these terms, than that hierarchy is also presented
17:18:15 [ivan]
guus: I would have personally merged #8 and #9
17:18:31 [ivan]
antoine: #9 provided in a functional view
17:18:40 [ivan]
... adding a representation to an applicaiton is nice
17:18:57 [ivan]
guus: people in computer science like automatic things
17:19:07 [ivan]
... but these people like to manually check
17:19:57 [ivan]
ralph: even though it does not add anything technically, it adds a new aspect, good for 'marketing' reasons
17:20:38 [ivan]
alistair: if you look a traditional model, you manually build a vocabulary and index
17:21:08 [ivan]
... in this case the vocabulary is done manually, but an automatic indexing is good
17:21:57 [ivan]
... a use case document should have a business model section to show how different scenarios are used
17:22:22 [ivan]
guus: summary: #9 does not add anything to the requirements, but is an interesting use case scenario to keeo
17:22:28 [ivan]
17:23:04 [ivan]
alistair: applications might want the integrity of their data, and expressing the constraints is a requirement
17:23:22 [ivan]
guus: there is already and issue on the level of semantics that skos has
17:24:23 [ivan]
action alistair: summarizes the aspects of semantics of the skos data model
17:24:31 [RalphS]
zakim, Jonathan_Rees just arrived in meetingroom
17:24:31 [Zakim]
+Jonathan_Rees; got it
17:24:44 [RalphS]
zakim, AlanR just arrived in meetingroom
17:24:44 [Zakim]
+AlanR; got it
17:25:17 [RalphS]
JonathanRees: I'm part of Science Commons
17:26:34 [ivan]
alistair: a question on #8, relationships on terms between facets were computed
17:27:17 [ivan]
... question is how were these computed?
17:27:26 [ivan]
guus making faces:-)
17:27:54 [ivan]
guus: the general problem was that there were lack of relationships
17:28:03 [ivan]
... but I do not think there were much semantics
17:28:09 [RalphS]
-> Biozen use case as submitted
17:28:34 [ivan]
alistair: it also says the precomputed terms were not part of the iso standards
17:28:43 [ivan]
guus: good question, I do not know
17:28:55 [RalphS]
-> GTAA use case as submitted
17:28:57 [ivan]
action guus: check with veronique on the terms being outside the iso standard
17:29:44 [ivan]
antoine: use case #4, bio-zen ontology framework
17:30:42 [ivan]
... the main point to represent these medical vocabularies, keeping all the infos that are useful for applciation
17:30:47 [ivan]
... the application was not really detailed
17:31:04 [ivan]
... gene ontology and mash are the two examples for applications
17:31:16 [ivan]
... it has an example of representation of a term
17:31:35 [ivan]
... the main point is the fact that the representation they mix all kind of different of metadata vocabularies
17:31:55 [ivan]
... they created some sort of metamodel using owl, and uses pieces of other vocabularies
17:32:13 [ivan]
... they use all these meta models to represent the medical vocabularies
17:32:24 [ivan]
... they use, eg, dublin core plus skos terms together
17:32:39 [ivan]
... they created an owl specification to mix these metamodel features
17:33:15 [ivan]
guus: why there was within the definition there is a representation of the part of relationship
17:34:00 [ivan]
...does the mesh have its own hierarchy
17:34:38 [ivan]
alan: 'is a' is not 'part of', careful about that
17:35:03 [ivan]
guus: in skos we use the broader and narrower terms which are less defined
17:35:18 [ivan]
alan: obo originates in the gene ontology
17:35:30 [ivan]
... the latter has is a and part of relationships in it
17:35:40 [ivan]
... there has been a number of threads using this
17:35:56 [ivan]
... one thread is to translate obo to other formats, people used, eg, skos
17:36:16 [ivan]
... they have to decide where broader, etc, are used
17:36:33 [ivan]
... these actually threw away information but they are part of skos
17:36:46 [ivan]
... from my understanding at the time at least
17:37:20 [ivan]
... there is an effort to translate this into owl
17:37:48 [ivan]
... second thread of discussion is the 'quality' of the whole thing
17:38:07 [Elisa]
There is a recently released related portal - Daniel Rubin and his group have created this and are working to develop it as a part of their NCOR work:
17:38:11 [ivan]
... what can be related to what, what are the description of that, more philosophical stuff
17:38:39 [ivan]
guus: some people make subproperties from, say, skos broader
17:38:51 [ivan]
... then you do not throw away things
17:39:19 [ivan]
alan: i had the issue on putting it with owl-dl
17:39:33 [ivan]
guus: that is a separate issue on the agenda (relationship to owl-dl)
17:40:17 [ivan]
(scribe got distracted, sorry)
17:41:13 [RalphS]
Alan: Matthias is asking that as we fiddle with SKOS, we try to keep it OWL-DL compatible
17:41:19 [RalphS]
Alistair: it's already not OWL-DL
17:41:47 [ivan]
alistair: if you go into library sciences, you will find papers on classification
17:42:00 [ivan]
... people there define fundamental facets, time, space, etc
17:42:10 [ivan]
... there are discussions on what these fundamental facets are
17:42:33 [ivan]
... that might come to the skos spec
17:42:54 [ivan]
... but if you want to do that, this should be done as an extension of skos (in my view)
17:43:27 [ivan]
guus: b.t.w., the relationship to owl-dl should be part of our issues list, not requirement
17:45:11 [ivan]
... maybe if we define a set of constraints, that might lead to skos-dl...
17:45:28 [ivan]
... but this is a topic for discussion
17:46:47 [ivan]
alistair: it is tricky, extension by requirements is one of the major way of extending skos, and all of those are annotation properties, and that leads to problem
17:47:15 [ivan]
action alistair: rephrase the old issue of skos/owl-dl coexistence and semantics
17:47:24 [Zakim]
17:47:43 [ivan]
bernard: it was good in the owl days to have implementations submitted, too
17:47:58 [ivan]
guus: for the moment it is good to collect the information, it is good to use them as test cases
17:48:14 [ivan]
.... but this group is much smaller than the old owl group, and we have a resource problem
17:48:46 [alanr]
alanr has joined #swd
17:48:48 [ivan]
alistair: there are two wiki pages, and the shiny new skos web site
17:48:54 [alanr]
17:49:06 [ivan]
... the idea that anyone who has implementation should be able to add it
17:49:27 [RalphS]
-> SKOS home page
17:50:07 [ivan]
antoine: use case #10 birnlex, lexion for neurosciences
17:50:17 [ivan]
... aims at providing several vocabularies
17:50:28 [ivan]
... they are the same as the bio-zen use case
17:50:47 [ivan]
... there is a mixture of different metadata models, skos, dc, foaf, etc
17:51:27 [ivan]
alistair: all they want is the some of the properties like pref label, alt label, not in the structure of label
17:51:51 [ivan]
... if skos has good annotating support, people may just want to use that
17:52:10 [ivan]
guus: i interpreted this as having a lot of need to various type of relations
17:52:14 [Zakim]
17:53:17 [ivan]
... there are many things in the examples term relations with other semantics
17:54:19 [ivan]
alan: the argument is that there is a desire of the part of type of relationships that we may need in general
17:54:26 [Zakim]
17:54:28 [Zakim]
17:54:35 [ivan]
... ie, people insert tags into the rdf labels,
17:54:57 [ivan]
... shows the importance of this issue
17:54:58 [RalphS]
Alan: the BIRNlex use case may bring in issues for our vocabulary management work
17:55:29 [ivan]
alistair: this is a bit of annotating just about everything
17:55:51 [alanr]
17:55:51 [ivan]
... they do not want skos broader and narrower
17:56:09 [ivan]
... it is more that they want all type of documentation/annotation support
17:56:54 [ivan]
guus: the issue here is that you have your concepts
17:57:04 [ivan]
... how to document/annotate various concepts
17:57:09 [ivan]
... and what skos give you on that
17:58:38 [ivan]
action alan: write down the general documentation requirements, in particular to those that are related to literal values, and how to represent that in skos
17:59:10 [ivan]
antoine: use case #11 quite similar
17:59:18 [ivan]
... I have not read it in much details
17:59:47 [ivan]
... it is once again to represent all these various vocabularies and linking/importing skos concepts to an 'own' ontology
17:59:58 [ivan]
... and extending skos relations
18:00:21 [ivan]
guus: my proposal: there are still use cases coming in
18:00:38 [ivan]
... we have to include facilities to evaluate use cases
18:01:04 [ivan]
... we should go through the list of the requirements and see if we can refine this
18:01:11 [ivan]
... and go through the issues' list
18:02:55 [ivan]
---- lunch break ----
18:03:13 [RalphS]
[one hour lunch break]
18:03:16 [Zakim]
18:03:34 [Elisa]
See you in a bit -- elisa
18:03:52 [Zakim]
18:17:26 [timbl]
timbl has joined #swd
18:59:51 [berrueta]
berrueta has joined #swd
19:00:49 [Zakim]
+ +1.617.475.aabb
19:02:13 [TomB_]
TomB_ has joined #swd
19:03:06 [Zakim]
19:04:47 [RalphS]
zakim, Stephen_Williams has arrived in meetingroom
19:04:47 [Zakim]
+Stephen_Williams; got it
19:04:48 [Zakim]
19:04:54 [RalphS]
zakim, timbl has left meetingroom
19:04:54 [Zakim]
-TimBL; got it
19:05:00 [aliman]
aliman has joined #swd
19:05:09 [RalphS]
scribenick: RalphS
19:05:47 [RalphS]
-> SKOS Requirements sandbox
19:08:17 [RalphS]
-- R0. Information accessible in distributed setting
19:08:33 [RalphS]
Guus: is this a requirement on SKOS?
19:09:11 [RalphS]
Antoine: doesn't seem to change anything about SKOS or what it represents
19:09:56 [RalphS]
Guus: seems to be a general Web requirement
19:10:03 [RalphS]
Ralph: comes with RDF and the Semantic Web
19:10:37 [RalphS]
RESOLVED: drop R0. Information accessible in distributed setting as not SKOS-specific
19:10:45 [RalphS]
-- R1. Representation and access to relationship between concepts
19:10:57 [RalphS]
Guus: s/relationship/relationships/
19:12:14 [RalphS]
Bernard: "displaying or searching concepts" might give the impression of constraining our scope
19:12:26 [RalphS]
... e.g. excluding annotation
19:12:57 [RalphS]
Guus: how about "representing relationships between concepts"
19:13:16 [RalphS]
... the ability to represent hierarchical and non-hierarchical relationships between concepts
19:13:39 [RalphS]
-- R2. Representation and access to basic lexical values (labels) associated to concepts
19:14:30 [RalphS]
Antoine: "basic" as in "simple" as compared to more sophisticated scope notes
19:15:09 [RalphS]
Guus: basic lexical _information_ or do you really mean to restrict to _labels_ ?
19:15:39 [TomB_]
q+ to ask whether we are dropping "access to" in R1 and R2?
19:15:52 [RalphS]
Guus: "access" not needed
19:16:06 [Zakim]
TomB_, you wanted to ask whether we are dropping "access to" in R1 and R2?
19:16:34 [RalphS]
Tom: support dropping "access to"
19:16:52 [RalphS]
-- R3. Representation of links between labels associated to concepts
19:17:08 [RalphS]
Guus: we have an issue related to this
19:17:28 [RalphS]
... this requirement may change after resolving the issue
19:18:29 [RalphS]
Alistair: we could suggest a point of view without making a hard requirement
19:18:50 [RalphS]
... while reviewing all these requirements today
19:19:08 [RalphS]
Guus: I suggest that any requirement with a related issue be marked as "soft"
19:19:37 [Zakim]
19:19:45 [RalphS]
-- R4. Representation of glosses and notes attached to vocabulary concepts
19:20:18 [RalphS]
Guus: "notes" means "scope notes"?
19:20:20 [RalphS]
Antoine: yes
19:20:48 [RalphS]
Guus: so use the well-known term "scope notes"
19:20:58 [RalphS]
Antoine: should we include administrative notes?
19:22:03 [TomB_]
q+ to suggest "Representation of lexical information in multiple languages"
19:22:16 [RalphS]
Jon: suggest "glossaries" instead of "glosses"
19:22:33 [Zakim]
TomB_, you wanted to suggest "Representation of lexical information in multiple languages"
19:23:29 [RalphS]
Guus: I thought there is a distinction between a glossary and a scope note
19:23:48 [RalphS]
Alistair: what's the difference between 'gloss' and 'definition', then?
19:23:56 [RalphS]
... SKOS hasn't used the term 'gloss' previously
19:24:38 [RalphS]
Guss: "representation of textual descriptions ", with text mentioning definitions, scope notes, ...
19:24:48 [RalphS]
R{6,5}. Multilinguality
19:25:11 [RalphS]
Tom: suggest "Representation of lexical information in multiple languages"
19:25:21 [TomB_]
19:25:26 [RalphS]
Bernard: multiple _natural_ languages?
19:25:37 [RalphS]
Guus: yes, good addition
19:25:44 [RalphS]
-- R6. Descriptor concepts and non-descriptor ones
19:26:19 [RalphS]
Guus: distinction between concepts intended to be used for indexing and other concepts?
19:26:21 [RalphS]
Antoine: yes
19:27:01 [RalphS]
... what I had in mind was the existing skos:subject
19:27:17 [RalphS]
... some concepts cannot be used as subject relationships
19:27:40 [RalphS]
Guus: qualifiers are still relevant to indexing
19:28:55 [RalphS]
... e.g. AAT vocabulary
19:29:29 [RalphS]
... Furnishings ... furniture ... <furniture by form or function> ... screens
19:29:40 [RalphS]
... the terms in <...> are not meant for indexing
19:29:56 [RalphS]
Alistair: many folk would not consider the <...> to be concepts; they call them "node labels"
19:30:13 [RalphS]
... they are labels for a grouping of concepts, the groupings are called 'arrays'
19:30:23 [RalphS]
... they say the node label does not represent a 'concept'
19:31:07 [RalphS]
... in the British standard it is quite clear that the node labels are only used in a certain way
19:31:29 [RalphS]
... but AAT adds things to the thesaurus beyond the British standard
19:31:53 [RalphS]
... it's just a matter of us wording this requirement correctly
19:33:06 [RalphS]
... consider Mandragore; you're not supposed to use things from levels 1 and 2
19:33:31 [RalphS]
... but the British standard demonstrates a requirement to be able to label groupings
19:34:11 [RalphS]
Guus: propose to rephrase as "the ability to distingish between concepts to be used for indexing and for non-indexing"
19:34:20 [RalphS]
Bernard: is this really a requirement or just an issue?
19:34:34 [RalphS]
Guus: is this in the ISO standard?
19:34:48 [RalphS]
Alistair: no, in ISO thesaurus any concept can be used for indexing
19:35:32 [RalphS]
... there's no a-priori reason why something not intended for indexing in one context would be inappropriate for use in another context
19:35:45 [RalphS]
Guus: suggest R6 is a soft requirement
19:36:26 [RalphS]
... and add a new requirement having to do with grouping
19:36:28 [RalphS]
19:37:41 [RalphS]
... "the ability to include grouping constructs in concept hierarchies" -- as a soft requirement
19:38:11 [RalphS]
Alistair: hierarchies are not the only place where node labels can be used
19:38:20 [RalphS]
... node labels are also used in related terms
19:38:28 [aliman]
see z39.19
19:38:35 [RalphS]
-- R7. Composition of concepts
19:39:07 [RalphS]
Guus: is this like conjunction and disjunction?
19:39:25 [RalphS]
Alistair: the terms 'conjunction' and 'disjunction' don't really make sense as we're not talking about sets of things
19:39:46 [RalphS]
... the classical way of talking about this is to talk about 'coordination', and 'coordination of things'
19:40:04 [RalphS]
... I'm afraid to use set-theoretic language, as this would be jumping the gun
19:40:28 [RalphS]
... we're not talking about True and False or sets, rather we're talking about concepts
19:40:44 [RalphS]
... 'compound concepts' is a term used in the thesaurus world
19:41:37 [RalphS]
... 'post-coordination' usually means that things are coordinated at search time but it typically really just means queries with more than one thing
19:41:56 [RalphS]
... I don't recommend referring to pre- or post-coordination
19:42:18 [RalphS]
Guus: I recommend linking 'coordination' to an explanation
19:42:31 [RalphS]
Alistair: I'd be happy using 'composition' rather than 'coordination'
19:43:17 [RalphS]
Guus: let's categorize into 'candidate requirements' and 'accepted requirements' (rather than 'hard' and 'soft')
19:43:25 [RalphS]
-- R8. Vocabulary interoperability
19:44:05 [RalphS]
Guus: mapping at the level of equivalence, more specific, less specific
19:44:12 [RalphS]
... further things under discussion
19:45:28 [RalphS]
... suggest dropping this, as we need to be able to test
19:46:01 [RalphS]
Ralph: is R8 the general case and R12 a specific case?
19:47:03 [RalphS]
Jon: I have another use case; our system supports the expression of relationships between terms in vocabularies we own and terms in vocabularies we don't own
19:47:26 [RalphS]
... the reciprocal relationship would need to be endorsed by the owner of the other vocabulary
19:48:14 [RalphS]
Guus: I can make equivalence statements in my own ontology and others can choose to use mine or not use mine
19:48:40 [RalphS]
... valid to have different statements about mapping and determine to which you commit
19:49:00 [RalphS]
Jon: imagine two indexing systems but a single retrieval system
19:49:59 [RalphS]
Alan: a search for A should include B but not vice-versa?
19:50:03 [RalphS]
Jon: yes
19:50:21 [RalphS]
Fabien: is this specific to equivalence or is it a filter on the source?
19:51:12 [RalphS]
Guus: back when we did OWL, I had to spend a long time defending owl:imports
19:51:41 [RalphS]
... this may be outside the SKOS language, at a different level of the SemWeb stack
19:51:59 [RalphS]
Jon: this is not about trust but about representing the intent of the thesaurus writer
19:52:21 [RalphS]
Guus: but it's at a reasoning level
19:55:08 [RalphS]
Alistair: we refer to 'SKOS concepts' and 'SKOS concept schemes'; perhaps we can also talk about 'mapping schemes'
19:55:17 [RalphS]
Guus: like provenance?
19:55:36 [RalphS]
Bernard: why isn't a concept scheme the same as a mapping scheme
19:56:01 [RalphS]
Alistair: they're handled differently by applications
19:56:11 [RalphS]
... an application wouldn't display a mapping scheme as a hierarchy
19:56:30 [RalphS]
Bernard: but if you dereference all the concepts in a mapping scheme wouldn't you end up with a concept scheme?
19:56:58 [RalphS]
Alistair: there's current a loose recommendation that two concepts in a single concept scheme do not share a label
19:57:12 [RalphS]
... this might be expressed as a logical constraint on a concept scheme
19:57:23 [RalphS]
... but this constraint would be inappropriate for a mapping scheme
19:58:23 [RalphS]
... if someone wants to capture in their RDF graph that there exists a set of mappings that he authored ....
19:59:49 [RalphS]
... a concept scheme has a notion of 'containment'
20:00:10 [RalphS]
... different integrity constraints if you're just collecting some mappings
20:01:07 [RalphS]
Alan: if you use owl:sameAs, you're making a bi-directional assertion
20:01:23 [RalphS]
... but the author of a vocabulary might want only a one-way assertion
20:02:01 [RalphS]
Antoine: is related to the issue Sean raised about containment
20:02:21 [RalphS]
zakim, Jonathan has left meetingroom
20:02:21 [Zakim]
RalphS, I was not aware that Jonathan was in meetingroom
20:02:38 [RalphS]
zakim, who's here?
20:02:38 [Zakim]
On the phone I see MeetingRoom, TomB_ (muted), Elisa_Kendall
20:02:39 [Zakim]
MeetingRoom has Alistair, Antoine, Bernard, Guus, Diego, IvanHerman, Ralph, Fabien, Ben, Jon, Jonathan_Rees, AlanR, Stephen_Williams
20:02:41 [Zakim]
On IRC I see aliman, TomB_, berrueta, timbl, alanr, JonP, benadida, Guus, FabienG, Elisa, Antoine, ivan, TomB, RRSAgent, Zakim, RalphS
20:02:48 [RalphS]
zakim, Jonathan_Rees has left meetingroom
20:02:48 [Zakim]
-Jonathan_Rees; got it
20:03:16 [RalphS]
Bernard: is there something about R8 that is not included in R12?
20:05:43 [RalphS]
Bernard: "it shall be possible to record provenance information on mappings between concepts in vocabularies"
20:05:55 [RalphS]
s/vocabularies/different vocabularies/
20:06:07 [TomB_]
q+ to raise a point
20:06:12 [RalphS]
RESOLUTION: R8 reworded to "it shall be possible to record provenance information on mappings between concepts in different vocabularies"
20:06:19 [Zakim]
TomB_, you wanted to raise a point
20:07:18 [RalphS]
Tom: we use "vocabulary", 'concept scheme', and 'SKOS model'; let's stick to one term
20:07:40 [RalphS]
Guus: I propose we drop 'concept scheme' and use only 'vocabulary'
20:08:46 [RalphS]
Alistair: the ISO standard does not distinguish between term-oriented and concept-oriented; I made up this distinction
20:09:18 [RalphS]
... you _can_ talk about whether the data model is term-oriented or concept-oriented, but not the vocabulary itself
20:09:44 [RalphS]
Guus: consider a 'bank' vs. 'financial institution' example
20:10:08 [RalphS]
... 'bank' implicitly defines a concept, implicitly it's a lexical label
20:10:21 [RalphS]
... consequence for a thesaurus is that the term 'bank' cannot be used anywhere else
20:11:00 [RalphS]
... in practice this distinction is useful, which is why I'd prefer to not use the term 'concept scheme'
20:11:14 [RalphS]
... 'vocabulary' is more general and makes less commitments
20:12:12 [RalphS]
Tom: R10 is really talking about the extension of the SKOS vocabulary, not the SKOS model
20:12:28 [RalphS]
... could be confusing if we use the term 'vocabulary' generically
20:13:24 [RalphS]
Alistair: the 'concept scheme' idea came from DCMI
20:14:25 [RalphS]
Ralph: it's probably easier to refer to "the SKOS vocabulary" and "a SKOS concept scheme" to differentiate between the SKOS terms and a thesaurus written using the SKOS terms
20:14:44 [RalphS]
Bernard: let's define terms near the start of the document
20:15:31 [RalphS]
Antoine: I tried to consistently use 'vocabulary' for applications of SKOS and 'model' for SKOS itself
20:16:05 [RalphS]
Alistair: there are implicit integrity constraints currently expressed only in prose
20:16:37 [RalphS]
Tom: this is a big question that deserves more thought, let's not decide now
20:17:13 [RalphS]
... SKOS model is like a DCMI application model
20:17:26 [RalphS]
... R10 talks about extending both the SKOS model and the vocabulary of properties
20:18:24 [RalphS]
Guus: for the time being, let's distinguish between the terms in the SKOS vocabulary and the application terms that use SKOS
20:18:29 [TomB_]
20:18:44 [RalphS]
... for now, let's use "SKOS vocabulary" and "concept scheme", respectively, for these two
20:18:50 [TomB_]
+1 on "SKOS vocabulary" versus "SKOS concept scheme"
20:19:17 [RalphS]
-- R9. Extension of vocabularies
20:19:25 [RalphS]
now "R9. Extension of concept schemes"
20:20:12 [RalphS]
Alistair: how do I express that I want to import another concept scheme into my own, or import only a part of another concept scheme?
20:20:21 [RalphS]
Bernard: why import, just reference?
20:20:36 [RalphS]
Alistair: how does a browser know the boundary of a new concept scheme?
20:20:58 [RalphS]
Bernard: related to Protege issue of how to represent externally-defined items
20:21:23 [RalphS]
Guus: do we include maintenance properties, revision information, etc.?
20:21:49 [RalphS]
... I suggest we add a requirement related to versioning information
20:22:03 [RalphS]
Bernard: R9 is about tools
20:23:39 [RalphS]
Ralph: I suggest we keep the vocabulary management work, including versioning, as a separate task and not mix it into SKOS right now
20:24:42 [RalphS]
Jon: example; replacing a single term with two terms
20:25:52 [RalphS]
... not necessarily establishing a broader/narrower relationship but dropping the old term
20:26:03 [RalphS]
Guus: we handle this in OWL by deprecating old terms
20:26:23 [RalphS]
Alistair: my approach is to worry first about how to represent a static model
20:27:26 [RalphS]
Guus: suggest deferring versioning questions to separate vocabulary management work and later evaluate whether any SKOS-specific properties are needed
20:28:03 [RalphS]
Alistair: we have requests to be able to define concept schemes as 'we use everything in that scheme with the following additions'
20:29:49 [RalphS]
... Alistair: I need to find a better use case to motivate this
20:29:54 [RalphS]
-- R10. Extendability of SKOS model
20:30:03 [RalphS]
now "R10. Extendability of SKOS vocabulary"
20:30:32 [RalphS]
Guus: means "local specialization of SKOS vocabulary"
20:30:51 [RalphS]
... propose to rename this to "local specialization of SKOS vocabulary"
20:31:01 [RalphS]
... get this for free
20:31:22 [RalphS]
-- R11. Attaching resources to concepts
20:31:53 [RalphS]
Antoine: this is skos:subject; annotating resource
20:32:05 [RalphS]
Fabien: inverse of dc:subject?
20:32:30 [RalphS]
Alistair: skos:subject is dc:subject with a range constraint
20:33:12 [RalphS]
Guus: propose to rename this to "Ability to represent the indexing relationship between a resource and a concept that indexes it"
20:33:26 [RalphS]
... I suggest this is a candidate requirement
20:33:55 [RalphS]
-- R12. Correspondence/Mapping links between concepts from different vocabularies
20:34:22 [RalphS]
now "... different concept schemes"
20:34:58 [RalphS]
Bernard: related to mapping between labels in different concept schemes; that can be a separate requirement
20:35:25 [RalphS]
Guus: at a minimum, equivalent, less/more specific, and related
20:35:36 [RalphS]
Alistair: also composition
20:36:00 [RalphS]
Alan: is 'related' a superproperty of 'broader' or 'narrower'?
20:36:03 [RalphS]
Alistair: no
20:36:15 [RalphS]
Alan: please document this explicitly in the spec
20:38:18 [RalphS]
Guus: propose a new candidate requirement: Correspondence mapping links between concepts in different concept schemes
20:38:30 [RalphS]
s/between/between lexical labels of/
20:38:44 [RalphS]
-- R13. Compatibility between SKOS and other metadata models and ontologies
20:39:14 [RalphS]
Antoine: may not bring any additional requirements on representational features
20:40:08 [RalphS]
Guus: what other models do we want to be compatible with?
20:40:19 [RalphS]
Alistair: Dublin Core
20:40:32 [RalphS]
... note that changes have been made to Dublin Core specifically to align it with SKOS
20:40:33 [Elisa]
Another metadata standard we should consider here is ISO11179
20:41:11 [RalphS]
Elisa: ISO 11179 is another related standard, on which Daniel Rubin and I have spent time recently
20:41:27 [RalphS]
... Daniel is interested in 11179 because many biomedical ontologies use it
20:41:43 [RalphS]
.. by mapping 11179 to SKOS we bring a lot of those into the RDF world
20:42:14 [RalphS]
Alistair: 2788 is a thesaurus standard and is very different from 11179, which is a metadata model
20:43:01 [RalphS]
... there is a particular part of 11179 that is intended to talk about classification schemes
20:43:09 [RalphS]
... it's obvious how SKOS and that part of 11179 relate
20:43:52 [RalphS]
Alan: what does "compatible with" mean?
20:44:45 [RalphS]
Bernard: does "compatible with" mean "does not violate the [Dublin Core] abstract model"?
20:45:12 [RalphS]
Ralph: what sort of test cases could we construct to decide "is compatible" or "is not compatible"?
20:45:53 [RalphS]
Alistair: could we translate a data instance using 11179 to a data instance in SKOS? how much data loss? how much data loss in transforming back?
20:46:15 [RalphS]
Alan: the scope of 11179 is much larger than that of SKOS
20:47:01 [RalphS]
Guus: it would be good to identify specific other models
20:47:56 [RalphS]
... e.g. 2788, 11179 [part 3]
20:48:10 [RalphS]
Alistair: 5964 (multilingual)
20:48:43 [RalphS]
... I'd put 2788 as a stronger requirement than 5964
20:48:48 [RalphS]
... interpretation of 5964 is harder
20:49:49 [RalphS]
Alan: is SKOS a "metadata model"?
20:50:58 [RalphS]
Guus: propose omitting the general requirementsR13 and R15 and adding specific requirements for 2788, 11179.3
20:51:13 [RalphS]
Alan: is all of 11179.3 relevant to SKOS? there's a lot of stuff in there
20:51:47 [RalphS]
Elisa: I am happy to help narrow the scope
20:53:00 [RalphS]
... and the US contingent in the 11179 group are physically close to me
20:53:13 [RalphS]
s/sR13/s R13/
20:53:35 [RalphS]
-- R.14 OWL-DL compatibility
20:54:04 [RalphS]
Guus: we can talk about a SKOS representation that is OWL-DL compliant
20:54:35 [RalphS]
Alan: make it formal that annotation [sub]properties are allowed?
20:54:58 [RalphS]
Guus: we have to be sure that we can complete our deliverables without requiring another WG to be rechartered
20:55:09 [RalphS]
... we can make comments to the OWL comment list about annotation properties
20:55:28 [RalphS]
Alan: there's a partial workaround available to SKOS
20:56:08 [RalphS]
Ivan: what does DL compatibility mean when you have a processing model that includes some rules into SKOS?
20:56:24 [RalphS]
... regardless of annotation properties, SKOS is already out of DL
20:56:36 [RalphS]
Alistair: the annotation properties don't have to be used
20:56:52 [RalphS]
-- R.16 Checking the consistency of a vocabulary
20:57:03 [aliman]
s/annotation properties/rules/
20:57:04 [RalphS]
Guus: issue raised earlier about semantics
20:57:10 [TomB_]
q+ to suggest "consistency of a concept scheme"
20:57:35 [RalphS]
[I think Tom's suggestion is agreed implicitly]
20:57:37 [TomB_]
20:58:43 [RalphS]
Jon: I've been updating the sandbox wiki in realtime
20:58:44 [JonP]
21:03:40 [RalphS]
21:05:07 [RalphS]
zakim, Kjetil_Kjernsmo just arrived in meetingroom
21:05:07 [Zakim]
+Kjetil_Kjernsmo; got it
21:11:26 [Zakim]
21:11:50 [Zakim]
21:12:16 [kjetilk]
kjetilk has joined #swd
21:13:51 [TomB_]
21:19:47 [aliman]
TOPIC: Best Practise Recipes
21:19:54 [aliman]
scribenick: aliman
21:20:42 [aliman]
guus: finish by 5:45
21:21:24 [aliman]
steve: Steve Williams, hyperforms technologies, participating in W3C 2-3 in binary XML WGs
21:21:25 [JonP]
Current issues list:
21:21:26 [timbl]
timbl has joined #swd
21:21:57 [aliman]
... interest in semweb, relatied technologies, interested in AI.
21:22:14 [RalphS]
zakim, TimBL has arrived in meetingroom
21:22:14 [Zakim]
+TimBL; got it
21:22:19 [aliman]
guus: three main topics here, one is on SKOS, now going on to recipes for publishing RDF vocabs, tomorrow move on to RDFa
21:23:09 [timbl]
timbl has changed the topic to: SWD f2f sic
21:23:34 [aliman]
kjetil: opera software, interested in semweb since 98, bumped into danbri, then graduate student of astrophysics, then hired by opera, mostly programmin, chaals getting me into more on semantic web.
21:23:49 [aliman]
... responsible for my opera foaf stuff
21:24:22 [aliman]
guus: moving on to discussion of recipes for publishing RDF, have as input recipes document from SWBPD, incomplete document, Jon action to generate issues list, now on wiki
21:24:36 [JonP]
21:25:16 [aliman]
... suggest briefly review this list, pick out critical issues, spend time discussing critical issues, diego can play a role because has proposed resolution for one of these issues (we can discuss and decide on)
21:25:58 [aliman]
jon: first four issues left over from previous working group, diego's been working on first issue.
21:26:49 [ivan]
21:27:08 [RalphS]
^Diego's proposed resolution to COOKBOOK-I1.1
21:27:22 [aliman]
diego: [issue 1.1] already on mailing list, there was a TODO tag, issue regards configuration of apache to serve vocabularies, apache uses configuration files with directives, one of these directives is the overrides ...
21:27:46 [JonP]
Diego's verification email:
21:28:00 [aliman]
... in original doc there was a TODO tag next to overrides, to verify this is correct, I checked this and discovered that the line was correct, no additional overrides required, both overrides are required.
21:28:08 [aliman]
... proposed to remove this TODO tag.
21:28:34 [RalphS]
-> @@TODO from Recipes WD
21:28:58 [aliman]
jon: is that resolution acceptable? how do we handle? seems to be fine.
21:29:15 [aliman]
... vote as a group?
21:29:21 [aliman]
guus: can we write a test case?
21:29:27 [aliman]
diego: I have test case.
21:29:50 [aliman]
jon: diego sent around email, describing test cases and results.
21:29:55 [berrueta]
-> test cases
21:30:02 [aliman]
guus: further discussion?
21:30:09 [aliman]
ralph: looks good to me.
21:30:15 [aliman]
aliman: me too.
21:30:52 [aliman]
PROPOSED to resolve issue 1.1 as per email of
21:31:12 [aliman]
ralph seconds
21:31:19 [aliman]
no objections
21:31:21 [aliman]
21:32:01 [aliman]
ACTION: jon to update issue list as per resolution of issue 1.1
21:32:18 [aliman]
guus: next issue?
21:32:45 [aliman]
jon: skip over second issue, because the TODO is that it references 6 which doesn't exist
21:32:58 [aliman]
... issue 1.2 and 1.4 are essentially the same.
21:33:09 [aliman]
guus: PROPOSED to drop issue 1.2
21:33:17 [aliman]
diego seconds
21:33:22 [aliman]
no objections
21:33:28 [aliman]
RESOLVED to drop issue 1.2
21:33:41 [aliman]
ACTION: jon to update issue list as per dropping of 1.2
21:34:08 [aliman]
jon: issue 1.3 - why performing content negotiation on the basis of the "user agent" heading.
21:34:21 [aliman]
... is not considered good practice.
21:34:48 [aliman]
bernard: whole section should be in an appendix, why in main body of text?
21:35:48 [aliman]
aliman: karl suggested move whole content negotiation to appendix
21:36:25 [aliman]
timbl: if you add features to a user agent, because it stumps the deployment of new browsers, e.g. folks at opera, resulted in user agents lying about who they are
21:36:50 [aliman]
... e.g. some browsers ship with lying user agent fields, unsatisfactory, better to look at the mime types
21:37:18 [aliman]
... sometimes in practice necessary to look at user agent field to pick up bugs, where you know there are specific bugs, particular trap for particular browser.
21:37:47 [aliman]
jon: potential resolution is to explain the problem with using user agent, as per stunting development?
21:37:51 [aliman]
timbl: yes
21:38:06 [aliman]
diego: esiting doc to explain this?
21:40:56 [aliman]
ralph: we didn't want to break semantic web applications which don't include accept header, so set RDF as default response
21:43:33 [aliman]
timbl: two cases, one is your serving data, but if you are trying do the trick of doing either rdf html version, but only put if you are content negotiating ...TAG says something about identity of resourse
21:43:44 [aliman]
aliman: but use 303 so don't have to have same info content
21:43:48 [aliman]
timbl: yes
21:44:02 [aliman]
bernard: uncomfortable with hack
21:44:15 [aliman]
jon: real worl, applies to IE7?
21:44:16 [timbl]
The TAG I think says the same URI may conneg go to differenet representations ... but they should convey the same i nformation
21:44:53 [aliman]
guus: someone take action to look at IE7
21:45:03 [aliman]
jon: regardless of IE7, should still leave hack in.
21:45:15 [aliman]
aliman: I agree
21:45:47 [aliman]
jon: issue 1.3 is actually to explain why the hack is slightly bad
21:45:56 [aliman]
ralph: new issue would be to look again at the hack
21:46:01 [aliman]
jon: two separate issues
21:47:23 [aliman]
ralph: if IE7 does the wrong thing, leave it, if IE7 does the right thing then drop the hack (except if you have to support a specific ocmmunity)
21:48:06 [aliman]
bernard: I will raise this issue
21:48:35 [aliman]
ACTION: bernard to raise new issue re IE6 hack
21:48:53 [aliman]
ACTION: diego to look at IE7 accept headers
21:49:20 [aliman]
ralph: test cases?
21:49:28 [aliman]
aliman: just whar's in the document already.
21:49:50 [aliman]
jon: 1.3 issue has been raised.
21:50:33 [aliman]
ralph: I move we conside 1.3 open - there is a TODO that needs to be done, timbl how likely is that TAG write something about use of user agent header?
21:50:48 [aliman]
timbl: may be something already, otherwise need to send email to TAG
21:50:56 [aliman]
ralph: I will own this issue
21:51:11 [aliman]
ACTION: ralph propose resolutition to issue 1.3
21:51:53 [aliman]
jon: move on to issue issue 1.4 ... recipe 6 is not there
21:52:01 [aliman]
bernard: do we need a recipe 6
21:52:25 [RalphS]
scribenick: ralph
21:52:55 [RalphS]
Alistair: one of the reasons people like slash namespaces is because the response to a GET is specific to the requested resource and you can incrementally learn more with additional GETs
21:53:54 [RalphS]
... in recipe 5, if you request RDF you get redirected to a namespace document that describes everything
21:54:19 [RalphS]
... recipe 6 was intended to permit serving just a relevant chunk of RDF data
21:54:30 [RalphS]
TimBL: d2rdf does this
21:55:05 [RalphS]
... a SPARQL query can navigate a graph by recursively pulling in documents
21:55:24 [aliman]
timbl: e.g. d2r server does that virtually, enthusiastic about this group pushing linked data, critical thing about linked data is that when you derefrence linked data you get all arcs in and out then human being can navigate the graph, then also SPARQL query can find all the graphs by pulling in all the relevant docs, not as efficient but good, important to make all the backlinks.
21:55:39 [RalphS]
... it's good to remind people to include backlinks; dereferencing a student should give you a pointer back to the class
21:56:04 [aliman]
timbl: minimum spanning graph, RDF molecule
21:56:45 [aliman]
... patrick stickled CBD onlly arcs out
21:56:47 [timbl]
21:56:55 [aliman]
... this is important recipse to include
21:56:56 [RalphS]
21:57:12 [aliman]
... proposed workshop for web conference about linked data, didn't have space.
21:57:25 [timbl]
The D2R Server generates linked data automatically.
21:57:25 [RalphS]
-> Concise Bounded Description [Stickler, 2005]
21:57:26 [aliman]
jon: this should be opened, this recipe should be written.
21:57:40 [aliman]
guus: open means we work on it now.
22:00:15 [aliman]
timbl: two separate points to be made, first is the recipe redirects you to a file, but the file is vritual, most web servers are virtual, if you redirect to a SPARQL query, doesn't mean that the SPARQL query is evident in the URI, inside that you use a rewrite rule, give a nice URI to your _part_ then use a rewrite rule to create the SPARQL query, hide the SPARQL query.
22:00:37 [aliman]
jon: useful to say that as part of the recipe, best handled by a service that will handle on the fly.
22:01:09 [aliman]
timbl: important to separate, e.g. FOAF files do it by hand, in some cases there is a lot of hand written stuff, fact that something is genearated automatically may apply to other recipes also.
22:01:34 [aliman]
ralph: we are a deployment group, rewriting nice URIs to query URIs, good to show this to get more deployment.
22:01:50 [aliman]
guus: we are in a position to write a resolution to this section, who can do?
22:01:59 [aliman]
ralph: examples of sparql services we can use?
22:02:29 [aliman]
timbl: geonames? d2r server. one does 303 redirect to URI encoded SPARQL query.
22:02:46 [aliman]
ralph: sounds like some code existed.
22:03:26 [aliman]
jon: two parts to this, first part is data, second part is server configuration. We're looking for a document fragment example and server config.
22:03:46 [aliman]
ralph: wordnet is an obviious choice, but the W3C need to commit to D2R service.
22:04:20 [aliman]
diego: I will own the issue
22:04:49 [aliman]
guus: maybe diego can talk with Ralph about wordnet, nice use case, widely used.
22:05:02 [aliman]
ralph: need to get web servers to support the service, but plausible.
22:05:16 [RalphS]
s/get web/get W3C web/
22:06:00 [aliman]
jon: issue 2.1 (QA comments)
22:06:50 [aliman]
... karl raised wordsmithing and structural comments, lots, something for each section, I couldlnt' break out individual issues, I'd like to propose we simply open this, I'll take ownership, I'll implement most of his suggestions and propose as modification to the document.
22:07:12 [aliman]
guus: comments from QA people, we owe them a response. Need to go through each response, say what we did.
22:07:45 [Zakim]
22:09:37 [aliman]
jon: Issue 2.1 ... raised by me (wiki lies) recipes are specific to apache server, may be applicable in non-apache environments, do we want to provide general template that describes recipes in general, or say that recipes can be implemented by a script.
22:09:43 [aliman]
bernard: general template is possible?
22:10:35 [aliman]
ralph: is there is one web master would recognise then can look at it. cookbook is very practical, make it simple for server admin to do it, if someone wants to submit recipes for other environments then good.
22:10:47 [Zakim]
22:11:08 [aliman]
jon: common principles e.g. redirect based on content negotiation, I don't konw enough about other environments to say how.
22:11:12 [Guus]
[hi Tom]
22:11:18 [aliman]
ralph: like to encourage others to contribute recipes
22:11:34 [aliman]
jon: suggest we provide a place for people to submit new recipes for other environments
22:11:47 [aliman]
ralph: happy with mailing list for proposed translations.
22:12:00 [aliman]
ivan: wiki?
22:12:07 [aliman]
... esw wiki?
22:12:42 [RalphS]
alistair: the diagrams were intended to provide a schematic overview of the behavior we were trying to implement
22:12:56 [RalphS]
... hopefully this would give people enough information to implement in other environments
22:13:00 [RalphS]
scribenick: aliman
22:13:03 [aliman]
jon: leave this in a raised state? open it?
22:13:12 [aliman]
ivan: resolution to open wiki page.
22:13:29 [aliman]
ralph: willing to own issue, proposed resolution to create wiki page.
22:14:12 [aliman]
guus: publication schedule, can say we don't think it's a high priority if we think resources are limited.
22:14:32 [aliman]
ralph: should be ok, but may get not good configs
22:15:15 [aliman]
jon: issue 3.1 (raised by me) discussion about differentiating between versions, one reason we use redirects to supply most recent snapshot of a vocabulary
22:15:22 [aliman]
... actualy document.
22:16:24 [timbl]
22:16:28 [RalphS]
Alistair: consider Dublin Core; it has a fixed URI that is redirected to the current version of the vocabulary
22:17:06 [RalphS]
... an application may be able to deal with versioned URIs, and access older snapshots of the vocabulary
22:17:30 [RalphS]
22:17:48 [aliman]
jon: why not use mod_rewrite instead of redirects, can use redirects to make version ???
22:18:08 [aliman]
... proposing a complete suggestion for a naming convention for handling this sort of thing in a recipe ...
22:18:35 [timbl]
q+ to say 1) the redirect does not convey that semantics and so the semantics need sto be onveyedelsewhere and (b) the redirect is an overhead
22:18:41 [aliman]
... link is in extended requirements section of original doc
22:18:59 [RalphS]
-> extended requirements
22:19:06 [timbl]
... and (c) metatdat in URI is converd by the TAG in a new finding and is in gneral bad
22:20:30 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to say 1) the redirect does not convey that semantics and so the semantics need sto be onveyedelsewhere and (b) the redirect is an overhead
22:23:17 [aliman]
timbl: problem with redirects is twofold, part is when you redirect, redirect doesn't say anything about what the relationship between source and target is, doesn't deliver the smeantics you want, also takes time - overhead - adding it thourgh overhead is to be avoided if possible. However to be able to track differences between versions of an ontology is very useful, on web different translations, different content types, design issues note about this /gen/ont
22:23:34 [aliman]
... TAG is aware of this but hasn't tackled from RDF point of view, I wrote an ontology ...
22:23:37 [aliman]
q+ to foo
22:23:43 [timbl]
22:24:46 [aliman]
timbl: gen ont if best practices could just dump the map, some metadata can get from apache, if running CVS can generate metadata from previous versions if you've got web CVS. If you've got content negotiation can find out what all the options are from apache config
22:25:10 [aliman]
... that would be ideal, ideal pattern which nobody does at the moment - don't know if I should ask this group or another to look into this.
22:25:17 [aliman]
... suggest this group push this out.
22:26:51 [aliman]
ralph: I'd like us to consider this as a candidate requirement for discussion, but not for this document, because this doc was one of what was expected to be a collection of docs coming out of SWBPD, several aspects of VM e.g. how to serve them, versioning, properties about a vocab e.g. provenance, best practices for all that. SWBPD imagined there would be other docs to go along with this, I image this would be part of our work, Jon's soltuoin is plausible but
22:27:06 [aliman]
... consider this as candidate requirement for other VM work, not to try and solve for this doc (recipes).
22:28:09 [aliman]
jon: ralph is suggestins part of resolution of this issue is to start another document, and that this part of recipes should point to that documeent. Currently recipes punt, lots of different ways to do it, nonbody says what is best way. Part of utility is to say here is a recipe, a way to do it, this is a generic enough recipe to work in enough cases.
22:28:19 [aliman]
... so we should reword this doc?
22:28:41 [aliman]
ralph: shows up on our deliverables page ... "principles for management..." we can point to this document.
22:29:10 [aliman]
guus: propose to leave this issue as raised, go on with recipes without resolving it, indicate that this issue is intended to be resolved by another doc.
22:29:22 [RalphS]
Ralph: specifically, our deliverable 3. Principles for Managing an RDF Vocabulary
22:29:26 [Zakim]
aliman, you wanted to foo
22:29:54 [aliman]
22:30:06 [RalphS]
Alistair: in anticipation of needing to use RDF to describe the relationship between a dynamic thing and static snapshots of that thing, I've published net/d4
22:30:21 [RalphS]
... d4 may provide a basis for discussion
22:31:03 [RalphS]
... also GRDDL seems to be in a similar space; making assertions about the relationship between various documents you might be able to access from a namespace
22:31:17 [aliman]
guus: 10 mins left, suggest we cover last two issues, 5 mins for each.
22:32:15 [aliman]
jon: issue 3.2 (testing) diego has written some unit tests, useful if we could provide a service for developers who wanted to utilise cookbook recipes, provide as a server validation service officially
22:32:37 [aliman]
... this would allow you to specify you wanted to test a particular server against a particular recipe
22:32:50 [aliman]
guus: not an issue with the current doc,
22:33:06 [aliman]
ralph: intermediate step to publish the test cases?
22:33:39 [aliman]
jon: thinking more like RDF validation service, you point service at URL and say which recipe.
22:34:01 [aliman]
... diego has already written the code, we just don't have the service.
22:34:07 [aliman]
ralph: you have test service?
22:35:13 [aliman]
timbl: great idea, presentation suggest that you may get more people who validation than go to the doc, so service could point people out to the doc, start from existing situation and lead people buy the hand to appropriate recipes.
22:36:06 [timbl]
(Service could be implemented in Javascript within the document ;-) not.
22:36:07 [aliman]
guus: question of timing, has to be synchronised.. From pragmatic view, suggest take an action to look at possibilities and report back, time frames and synchronisation.
22:36:15 [aliman]
ralph: can you commit to hosting?
22:36:21 [aliman]
diego: I can write the code.. .
22:36:42 [aliman]
timbl: can it run in a browser?
22:36:47 [aliman]
diego: runs on server side.
22:37:02 [aliman]
guus: before resolving, do some suggestion on the list about how to realise this.
22:37:19 [aliman]
ralph: I could put this in category of vocabulary mangement validator, then falls into big validator project we have.
22:37:56 [aliman]
timbl: rethink about how to support validators, logically if you're going to validate, you can go so many ways ... top of an iceberg.
22:38:10 [aliman]
guus: open issue, diego is owner, first to propose a timescale.
22:38:35 [aliman]
jon: issue 3.3 raised by diego, mod_rewrite is required for all recipes, but we don't say so.
22:38:43 [aliman]
ralph: and apparently not there by default.
22:38:55 [aliman]
guus: jon is to be issue owner.
22:39:26 [aliman]
ralph: probably worth saying here's what apache config file to go to to cause it to be loaded.
22:39:41 [aliman]
guus: close this dicussion on the recipes, thanks to all, moved to state where can see progress.
22:43:11 [aliman]
... have to think carefully about status of RDFa, Note? relationship with HTML? also think carefully about time horizon for SKOS recommendation, test cases and implementations worry, can see six months document to go to last call, also need a test suite in place, similar to OWL so tool developers can test stuff. Document itself in good shape, but getting to candidate rec may take more time.
22:43:44 [aliman]
l... to keep to schedule, we need to have test suite stage by the summer.
22:44:01 [aliman]
... propose we adjourn for the day!
22:45:10 [benadida]
benadida has left #SWD
22:46:03 [Zakim]
22:47:00 [TomB_]
RalphS, my phone number tomorrow...
22:47:35 [TomB_]
...will probably be xxxx
22:49:59 [Antoine]
rrsagent, pointer?
22:49:59 [RRSAgent]
22:50:29 [Zakim]
22:58:35 [RalphS]
zakim, drop tom
22:58:35 [Zakim]
TomB_ is being disconnected
22:58:37 [Zakim]
SW_SWD(f2f)8:30AM has ended
22:58:39 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.617.253.aaaa, Alistair, Antoine, Bernard, Guus, Diego, IvanHerman, TimBL, Ralph, Fabien, Ben, Jon, TomB, Elisa_Kendall, AlanR, Jonathan_Rees, +1.617.475.aabb,
22:58:41 [Zakim]
... Stephen_Williams, TomB_, Kjetil_Kjernsmo
22:59:05 [RalphS]
Tom are you comfortable with your number staying in the public record or do you want me to edit it out of the irc log?
22:59:34 [RalphS]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
22:59:34 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate RalphS
23:00:24 [RalphS]
rrsagent, bye
23:00:24 [RRSAgent]
I see 14 open action items saved in :
23:00:24 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Alan write up the preferredLabel modelling issue [1]
23:00:24 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
23:00:24 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Antoine to provide more use cases of uses of qualifiers [2]
23:00:24 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
23:00:24 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: guus to to check that this broad/narrow is on the issues' list [3]
23:00:24 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
23:00:24 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: antoine to capture the issue on capturing relationships between labels [4]
23:00:24 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
23:00:24 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: antoine to to contact the submittors of #7 to see what they want to use skos for (as opposed to, say, owl) [5]
23:00:24 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
23:00:24 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: alistair to summarizes the aspects of semantics of the skos data model [6]
23:00:24 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
23:00:24 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: guus to check with veronique on the terms being outside the iso standard [7]
23:00:24 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
23:00:24 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: alistair to rephrase the old issue of skos/owl-dl coexistence and semantics [8]
23:00:24 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
23:00:24 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: alan to write down the general documentation requirements, in particular to those that are related to literal values, and how to represent that in skos [9]
23:00:24 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
23:00:24 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: jon to update issue list as per resolution of issue 1.1 [10]
23:00:24 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
23:00:24 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: jon to update issue list as per dropping of 1.2 [11]
23:00:24 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
23:00:24 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: bernard to raise new issue re IE6 hack [12]
23:00:24 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
23:00:24 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: diego to look at IE7 accept headers [13]
23:00:24 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
23:00:24 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: ralph propose resolutition to issue 1.3 [14]
23:00:24 [RRSAgent]
recorded in