See also: IRC log
PROPOSED to accept minutes of 17 April telecon: http://www.w3.org/2007/04/17-swd-minutes.html
RESOLUTION: accepted minutes
tomb proposed next telecon May 8
<RalphS> Ralph: regrets for 8 May; meetings in Banff
RESOLVED: next telecon May 8
<scribe> ACTION: TomB to start questionnaire on date for f2f [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/17-swd-minutes.html#action01] [CONTINUES]
RalphS: we should revise this
action
... week of November 4th or the week of November
11th?
Antoine: still waiting for answers
... I don't know what should be done now
... if we got positive
answers, we could give a version a week after
guus: we can discuss the comments
in a later telecon. We need to publish this
... common way to respond to good documents is to make them
optional
... ping reviewers with the new
version
<RalphS> Re: [SKOS] Review of SKOS Use Cases and Requirements
<scribe> ACTION: Antoine to make a proposal about SKOS Use Case document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/24-swd-minutes.html#action03] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Antoine, Jon, Daniel respond to the SKOS Use Case reviews, target a decision to publish on 17 April [http://www.w3.org/2007/04/03-swd-minutes.html#action02] [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/24-swd-minutes.html#action04]
guus: propose to drop the actions on Alan
<TomB> +1 to drop the actions
<scribe> ACTION: Alan to write up the preferredLabel modelling issue [http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action01] [DROPPED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/24-swd-minutes.html#action05]
<scribe> 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 [http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action09] [DROPPED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/24-swd-minutes.html#action06]
guus: i've been very busy. Any volunteer (to tackle ISSUE-26)?
<scribe> ACTION: Guus revise his ISSUE-26 proposal to account for other options [http://www.w3.org/2007/03/20-swd-minutes.html#action07] [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/24-swd-minutes.html#action07]
<scribe> ACTION: Alistair to write up two alternatives for representing Collections [http://www.w3.org/2007/04/03-swd-minutes.html#action08] [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/24-swd-minutes.html#action08]
guus: we should start making progress in the issues now
aliman: i suggest relationship
with OWL(-DL)
... alan has been cc'ing me in a discussion about OWL 1.1
<RalphS> [Alistair, could you give us a pointer to the owl 1.1 thread archive?]
aliman: we should address mapping between
concept schemes
... it doesn't look
difficult
guus: i discussed with daniel 2 weeks ago
aliman: should we have narrower, broader across schemes?
daniel: some domains may use more specific properties
guus: we have to give a guideline about
equivalence
... skos:skos:related is too
general, skos:broader/narrower are too specific
aliman: what's the difference between skos:related and skos:similarTo?
guus: similarTo may be a subproperty of related
aliman: how the retrieval applications should
operate on these properties?
... the only way to define
the semantics of these properties is through operational
uses
... let's think about how retrieval applications should treat
these properties in order to determine their semantics
Antoine: actually what you
propose as operational semantics of narrower/broader is just
one interpretation
... so we don't have the absolute definition of the properties
aliman: you're absolutely right, but it should be at least "the most reasonable" way to operationally use these properties
guss: this operational semantics should be a guideline, not a definition
Antoine: this moves us to the
compound concepts
... issue about provenance
seems difficult
aliman: probably related with
versioning
... SKOS has no notion of version
guus: (about versioning in SKOS) maybe we can't solve this in this WG
aliman: we should have this on the table anyway
guus: I can't see anything specific to SKOS
<aliman> I note that at leasting talking about versioning, both in relation to SKOS specifically, and in relation to RDF and OWL vocabularies more generally, is in our charter, within the Vocabulary Management work area.
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph propose resolution to Recipe issue 1.3 [http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14] [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/24-swd-minutes.html#action09]
<scribe> ACTION: Elisa to provide outline of work to be done by Apr 17 [http://www.w3.org/2007/04/03-swd-minutes.html#action01] [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/24-swd-minutes.html#action11]
guus: what's the status?
RalphS: sorry, I couldn't attend to yesterday's meeting
<scribe> ACTION: Ben to send a summary of status of components of specifications will be handled [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/17-swd-minutes.html#action10] [CONTINUES]
<RalphS> record of yesterday's RDFa TF telecon
<RalphS> Simone: RDFa TF discussing issues with W3C validator
<RalphS> ... compatibility of new requirements with current W3C validator
<RalphS> ... also discussing issue of literals, may be similar to a literal issue in SKOS
guus: (to Simone) please summarize through the list
<RalphS> GRDDL spec review [Diego]
guus: let's suggest to add a paragraph about when to use GRDDL and when to use RDFa
RalphS: it's better to simply say that there are two alternatives
guus: this may confuse readers
<scribe> ACTION: Diego to send the review of GRDDL spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/24-swd-minutes.html#action12]
<TomB> okay, is that a response from the SWD WG if Diego sends it?
<RalphS> yes, thanks, Diego, for the GRDDL review
<scribe> ACTION: Diego to review GRDDL Last Call Doc. Discuss briefly at next week's call [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/17-swd-minutes.html#action12] [DONE]
<RalphS> Tom, I believe the record is sufficient to show that Diego was asked to comment on behalf of the WG and this meeting discussed his review briefly but we did not ask for a WG consensus
No further business, meeting adjourned