14:56:53 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #swd
14:56:53 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-irc
14:56:58 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #swd
14:57:04 <RalphS> zakim, this will be swd
14:57:04 <Zakim> ok, RalphS, I see SW_SWD()11:00AM already started
14:57:08 <RalphS> rrsagent, please make record public
14:57:12 <RalphS> zakim, who's on the phone?
14:57:12 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P13
14:57:42 <RalphS> zakim, ??p13 is Tom
14:57:42 <Zakim> +Tom; got it
14:58:11 <TomB> :-)
14:58:54 <Zakim> +Ralph
14:59:46 <Antoine> Antoine has joined #swd
14:59:54 <Zakim> +??P19
15:00:19 <RalphS> zakim, ??p19 is Guus
15:00:19 <Zakim> +Guus; got it
15:00:47 <RalphS> Meeting: SWD WG
15:01:03 <RalphS> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jul/0002.html
15:01:18 <Zakim> +Antoine_Isaac
15:01:35 <RalphS> -> http://www.w3.org/2007/06/26-swd-minutes.html previous 2007-06-26
15:01:54 <TomB> Regrets: Bernard, Elisa, Simone, Justin
15:02:05 <TomB> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0188.html
15:02:29 <Zakim> +CarlosI
15:02:34 <berrueta> zakim, CarlosI is me
15:02:34 <Zakim> sorry, berrueta, I do not recognize a party named 'CarlosI'
15:02:37 <TomB> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jul/0002.html
15:02:58 <berrueta> zakim, CarlosI is really me
15:02:58 <Zakim> sorry, berrueta, I do not recognize a party named 'CarlosI'
15:03:19 <JonP> JonP has joined #swd
15:03:32 <vit> vit has joined #swd
15:03:35 <Zakim> +??P5
15:03:38 <dlrubin> dlrubin has joined #swd
15:03:38 <RalphS> zakim, carlosi is Diego
15:03:39 <Zakim> sorry, RalphS, I do not recognize a party named 'carlosi'
15:03:51 <RalphS> zakim, ??p5 is Daniel
15:03:51 <Zakim> +Daniel; got it
15:03:54 <guus> zakim, ??P5 is Daniel
15:03:54 <Zakim> I already had ??P5 as Daniel, guus
15:04:24 <guus> zakim, who is here?
15:04:24 <Zakim> On the phone I see Tom, Ralph, Guus, Antoine_Isaac, [CTIC], Daniel
15:04:24 <Zakim> On IRC I see dlrubin, vit, JonP, Antoine, Zakim, RRSAgent, RalphS, berrueta, TomB, guus
15:04:26 <RalphS> zakim, [ctic] is Diego
15:04:27 <Zakim> +Diego; got it
15:05:06 <Zakim> +??P33
15:05:36 <RalphS> zakim, ??p33 is Vit
15:05:36 <Zakim> +Vit; got it
15:06:25 <seanb> seanb has joined #swd
15:06:38 <dlrubin> scribenick: dlrubin
15:06:53 <edsu2> edsu2 has joined #swd
15:07:17 <Zakim> +??P17
15:07:20 <Zakim> +[LC]
15:07:35 <RalphS> zakim, ??p17 is Sean
15:07:35 <Zakim> +Sean; got it
15:07:37 <Zakim> +Jon_Phipps
15:07:57 <RalphS> zakim, lc is Clay
15:07:58 <Zakim> +Clay; got it
15:08:08 <Zakim> +[LC]
15:08:10 <Clay> Clay has joined #swd
15:08:19 <JonP> zakim, Jon_Phipps is me
15:08:19 <Zakim> +JonP; got it
15:08:26 <RalphS> zakim, lc is Ed
15:08:26 <Zakim> +Ed; got it
15:08:41 <dlrubin> topic: admin
15:09:21 <dlrubin> Guus: proposal to accept minutes
15:09:32 <dlrubin> ...carried
15:09:45 <dlrubin> ...Upcoming tcon July 10
15:09:49 <dlrubin> ...Tom will Chair
15:10:03 <dlrubin> ...Next F2F meeting
15:10:10 <RalphS> -> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/39408/f2f3poll1/results results of November f2f poll
15:10:38 <dlrubin> ...after summer will need meeting resolve SKOS and RDFa issues.
15:10:54 <RalphS> q+ to comment on SKOS agendum for f2f
15:10:56 <dlrubin> ...Should we have SKOS meeting in Korea or separate venue?
15:11:10 <dlrubin> ...For RDFa US is likely candidate
15:11:52 <dlrubin> Ralph: Only Guus couldn't be in Cambridge for SKOS
15:12:00 <dlrubin> ...5 said they can't be in Korea
15:12:34 <dlrubin> Antoine: If SKOS were in Europe, that is preferable.
15:13:48 <dlrubin> Ralph: First two weeks in Nov are not possible.
15:14:00 <dlrubin> ...end of Nov is problematic.
15:14:42 <dlrubin> Guus: We could select Amsterdam.
15:15:13 <dlrubin> Action: Guus to propose dates in Oct for Amsterdam meeting on SKOS.
15:15:18 <RalphS> s/end of Nov is problematic./3rd week of Nov is a big US holiday, so we'd be at end of Nov./
15:15:46 <dlrubin> TomB: can we pick early Oct?
15:15:56 <dlrubin> Guus: We should do a web poll.
15:16:11 <dlrubin> ...for RDAa meeting--cambridge venue?
15:16:24 <dlrubin> Ralph: only 3 people wanted a meeting
15:16:53 <TomB> zakim, Tom is really TomB
15:16:53 <Zakim> +TomB; got it
15:17:11 <dlrubin> ...suggest that RDFa be taken up in XHTML2 meeting
15:17:26 <dlrubin> ...there are 2 new chairs for XHTML2
15:17:36 <dlrubin> ...Roland Merrick and Evan Pimberton
15:18:02 <seanb> s/Evan Pimberton/Steven Pemberton
15:18:02 <dlrubin> ...correction Steven Pimberton
15:18:08 <RalphS> s/Pimberton/Pemberton/
15:18:47 <dlrubin> Action: Discuss possibility of meeting for RDFa in Cambridge.
15:18:52 <dlrubin> Topic: SKOS
15:19:02 <dlrubin> Issue-26: RelationshipsBetweenLabels (http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/26)
15:19:21 <dlrubin> Guus: Two current proposals, simple extension and minimal label.
15:19:29 <RalphS> (RDFa hopes to be substantially done by Nov, so the question of a f2f agendum for it was considered low priority by Ben)
15:19:39 <dlrubin> ...gave this to ontology engineering students. Will post results to list.
15:20:25 <dlrubin> ...Other issue is comment from Antoine on naming Guus used
15:20:47 <dlrubin> ...Instead of prefLabel, use prefLabelR--antoine wonders if this is good naming
15:20:57 <dlrubin> ...we could discuss
15:21:13 <dlrubin> edsu: Does adding an "R" used elsewhere?
15:21:17 <dlrubin> Guus: was in OWL
15:21:45 <dlrubin> ...Actually in OWL it was dropped.
15:22:14 <dlrubin> ...You need a lexical way of having difference.
15:22:30 <dlrubin> Antoine: This is not really explicit and confusing, as could be interpreted as relation
15:22:40 <dlrubin> ...you have properties with R and label relation
15:22:46 <dlrubin> ...this is a worry
15:23:12 <dlrubin> Guus: "resource" might be better
15:23:22 <dlrubin> ...There was also discussion as to whether relation was bijectional
15:23:51 <dlrubin> ...Alistair was going to propose resolution for issue 33. Action not yet been done.
15:23:57 <dlrubin> ...Proposal to leave it at that
15:24:15 <dlrubin> seanb: Wasn't there mail from Allistair in June proposing this?
15:24:26 <dlrubin> Guus: if you are willing to look, we'll move on.
15:24:31 <dlrubin> seanb: will look for url
15:24:42 <dlrubin> --  ISSUE-31 BasicLexicalLabelSemantics proposed resolution
15:24:42 <dlrubin> See thread from:
15:24:42 <dlrubin> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0170.html
15:24:46 <dlrubin> --  ISSUE-31 BasicLexicalLabelSemantics proposed resolution
15:24:46 <dlrubin> See thread from:
15:24:46 <dlrubin> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0170.html
15:25:01 <dlrubin> Guus: John, I can clarify what I meant
15:25:10 <dlrubin> ...we had discussion on the potential ontological commitment
15:25:20 <dlrubin> ...should the concept be in only one scheme
15:25:29 <TomB> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0166.html
15:25:33 <dlrubin> ...if there is no clear reason to say this is the case, we should not specify
15:26:01 <dlrubin> ...The other issue is whether broader/narrower can be between concepts in 2 different schemes
15:26:06 <dlrubin> ...I don't see concerns here yet
15:26:31 <dlrubin> JonP: this has to do with ownership schemes
15:26:49 <dlrubin> ...there was also question whether concept can be in more than one scheme.
15:27:33 <dlrubin> Guus: from web approach, whether concepts belong to scheme is something owner should have control over
15:27:48 <dlrubin> ...whether you use broader/narrower for that is another question
15:27:59 <dlrubin> JonP: you should look at mapping vocabulary
15:28:09 <seanb> I think this is also related to issue 36: http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/36
15:28:31 <Antoine> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptualMapping/ProposalOne
15:29:03 <dlrubin> Guus: We have equivalent concepts and overlapping concepts
15:29:13 <dlrubin> Antoine: I was proposing using broader/narrower relations
15:29:31 <dlrubin> Guus: I feel uncomforable replicating OWL vocabulary here
15:29:43 <dlrubin> ...for equivalence we have equivalentClass and sameAS
15:29:52 <dlrubin> ...we hav union and negation
15:30:04 <dlrubin> ...would hamper usability if we introduce redundancy
15:30:57 <dlrubin> Antoine: equivalentConcept may exist in another namespace, so we would turn to a less satisfactory concetp
15:31:03 <dlrubin> Guus: why not use sameAs?
15:31:21 <dlrubin> Antoine: the meaning of the concepts are the same, but sameAs states equivalence of the resources.
15:31:39 <dlrubin> ...if you have metadata about the concepts, then this information would be aggregated around unique resource
15:31:56 <dlrubin> Guus: you can't use equivClass because they are not equivalent.
15:32:01 <dlrubin> ...ok
15:32:15 <dlrubin> ...so we will need further discussion
15:32:27 <dlrubin> ...do we have an owner for issue 31?
15:33:08 <dlrubin> ...it was proposed by Alistair
15:33:32 <dlrubin> ...so Alistair will be owner
15:33:40 <TomB> q+ to draw attention to Alistair's proposal re: ISSUE-33 http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/Semantics/Grouping?action=recall&rev=4
15:33:47 <dlrubin> Mapping Topic Maps to SKOS:
15:33:47 <dlrubin> https://mijn.postbank.nl/internetbankieren/SesamLoginServlet
15:34:22 <dlrubin> Antoine: what Alistiar has proposed is interesting, but I am concerned about constraints on semantics.
15:34:33 <dlrubin> ...people in WG should look at this before next week.
15:35:05 <dlrubin> ...I'm questioning use of 'syntactic constraints'--I'm not used to that and its relevance to people outside the WG
15:35:12 <dlrubin> ...is this a good way to specify semantics?
15:35:26 <dlrubin> ...even Alistair not sure 
15:35:38 <dlrubin> ...people should look at whether this is proper way to do things
15:35:47 <dlrubin> Guus: there are analogies in owl.
15:36:00 <JonP> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/Semantics/Labelling?action=recall&rev=5
15:36:13 <dlrubin> ...every parser might flag a warning as a syntactic condition
15:36:29 <dlrubin> Antoine: so no problem specifying semantic constraints at syntactic level?
15:36:36 <dlrubin> ...I am ok with this.
15:36:44 <dlrubin> Guus: Sean--what do you think?
15:37:22 <dlrubin> seanb: where is this?
15:37:37 <dlrubin> Guus: if you look at issue 31 and go to wiki page, you see skos semantics labeling.
15:37:43 <dlrubin> ...you see semantic conditions
15:38:30 <dlrubin> ...it is not about the statement but whether semantic considtions are ok
15:38:45 <dlrubin> ...for language tag, there is no other option...
15:38:59 <dlrubin> seanb: ok
15:39:13 <TomB> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0167.html 
15:39:14 <dlrubin> Guus: will you look at this and see whether this form is ok?
15:39:18 <dlrubin> seanb: yes
15:39:32 <dlrubin> Antoine: this may be redundant with owl specification
15:39:38 <dlrubin> ...I am ok with what is there.
15:39:43 <RalphS> q+ to ask about conformance
15:40:02 <dlrubin> Mapping Topic Maps to SKOS:
15:40:02 <dlrubin> https://mijn.postbank.nl/internetbankieren/SesamLoginServlet
15:40:24 <dlrubin> Guus: this is the wrong link--I apologize
15:40:49 <dlrubin> ...I'll resend a new message
15:40:56 <guus> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jul/0004.html
15:41:32 <dlrubin> ...There is support for properties of narrower/broader
15:42:00 <dlrubin> Antoine: should we raise this as an issue?
15:42:08 <dlrubin> Guus: we have these subtypes on our issue list
15:42:21 <dlrubin> Antoine: the standardization level is different?
15:42:25 <RalphS> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0216.html Semantic relation BroaderPartitive/ NarrowerPartitiv
15:42:49 <dlrubin> Guus: We can indicate how to do it
15:43:00 <dlrubin> ...at moment, topic map community isn't very large
15:43:15 <dlrubin> Antoine: while broader/narrower is something that might come from outside topic map communtiy
15:43:31 <dlrubin> ...people have said they would use it for their vocabulary case
15:43:39 <dlrubin> Guus: we have these things on our issue list
15:43:54 <dlrubin> Anotoine: I don't think so
15:44:36 <dlrubin> ...we have issue 37 on skos specialization
15:45:09 <dlrubin> Guus: should we include in skos the broader/narrower specialization?
15:45:24 <dlrubin> ...could Antoine raise that issue?
15:45:28 <dlrubin> Antoine: ok
15:45:37 <dlrubin> seanb: is there a use case that picks up on that?
15:45:57 <dlrubin> Antoine: yes in one of the use cases
15:46:21 <dlrubin> Action: Antoine to raise issue of adding broader/narrower relations in skos
15:46:40 <dlrubin> Guus: suggestions on how to move forward these discussions?
15:46:47 <TomB> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0166.html
15:46:48 <TomB> I have proposed the following section of the SKOS Semantics wiki draft as a resolution for this issue:
15:46:50 <dlrubin> ...some of these issues need to be resovled at f2f meeting
15:46:50 <TomB> [1] <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/Semantics/Grouping?action=recall&rev=4>
15:46:51 <TomB> This is section of the SKOS Semantics wiki draft, which defines a semantics for skos:Collection, skos:OrderedCollection, skos:member and skos:memberList.
15:46:53 <TomB> N.B. the semantics are such that the use of a skos:Collection with skos:narrower, skos:broader or skos:related will lead to an inconsistency if the domain or range of these properties is skos:Concept, because skos:Collection is disjoint with skos:Concept. The SKOS Primer will of course have to present examples that are consistent with the semantics, and explain how to avoid an inconsistency.
15:46:54 <TomB> I would like to suggest that the Working Group accept this resolution, because it fixes the basic contradiction in the previous specifications, regarding the use of skos:Collection with skos:broader or skos:narrower, that [ISSUE-33] captures.
15:47:04 <Zakim> TomB, you wanted to draw attention to Alistair's proposal re: ISSUE-33 http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/Semantics/Grouping?action=recall&rev=4
15:47:42 <dlrubin> TomB: On issue 33, I added link.
15:48:00 <dlrubin> ...Alistair proposes to address issue 33 by getting wiki draft of skos semantics
15:48:20 <dlrubin> ...his proposal is that we focus on that part of wiki draft for skos that we can agree on
15:49:09 <dlrubin> Guus: we cannot decide on this while issue owner is not here.
15:49:32 <dlrubin> TomB: the proposal was that Alistair would make the proposal explicit and that we would discuss that section on a tcon.
15:49:41 <dlrubin> ...I propose we do that at the f2f
15:49:59 <dlrubin> Guus: ok, we should schedule that for next week.
15:50:19 <RalphS> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0166.html RE: [SKOS] ISSUE-33 "Minimal Fix" Proposal [Alistair, 2007-06-26]
15:50:20 <dlrubin> Topic: RDFa - RDFa Overview document http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/
15:50:33 <dlrubin> Guus: there is proposal for resolution of issues
15:50:54 <dlrubin> RalphS: I haven't see responses from group members for the resoution. I need comments from them.
15:51:14 <dlrubin> Guus: let's look at issue 2
15:51:14 <dlrubin> Proposed resolutions to ISSUE-2, ISSUE-5, ISSUE-25, ISSUE-29, ISSUE-4
15:51:14 <dlrubin> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0176.html
15:51:41 <dlrubin> Guus: if that is consensus in the subgroup, I'm happy with it
15:51:46 <RalphS> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/2 Custom Attributes for RDF shorthand
15:51:47 <dlrubin> ...any discussion?
15:52:06 <dlrubin> ...should we go through and accept them?
15:52:29 <dlrubin> RalphS: I would like some sense that other WG members have given input
15:52:38 <dlrubin> Guus: these are non-controversial.
15:52:50 <dlrubin> ...these are fine with me. No real commitments that worry me.
15:53:04 <dlrubin> ...I propose we resolve and accept RDFa issue 2
15:53:08 <dlrubin> ...objections?
15:53:13 <dlrubin> ...so carried
15:53:27 <RalphS> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/5 CURIEs in Predicate Attributes
15:53:45 <dlrubin> ...next is issue 5
15:54:25 <dlrubin> RalphS: the subtelty that the task force has not abandoned the compact URIs
15:54:37 <dlrubin> ...XHTML is advocating compact URIs
15:54:46 <dlrubin> ...task force continues to go along with it.
15:54:54 <dlrubin> ...it will be controversial in HTML community
15:55:10 <dlrubin> ...Proposed resolution relates to URL part
15:55:47 <dlrubin> ...This proposed resolution is ok, but this wg may give recommendation to task force as to whether they should still continue persue compact URIs
15:56:03 <dlrubin> Guus: I suggest we leave this until this can be explained to rest of group
15:56:09 <dlrubin> ...issue 25
15:56:25 <dlrubin> ...this doesn't look as simple
15:56:38 <dlrubin> RalphS: Issue 1 is simple
15:56:52 <dlrubin> Discussion on ISSUE-1: reification
15:56:52 <dlrubin> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0177.html
15:57:00 <dlrubin> Guus: ok
15:57:13 <TomB> +1 on Issue-1 - i.e., not support reification
15:57:25 <dlrubin> ...seems wise decison to me
15:57:38 <dlrubin> ...I propose we resolve issue 1 based on Ben's message
15:57:40 <dlrubin> objections?
15:57:48 <dlrubin> Guus: so carried
15:57:53 <dlrubin> ...issue 3
15:58:03 <dlrubin> Discussion thread on ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type
15:58:03 <dlrubin> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0178.html
15:58:14 <dlrubin> Guus: this is not one we can easily decide.
15:58:20 <dlrubin> ...is Michael here?
15:58:35 <dlrubin> ...I suggest we leave it to issues 1 and 2
15:59:32 <dlrubin> RalphS: the class and role issue relates to how we value clarity of semantics in class attribute
15:59:55 <dlrubin> ...we need clearer way to express semantics. Momentum for using class
16:00:03 <dlrubin> Guus: we skip to agenda item 5
16:00:13 <dlrubin> Topic:  . VOCABULARY MANAGEMENT - see http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/Deliverables#VocabularyMgt
16:01:02 <dlrubin> Guus: any current actions?
16:01:30 <dlrubin> vit: there is discussion on naming of terms but these should be taken over by Elisa
16:01:55 <dlrubin> RalphS: if Elisa proposes text to discuss, then we can discuss, but there is no action on her for this
16:02:35 <dlrubin> vit: what are requirements on version identification and report on results of questionnaire
16:02:43 <dlrubin> ...on identifying versions...
16:02:53 <dlrubin> ...this will be by end of July at soonest.
16:03:00 <dlrubin> Guus: shouldn't be a problem.
16:03:10 <RalphS> Ralph: that sounds like reasonable progress
16:03:14 <dlrubin> vit: it will take longer to gather the answers.
16:03:28 <dlrubin> Guus: we are at end of the time.
16:04:03 <dlrubin> Action: Guus to move Action 26 forward
16:04:20 <dlrubin> Guus: people representing user communities should compare different proposals
16:04:32 <RalphS> action Guus: post user experience reports for issue-26
16:05:02 <dlrubin> Guus: I will use same examples
16:05:13 <dlrubin> ...so makes easier to comapre. We need explicit feedback.
16:05:42 <dlrubin> zakim, meeting adjourned
16:05:42 <Zakim> I don't understand 'meeting adjourned', dlrubin
16:05:50 <dlrubin> zakim, list attendees
16:05:50 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Ralph, Guus, Antoine_Isaac, CarlosI, Daniel, Diego, Vit, Sean, Clay, JonP, Ed, TomB
16:05:52 <Zakim> -Sean
16:05:52 <Zakim> -Ed
16:05:53 <Zakim> -Clay
16:05:55 <Zakim> -Vit
16:05:56 <Zakim> -Antoine_Isaac
16:05:56 <Zakim> -JonP
16:06:02 <dlrubin> rrsagent, please draft minutes
16:06:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-minutes.html dlrubin
16:06:08 <Zakim> -Diego
16:06:12 <Zakim> -Daniel
16:10:10 <dlrubin> dlrubin has left #swd
16:13:59 <Antoine> Antoine has left #swd
16:20:55 <seanb> seanb has left #swd
16:21:34 <Zakim> -TomB
16:21:36 <Zakim> -Ralph
16:21:40 <Zakim> -Guus
16:21:41 <Zakim> SW_SWD()11:00AM has ended
16:21:42 <Zakim> Attendees were Ralph, Guus, Antoine_Isaac, CarlosI, Daniel, Diego, Vit, Sean, Clay, JonP, Ed, TomB
16:21:52 <RalphS> zakim, bye
16:21:52 <Zakim> Zakim has left #swd
16:25:28 <edsu>     /win close
16:25:31 <edsu> d'oh
16:25:34 <edsu> edsu has left #swd
17:03:52 <RalphS> rrsagent, bye
17:03:52 <RRSAgent> I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-actions.rdf :
17:03:52 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Guus to propose dates in Oct for Amsterdam meeting on SKOS. [1]
17:03:52 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-irc#T15-15-13
17:03:52 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Discuss possibility of meeting for RDFa in Cambridge. [2]
17:03:52 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-irc#T15-18-47
17:03:52 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Antoine to raise issue of adding broader/narrower relations in skos [3]
17:03:52 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-irc#T15-46-21
17:03:52 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Guus to move Action 26 forward [4]
17:03:52 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-irc#T16-04-03
17:03:52 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Guus to post user experience reports for issue-26 [5]
17:03:52 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-irc#T16-04-32