Semantic Web Deployment Working Group

<Guus> [I'm stuck here in a review meeting, with no access to a phone]

Admin

<Zakim> aliman, you wanted to ask for last minute addition to agenda regarding SKOS and POWDER linkage

tomb: accept adding a new item to the agenda as requested by Alistair

PROPOSED to accept minutes of 12 June telecon: http://www.w3.org/2007/06/12-swd-minutes.html

RESOLUTION: accepted minutes of 12 June

next telecon: 26 June

SKOS

<scribe> ACTION: Ralph to update SKOS pages to point to UCR [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/05-swd-minutes.html#action01] [CONTINUES]

aliman: wording looks fine

Antoine: sandbox is dead, some issues that were not fine-worded might now disappear

<scribe> ACTION: Alistair to fix wording on SKOS issues sandbox [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/05-swd-minutes.html#action03] [DONE]

<scribe> 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] [DONE]

TomB asks about the test cases. Any progress?

aliman: suggest to go as per-issue basis
... unsure about how the test cases will look like
... there will be some entailment test cases for SKOS like in OWL, but also other test cases
... we might open a new document

seanb: it will be useful for us to have a central document that describes how SKOS test cases should be like

<GuusS> +1

aliman: suggest to create a wiki that might serve as template for test cases

<TomB> +1 to Alistair's idea of setting up wiki draft with entailment test cases, etc

TomB: volunteers to create this template in the wiki?

aliman describes the procedure to create a wiki template

<scribe> ACTION: seanb to create the template for test cases in the wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/19-swd-minutes.html#action04]

<aliman> SKOS Semantics -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/Semantics

<scribe> ACTION: Alistair will look at raising the examples from the issues to test cases [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/15-swd-minutes.html#action06] [DONE]

<scribe> ACTION: Guus to update proposal with issue of single vs. multiple labels for terms [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/12-swd-minutes.html#action09] [DONE]

<aliman> Template used for some sub-pages in SKOS Semantics -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosModuleTemplate

<scribe> ACTION: Alistair to provide details of alternative proposal [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/12-swd-minutes.html#action10] [DONE]

TomB: we have two new alternative proposals on the table now for issue 26

<GuusS> Guus: I have done a small user study to compare the usability of the two proposals for Issue 26, and will report on the results later this week

<aliman> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLabels

aliman presents the "Minimal label relation" proposal (proposal four)

aliman: new class skos:LabelRelation, labels are represented as literals, LabelRelation glues them together
... very similar to the first proposal, but slightly more general
... allows relationships between any number of labels
... (now regarding proposal three) I sent an email asking about the multiplicity of the relationship between Labels and literals

Antoine: I responded to Alistair's mail, suggesting if two Labels have the same literal value, they should be the same

<Antoine> my answer to Alistair -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0064.html

aliman: I'm trying to clarify when two SKOS labels are the same thing

<GuusS> question for Alistair: how do you handle directed relations like acronymOf?

<GuusS> I guess via subproperties of labelRelated

aliman: (to GuusS) yes
... the proposal points that extensions of the vocabulary should be used

TomB: we should make progress on the mailing list

TomB: and try to make a resolution for next week
... now we move forward to issue 33

<scribe> ACTION: Alistair to propose resolution for Issue-33 (minimal fix) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/12-swd-minutes.html#action12] [DONE]

<scribe> ACTION: Alistair to propose minimal fix for resolution of issue 33 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/22-swd-minutes.html#action09] [DONE]

<aliman> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/Semantics/Grouping?action=recall&rev=4 -> section of SKOS semantics

aliman: the content of this section reflects more or less the same as the original proposal

aliman: in the original there were some detailed examples
... but they should be moved into SKOS Primer
... and keep only minor examples in SKOS semantics
... Antoine sent an email asking for clarification of some points
... in general, it is out of scope for SKOS to provide all the information required to layout a systematic display of the thesaurus
... there is a default way to build a systematic display based on the SKOS data
... the same question has appeared in different contexts

TomB: agree that SKOS should not try to provide all this information
... UCR (Use Cases and Requirements) might include a reference to this design decision

aliman: UCR should say that representing presentational information is out of scope
... but the primer might include some hints

<aliman> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0061.html -> Alistair's statement about presentational information and SKOS scope

aliman: the data in SKOS is enough to generate an alphabetical display, for instance
... but when it comes to systematical/hierarchical display, it might be not enough
... you might need some extra data
... but there are enough data to create a default display
... this might be a starting point to talk about what is presentational information and what is not
... for instance, consider people by age; age ranges are captured in SKOS, but ordering is a presentational detail

Antoine: this relates with the usage of SKOS, not only the specification

aliman: "schedule" describes the actual presentation

Antoine: please point at examples where this information cannot be represented in SKOS

<scribe> ACTION: aliman to provide examples of cases where presentational information is required [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/19-swd-minutes.html#action10]

<GuusS> [I'm still in a review meeting, have to drop off, sorry for missing the telecon]

TomB: we move now into a new point in the agenda about POWDER

aliman: Phil Archer mailed me about POWDER
... (POWDER is an RDF vocabulary to represent content labels)
... about the dependency between SKOS and POWDER

<kjetilk> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jan/0069.html

<kjetilk> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Mar/0049.html

<kjetilk> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Apr/0015.html

kjetilk describes POWDER objectives

kjetilk: user interface gives people the option to specify the predicate and the object
... quite different uses
... I need a single predicate that maps to SKOS

<aliman> skos:it/skos:as discussion

aliman: some time ago, during early development of SKOS
... linking skos:Concepts to classes in an ontology
... danbri proposed skos:it and skos:as
... for instance, link a skos:Concept with a foaf:Person
... we don't have this in our UCR
... it is up to kjetilk to do something, we don't have anything on the table

<kjetilk> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jan/0069.html

TomB: it doesn't look that we can do anything by this Friday

aliman: this is one of several similar use cases
... this is close with the issue of interoperability with OWL

Antoine: is this related to the potential issue that I flagged this week?
... daniel also referred to this problem

TomB suggests putting this into next week's agenda

TomB: somebody should summarize this in an email to the list
... any volunteers?

Antoine: I volunteer

Recipes

<scribe> ACTION: Ralph propose resolution to Recipe issue 1.3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/24-swd-minutes.html#action09] [CONTINUES]

Vocabulary management

Elisa: I want to propose to talk about this next week
... to discuss about issues with URIs, also in relation with danbri's mail

TomB: there is some contextual information in the recipes, but vocabulary management document should take a broader view
... I'm not sure about how to put this into the agenda
... it's a rather difficult topic to explain, see the semantic-web mailing list recently
... it would be difficult to make progress if we use the telecons for brainstorming

RDFa

ben: remaining issues should be solved quickly, they are not controversial

TomB: No further business, meeting adjourned