IRC log of swd on 2007-05-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:57:46 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #swd
14:57:46 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/05/15-swd-irc
14:57:51 [RalphS]: zakim, who's on the call?
14:57:51 [Zakim]: On the phone I see TomB, dlrubin
14:57:59 [RalphS]: rrsagent, please make record public
14:58:09 [RalphS]: Meeting: SWD WG
14:58:12 [RalphS]: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007May/0021.html
14:58:27 [RalphS]: -> http://www.w3.org/2007/05/08-swd-minutes.html previous 2007-05-08
14:59:12 [TomB]: Regrets: Simone
14:59:25 [Zakim]: +Elisa_Kendall
14:59:52 [JonP]: JonP has joined #swd
15:00:21 [Zakim]: +??P18
15:01:35 [Zakim]: +JonP
15:01:50 [Zakim]: +Ralph
15:02:40 [aliman]: aliman has joined #swd
15:02:47 [Zakim]: +[VrijeUni]
15:02:51 [seanb]: seanb has joined #swd
15:04:04 [Zakim]: +??P40
15:04:20 [Zakim]: +??P43
15:04:42 [seanb]: zakim, ??p43 is seanb
15:04:42 [Zakim]: +seanb; got it
15:06:10 [TomB]: scribenick: Elisa
15:06:17 [TomB]: Scribe: Elisa
15:07:02 [Elisa]: Minutes of meeting held May 8 -- Guus proposes to accept minutes
15:07:12 [Elisa]: Resolved, minutes accepted
15:07:21 [RalphS]: Chair: Guus
15:07:34 [Elisa]: Next telecon: May 22
15:07:47 [Antoine]: Antoine has joined #swd
15:08:16 [Elisa]: Regarding a F2F meeting -- action continued [http://www.w3.org/2007/04/17-swd-minutes.html#action01]
15:09:08 [TomB]: 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 [TomB]: -- continues
15:09:35 [Elisa]: Action (Jon to contact Ralph, [http://www.w3.org/2007/05/08-swd-minutes.html#action13]) DONE
15:10:28 [Elisa]: 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 [Elisa]: Ongoing. see:
15:10:28 [Elisa]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007May/0014.html
15:10:34 [Elisa]: DONE
15:10:55 [Elisa]: Ralph: Thanks to Jon for work on the document
15:11:18 [Elisa]: Guus: would like editors (like RDFa) to send messages to relevant lists asking for feedback
15:11:57 [Elisa]: Guus: to relevant mailing lists with attention to the new document;
15:12:28 [Elisa]: ACTION: Daniel to send messages to thesaurus list, semantic web interest, ...
15:12:39 [Zakim]: +??P1
15:12:49 [Elisa]: Sean: all lists that the questionnaire was sent to
15:13:06 [Elisa]: Daniel: would like a list of the set of lists to send message to
15:13:09 [RalphS]: zakim, ??p1 is Antoine
15:13:10 [Zakim]: +Antoine; got it
15:13:59 [Elisa]: Guus: summarizing for Antoine -- request should be sent to the lists that were requested for use cases.
15:14:37 [Elisa]: Daniel: Daniel et all to get together and come up with composite list to send request to
15:14:59 [Elisa]: 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 [Elisa]: Guus: Need some discussion on next two actions: Minimal Fix and alternative
15:16:03 [Elisa]: Non-ordered approach is structured differently from ordered approach
15:16:19 [Elisa]: Alistair: can divide that into two smaller proposals
15:16:39 [Elisa]: under minimal fix, no way to specify that something is unordered explicitly
15:17:06 [Elisa]: Given an open world assumption, default reasoning is difficult
15:17:30 [Elisa]: In original SKOS Core Guide, there is a discussion of the two different layouts, which may be overly complicated
15:18:17 [Elisa]: Guus: in minimal fix, for the collection case, would not assume ordering; no notion of ordering, for example, with an intersection
15:19:12 [Elisa]: 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 [Elisa]: This is essentially default reasoning, which in practice may be a problem
15:19:58 [Elisa]: In an open world situation, it would be better to state that a collection is ordered (or not) explicitly
15:20:55 [Elisa]: Minimal fix solution is Alistair's attempt to address the issue (just the ordering problem) in a minimal way
15:21:19 [Elisa]: Another alternative would be to take this proposal as a starting point, and then extend that to provide an explicit feature
15:21:59 [TomB]: http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/GroupingConstructs/ProposalOne?action=recall&rev=8
15:22:15 [Elisa]: 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 [RalphS]: s/Ralph?/Jon/
15:22:58 [Elisa]: thanks
15:24:07 [Elisa]: 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 [Elisa]: This would enable you to ask whether something was a member of a list or not
15:25:02 [Elisa]: As is, the minimal fix solution does not make this explicit - there is a level of indirection
15:25:55 [Elisa]: 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 [Elisa]: You could assume if the property is not there that the list is unordered
15:27:14 [Elisa]: 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 [Elisa]: 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 [Elisa]: It would be useful, given this, to address the specification of the semantics, and our definition of test cases
15:29:24 [Elisa]: 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 [Elisa]: 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 [Elisa]: Sean would be willing to take this on
15:31:02 [RalphS]: [I'm concerned about alternatives such as "if the property is not present, assume ..."; that may open non-monotonic issues]
15:31:22 [Elisa]: 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 [Elisa]: Alistair: with regard to test cases, what was the basis for these in OWL
15:32:15 [Elisa]: 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 [Guus]: OWL Test Caes http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/
15:32:51 [Elisa]: 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 [Elisa]: So here, you would have to describe what the RDF/criteria would be, how applications are expected to behave
15:34:23 [Elisa]: Guus: We should take the minimal fix proposal and spend a few minutes on that
15:35:06 [Elisa]: Sean/Alistair: Two examples are inconsistent because they use the SKOS narrowerThan property ...
15:35:38 [Elisa]: 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 [Elisa]: Even with just an RDF interpreter, we should specify what the behavior should be
15:36:02 [Antoine]: q+ for other solutions for groupings?
15:36:24 [Elisa]: Thanks
15:37:44 [Elisa]: Guus: if you look at OWL test cases, for example, these are the premises, and these are the conclusions expected
15:38:08 [Elisa]: this might provide a little more formal form than what is currently in the document
15:38:49 [Elisa]: 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 [Elisa]: Alistair: we might basically have a number of sections in the semantics, structured similarly to the document currently
15:40:01 [Elisa]: break up the semantics in that way, the namespace document would be comprised of the axiomatic triples
15:40:22 [Elisa]: then the issues would be with some of the rules, such as the membership issue
15:40:50 [Elisa]: might use the way the entailment rules are given informally in the RDF semantics, hadn't thought about other
15:41:05 [Elisa]: sorts of rules yet that might also be pertinent
15:41:28 [Elisa]: 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 [Elisa]: 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 [Elisa]: 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 [Elisa]: Daniel: I thought the goal was to keep it simple ...
15:43:38 [Elisa]: 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 [Elisa]: 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 [Elisa]: 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 [Elisa]: for any formal definitions we should refer to the owl spec
15:45:47 [Zakim]: -dlrubin
15:46:02 [Elisa]: 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 [Elisa]: if you're using the OWL vocabulary, shouldn't we be using the OWL semantics
15:46:35 [Elisa]: Guus: Sean might be in the best position to address this
15:47:37 [Elisa]: 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 [Elisa]: section 2, axiomatic triples: first 4 can be part of an RDF schema for skos
15:48:25 [Elisa]: fifth one - disjoint - people have to understand something about OWl to understand how to use this
15:48:36 [Zakim]: +??P14
15:49:24 [Elisa]: 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 [Elisa]: 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 [Elisa]: 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 [Zakim]: -??P14
15:52:34 [aliman]: aliman has joined #swd
15:53:04 [seanb]: It's me for the testing!
15:53:31 [Elisa]: ACTION: Sean to look at the test environment supporting the semantics
15:53:51 [RalphS]: s/semantics/SKOS semantics/
15:54:17 [Elisa]: ACTION: Alistair will look at raising the examples from the issues to test cases
15:55:19 [Elisa]: 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 [Elisa]: DONE:
15:55:20 [Elisa]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007May/0019.html
15:55:41 [Elisa]: 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 [Elisa]: 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 [Elisa]: 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 [Elisa]: CONTINUED
15:56:25 [Elisa]: 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 [Elisa]: DONE, see decision May 8
15:56:27 [Elisa]: Done
15:56:36 [Zakim]: +??P21
15:56:42 [Elisa]: Issues admin: Antoine's message
15:56:43 [Elisa]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007May/0020.html
15:56:44 [TomB]: [RalphS, are the issues correctly being recorded as "done"?]
15:56:46 [Elisa]: Continued
15:57:56 [RalphS]: scribenick: ralphs
15:58:04 [RalphS]: Topic: Vocabulary Management
15:58:11 [RalphS]: Elisa: I have made some progress
15:58:20 [RalphS]: ... I have pulled together a summary of goals and next steps
15:58:39 [RalphS]: ... I propose to update the wiki to reflect what I have gathered
15:58:43 [RalphS]: ... and to include Vit's notes
15:59:08 [RalphS]: ... 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]: JonP has joined #swd
15:59:32 [RalphS]: ... for version management, some of the things Daniel and his team have done in bio portal would make good examples
15:59:42 [RalphS]: ... we've not made much progress on identifying best practices here
15:59:53 [RalphS]: ... but we do know some folk who have articulated policies
16:00:06 [RalphS]: ... for URI schemes we might talk with Daniel and Chris Welty
16:00:24 [RalphS]: ... for maintenance policies we have good first-hand experience with SKOS vocabulary maintenance
16:00:56 [RalphS]: ... Alistair and others have done great work
16:01:04 [RalphS]: ... goal would be to identify a couple of people who could be good liaisons for each section
16:01:05 [Zakim]: -??P21
16:01:15 [RalphS]: Tom: formulate a set of simple questions to ask each group
16:01:34 [dlrubin]: FYI--I need to drop off the call now. Thanks everyone.
16:01:36 [RalphS]: ... it's a big topic, so coming up with a set of questions might be a good first step
16:01:41 [seanb]: Sorry -- have to go. Bye!
16:01:50 [Zakim]: -seanb
16:01:51 [RalphS]: ... we also need to have more people working on this task
16:02:21 [RalphS]: Elisa: in addition to myself, Vit and Siggi both said they were interested in working on this deliverable
16:02:34 [dlrubin]: dlrubin has left #swd
16:02:42 [RalphS]: ... some of the folks involved in SKOS said they might contribute
16:03:30 [RalphS]: 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 [RalphS]: -- continues
16:03:47 [RalphS]: Elisa: I hope to send summary by next week
16:03:54 [RalphS]: [adjourned]
16:04:00 [Zakim]: -Elisa_Kendall
16:04:12 [RalphS]: zakim, list attendees
16:04:12 [Zakim]: As of this point the attendees have been TomB, dlrubin, Elisa_Kendall, Vit, JonP, Ralph, Guus, Alistair, seanb, Antoine
16:04:16 [RalphS]: rrsagent, please draft minutes
16:04:16 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/05/15-swd-minutes.html RalphS
16:04:31 [Zakim]: -Vit
16:07:05 [Zakim]: -Antoine
16:07:11 [Zakim]: -Alistair
16:08:07 [Zakim]: -JonP
16:13:25 [Guus]: zakim, who is here?
16:13:25 [Zakim]: On the phone I see TomB, Ralph, Guus
16:13:26 [Zakim]: On IRC I see aliman, Antoine, seanb, RRSAgent, TomB, Guus, Zakim, RalphS
16:41:31 [Zakim]: -Ralph
16:41:33 [Zakim]: -TomB
16:41:34 [Zakim]: -Guus
16:41:35 [Zakim]: SW_SWD()11:00AM has ended
16:41:36 [Zakim]: Attendees were TomB, dlrubin, Elisa_Kendall, Vit, JonP, Ralph, Guus, Alistair, seanb, Antoine
17:13:00 [RalphS]: zakim, bye
17:13:00 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #swd
17:13:03 [RalphS]: rrsagent, bye
17:13:03 [RRSAgent]: I see 12 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/15-swd-actions.rdf :
17:13:03 [RRSAgent]: 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 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/15-swd-irc#T15-09-08
17:13:03 [RRSAgent]: 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 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/15-swd-irc#T15-10-28
17:13:03 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: Daniel to send messages to thesaurus list, semantic web interest, ... [3]
17:13:03 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/15-swd-irc#T15-12-28
17:13:03 [RRSAgent]: 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 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/15-swd-irc#T15-14-59
17:13:03 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: Sean to look at the test environment supporting the semantics [5]
17:13:03 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/15-swd-irc#T15-53-31
17:13:03 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: Alistair will look at raising the examples from the issues to test cases [6]
17:13:03 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/15-swd-irc#T15-54-17
17:13:03 [RRSAgent]: 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 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/15-swd-irc#T15-55-19
17:13:03 [RRSAgent]: 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 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/15-swd-irc#T15-55-41
17:13:03 [RRSAgent]: 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 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/15-swd-irc#T15-55-58
17:13:03 [RRSAgent]: 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 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/15-swd-irc#T15-56-10
17:13:03 [RRSAgent]: 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 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/15-swd-irc#T15-56-25
17:13:03 [RRSAgent]: 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 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/15-swd-irc#T16-03-30