14:57:46 RRSAgent has joined #swd 14:57:46 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/05/15-swd-irc 14:57:51 zakim, who's on the call? 14:57:51 On the phone I see TomB, dlrubin 14:57:59 rrsagent, please make record public 14:58:09 Meeting: SWD WG 14:58:12 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007May/0021.html 14:58:27 -> http://www.w3.org/2007/05/08-swd-minutes.html previous 2007-05-08 14:59:12 Regrets: Simone 14:59:25 +Elisa_Kendall 14:59:52 JonP has joined #swd 15:00:21 +??P18 15:01:35 +JonP 15:01:50 +Ralph 15:02:40 aliman has joined #swd 15:02:47 +[VrijeUni] 15:02:51 seanb has joined #swd 15:04:04 +??P40 15:04:20 +??P43 15:04:42 zakim, ??p43 is seanb 15:04:42 +seanb; got it 15:06:10 scribenick: Elisa 15:06:17 Scribe: Elisa 15:07:02 Minutes of meeting held May 8 -- Guus proposes to accept minutes 15:07:12 Resolved, minutes accepted 15:07:21 Chair: Guus 15:07:34 Next telecon: May 22 15:07:47 Antoine has joined #swd 15:08:16 Regarding a F2F meeting -- action continued [http://www.w3.org/2007/04/17-swd-minutes.html#action01] 15:09:08 ACTION: TomB to start questionnaire on date for f2f -- options are weeks of Nov 4 and Nov 11 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/17-swd-minutes.html#action01] 15:09:10 -- continues 15:09:35 Action (Jon to contact Ralph, [http://www.w3.org/2007/05/08-swd-minutes.html#action13]) DONE 15:10:28 ACTION: jon to contact ralph and arrange for publication of SKOS use cases as working draft (May 8 version) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/08-swd-minutes.html#action13] 15:10:28 Ongoing. see: 15:10:28 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007May/0014.html 15:10:34 DONE 15:10:55 Ralph: Thanks to Jon for work on the document 15:11:18 Guus: would like editors (like RDFa) to send messages to relevant lists asking for feedback 15:11:57 Guus: to relevant mailing lists with attention to the new document; 15:12:28 ACTION: Daniel to send messages to thesaurus list, semantic web interest, ... 15:12:39 +??P1 15:12:49 Sean: all lists that the questionnaire was sent to 15:13:06 Daniel: would like a list of the set of lists to send message to 15:13:09 zakim, ??p1 is Antoine 15:13:10 +Antoine; got it 15:13:59 Guus: summarizing for Antoine -- request should be sent to the lists that were requested for use cases. 15:14:37 Daniel: Daniel et all to get together and come up with composite list to send request to 15:14:59 ACTION: alistair to post links to grouping construct discussion in prep for next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/08-swd-minutes.html#action12] DONE (Guus) 15:15:41 Guus: Need some discussion on next two actions: Minimal Fix and alternative 15:16:03 Non-ordered approach is structured differently from ordered approach 15:16:19 Alistair: can divide that into two smaller proposals 15:16:39 under minimal fix, no way to specify that something is unordered explicitly 15:17:06 Given an open world assumption, default reasoning is difficult 15:17:30 In original SKOS Core Guide, there is a discussion of the two different layouts, which may be overly complicated 15:18:17 Guus: in minimal fix, for the collection case, would not assume ordering; no notion of ordering, for example, with an intersection 15:19:12 Alistair: as an application writer, if you want to find out that a collection is unordered, you have to examine a graph to see if there isn't (by default) something that indicates order 15:19:32 This is essentially default reasoning, which in practice may be a problem 15:19:58 In an open world situation, it would be better to state that a collection is ordered (or not) explicitly 15:20:55 Minimal fix solution is Alistair's attempt to address the issue (just the ordering problem) in a minimal way 15:21:19 Another alternative would be to take this proposal as a starting point, and then extend that to provide an explicit feature 15:21:59 http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/GroupingConstructs/ProposalOne?action=recall&rev=8 15:22:15 This would be preferred by Guus, (Ralph?) -- to take this a step further, and provide the explicit feature enabling users to state whether or not a collection is ordered 15:22:31 s/Ralph?/Jon/ 15:22:58 thanks 15:24:07 Alistair: referred to Ordered SKOS membership rule -- if you have an ordered collection and member list, you can infer a number of things from queries against the list 15:24:28 This would enable you to ask whether something was a member of a list or not 15:25:02 As is, the minimal fix solution does not make this explicit - there is a level of indirection 15:25:55 With the rule, you can end up with a SKOS ordered collection, you can have both a skos memberlist property pointing to a list, and pointers to the members 15:26:29 You could assume if the property is not there that the list is unordered 15:27:14 Given the minimal fix, we could raise these issues as distinct issues, or provide a strawman that would support fixing them in one go 15:27:46 Guus: propose this for next week, and then keep the others as additional issues for the list which we can decide later to either address or drop 15:28:24 It would be useful, given this, to address the specification of the semantics, and our definition of test cases 15:29:24 We might have to find additional people to work on these issues; Sean would be prepared to take on some of these issues 15:30:09 Need similar infrastructure to support some of this work; write test cases against the specification regarding what an application is expected to do based on the semantics 15:30:17 Sean would be willing to take this on 15:31:02 [I'm concerned about alternatives such as "if the property is not present, assume ..."; that may open non-monotonic issues] 15:31:22 Alistair -- would be willing to make the minimal fix proposal for next week and raise one or two issues with respect to the potential problems, keeping the rule in, but raising an issue regarding the problems 15:31:43 Alistair: with regard to test cases, what was the basis for these in OWL 15:32:15 Sean: there were a number of different test cases, testing different things; test cases include the chunk of RDF and what the results should be 15:32:40 OWL Test Caes http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/ 15:32:51 If you look at the test cases, you can see examples of various issues, consisting of OWL ontologies and indications of how applications were expected to behave 15:33:23 So here, you would have to describe what the RDF/criteria would be, how applications are expected to behave 15:34:23 Guus: We should take the minimal fix proposal and spend a few minutes on that 15:35:06 Sean/Alistair: Two examples are inconsistent because they use the SKOS narrowerThan property ... 15:35:38 The difficulty with the structure of the proposal - used axiomatic triples, doesn't specify whether it is OWL inconsistent, RDF inconsistent, etc. 15:36:00 Even with just an RDF interpreter, we should specify what the behavior should be 15:36:02 q+ for other solutions for groupings? 15:36:24 Thanks 15:37:44 Guus: if you look at OWL test cases, for example, these are the premises, and these are the conclusions expected 15:38:08 this might provide a little more formal form than what is currently in the document 15:38:49 Specification of semantics ... do we think we can handle it ourselves, or do we need additional assistance to work with us on this? 15:39:29 Alistair: we might basically have a number of sections in the semantics, structured similarly to the document currently 15:40:01 break up the semantics in that way, the namespace document would be comprised of the axiomatic triples 15:40:22 then the issues would be with some of the rules, such as the membership issue 15:40:50 might use the way the entailment rules are given informally in the RDF semantics, hadn't thought about other 15:41:05 sorts of rules yet that might also be pertinent 15:41:28 Guus: if we can keep this format, which would make it clear to application developers what they need to do, not sure this would be sufficient 15:42:04 Alistair: this structure follows from the way the RDF semantics is structured, but then if you start to use the OWL vocab in the axiomatic triples, then you're no longer building on the RDF semantics 15:42:42 by bringing in semantics from OWL, it would not be clear whether you are bringing in the RDF model-theoretic semantics from OWL or the direct model-theoretic semantics 15:42:57 Daniel: I thought the goal was to keep it simple ... 15:43:38 Alistair: we could take two approaches, one stating the RDF semantics, the other using some OWL, but if we're using OWL then we have to be clear about how we're using the semantics 15:44:17 Guus: suggest that we are explicit about how we use a particular statement from OWL, not duplicating what is in the owl specification 15:44:54 so if there is a notion of disjoint, we should use what is in OWL not recreate what is in the owl spec, but could add notes about what it would mean to use a particular construct from owl 15:45:03 for any formal definitions we should refer to the owl spec 15:45:47 -dlrubin 15:46:02 Sean: would like to think abit more about what we're proposing, but would be leery of proposing a kind of mix and match approach 15:46:19 if you're using the OWL vocabulary, shouldn't we be using the OWL semantics 15:46:35 Guus: Sean might be in the best position to address this 15:47:37 OWl disjoint is a good example to look at - Sean can take a look from the position of an OWL application developer 15:47:59 section 2, axiomatic triples: first 4 can be part of an RDF schema for skos 15:48:25 fifth one - disjoint - people have to understand something about OWl to understand how to use this 15:48:36 +??P14 15:49:24 Sean: the question is do the rest of the triples fit within the OWL semantics - if they fit in the OWL Full world, then you would have to fit within the RDF semantics (using RDF-compatible semantics for OWL) 15:50:28 So there is a user who wants to use SKOS, if this is RDF with a little OWL thrown in, would the file be OWL compliant or RDF compliant 15:51:57 Guus: we have to point out these cases where you're using SKOS within a DL environment, which may be concerned with property statements, in order to keep within the DL space ... may need to work through this 15:52:14 -??P14 15:52:34 aliman has joined #swd 15:53:04 It's me for the testing! 15:53:31 ACTION: Sean to look at the test environment supporting the semantics 15:53:51 s/semantics/SKOS semantics/ 15:54:17 ACTION: Alistair will look at raising the examples from the issues to test cases 15:55:19 ACTION: Antoine post link to Relationships between labels discussion in preparation for next week's call [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/08-swd-minutes.html#action11] 15:55:20 DONE: 15:55:20 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007May/0019.html 15:55:41 ACTION: Jon and Alistair: Move SKOS issues over from Sandbox to Tracker on an ongoing basis [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/08-swd-minutes.html#action10] CONTINUED 15:55:58 ACTION: jon to contact ralph and arrange for publication of SKOS use cases as working draft (May 8 version) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/08-swd-minutes.html#action13] DONE 15:56:10 ACTION: Guus revise his ISSUE-26 proposal to account for other options [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/24-swd-minutes.html#action07] 15:56:14 CONTINUED 15:56:25 ACTION: Antoine to make a proposal about SKOS Use Case document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/24-swd-minutes.html#action03] 15:56:25 DONE, see decision May 8 15:56:27 Done 15:56:36 +??P21 15:56:42 Issues admin: Antoine's message 15:56:43 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007May/0020.html 15:56:44 [RalphS, are the issues correctly being recorded as "done"?] 15:56:46 Continued 15:57:56 scribenick: ralphs 15:58:04 Topic: Vocabulary Management 15:58:11 Elisa: I have made some progress 15:58:20 ... I have pulled together a summary of goals and next steps 15:58:39 ... I propose to update the wiki to reflect what I have gathered 15:58:43 ... and to include Vit's notes 15:59:08 ... Tom and I had discussed whether to identify people we might ask to provide input on their experiences w.r.t. best practices 15:59:30 JonP has joined #swd 15:59:32 ... for version management, some of the things Daniel and his team have done in bio portal would make good examples 15:59:42 ... we've not made much progress on identifying best practices here 15:59:53 ... but we do know some folk who have articulated policies 16:00:06 ... for URI schemes we might talk with Daniel and Chris Welty 16:00:24 ... for maintenance policies we have good first-hand experience with SKOS vocabulary maintenance 16:00:56 ... Alistair and others have done great work 16:01:04 ... goal would be to identify a couple of people who could be good liaisons for each section 16:01:05 -??P21 16:01:15 Tom: formulate a set of simple questions to ask each group 16:01:34 FYI--I need to drop off the call now. Thanks everyone. 16:01:36 ... it's a big topic, so coming up with a set of questions might be a good first step 16:01:41 Sorry -- have to go. Bye! 16:01:50 -seanb 16:01:51 ... we also need to have more people working on this task 16:02:21 Elisa: in addition to myself, Vit and Siggi both said they were interested in working on this deliverable 16:02:34 dlrubin has left #swd 16:02:42 ... some of the folks involved in SKOS said they might contribute 16:03:30 ACTION: Elisa to provide outline of work to be done by Apr 17 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/24-swd-minutes.html#action11] 16:03:31 -- continues 16:03:47 Elisa: I hope to send summary by next week 16:03:54 [adjourned] 16:04:00 -Elisa_Kendall 16:04:12 zakim, list attendees 16:04:12 As of this point the attendees have been TomB, dlrubin, Elisa_Kendall, Vit, JonP, Ralph, Guus, Alistair, seanb, Antoine 16:04:16 rrsagent, please draft minutes 16:04:16 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/05/15-swd-minutes.html RalphS 16:04:31 -Vit 16:07:05 -Antoine 16:07:11 -Alistair 16:08:07 -JonP 16:13:25 zakim, who is here? 16:13:25 On the phone I see TomB, Ralph, Guus 16:13:26 On IRC I see aliman, Antoine, seanb, RRSAgent, TomB, Guus, Zakim, RalphS 16:41:31 -Ralph 16:41:33 -TomB 16:41:34 -Guus 16:41:35 SW_SWD()11:00AM has ended 16:41:36 Attendees were TomB, dlrubin, Elisa_Kendall, Vit, JonP, Ralph, Guus, Alistair, seanb, Antoine 17:13:00 zakim, bye 17:13:00 Zakim has left #swd 17:13:03 rrsagent, bye 17:13:03 I see 12 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/15-swd-actions.rdf : 17:13:03 ACTION: TomB to start questionnaire on date for f2f -- options are weeks of Nov 4 and Nov 11 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/17-swd-minutes.html#action01] [1] 17:13:03 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/15-swd-irc#T15-09-08 17:13:03 ACTION: jon to contact ralph and arrange for publication of SKOS use cases as working draft (May 8 version) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/08-swd-minutes.html#action13] [2] 17:13:03 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/15-swd-irc#T15-10-28 17:13:03 ACTION: Daniel to send messages to thesaurus list, semantic web interest, ... [3] 17:13:03 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/15-swd-irc#T15-12-28 17:13:03 ACTION: alistair to post links to grouping construct discussion in prep for next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/08-swd-minutes.html#action12] DONE (Guus) [4] 17:13:03 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/15-swd-irc#T15-14-59 17:13:03 ACTION: Sean to look at the test environment supporting the semantics [5] 17:13:03 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/15-swd-irc#T15-53-31 17:13:03 ACTION: Alistair will look at raising the examples from the issues to test cases [6] 17:13:03 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/15-swd-irc#T15-54-17 17:13:03 ACTION: Antoine post link to Relationships between labels discussion in preparation for next week's call [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/08-swd-minutes.html#action11] [7] 17:13:03 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/15-swd-irc#T15-55-19 17:13:03 ACTION: Jon and Alistair: Move SKOS issues over from Sandbox to Tracker on an ongoing basis [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/08-swd-minutes.html#action10] CONTINUED [8] 17:13:03 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/15-swd-irc#T15-55-41 17:13:03 ACTION: jon to contact ralph and arrange for publication of SKOS use cases as working draft (May 8 version) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/08-swd-minutes.html#action13] DONE [9] 17:13:03 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/15-swd-irc#T15-55-58 17:13:03 ACTION: Guus revise his ISSUE-26 proposal to account for other options [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/24-swd-minutes.html#action07] [10] 17:13:03 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/15-swd-irc#T15-56-10 17:13:03 ACTION: Antoine to make a proposal about SKOS Use Case document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/24-swd-minutes.html#action03] [11] 17:13:03 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/15-swd-irc#T15-56-25 17:13:03 ACTION: Elisa to provide outline of work to be done by Apr 17 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/24-swd-minutes.html#action11] [12] 17:13:03 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/15-swd-irc#T16-03-30