See also: IRC log
<RalphS> previous 2007-06-26
Guus: proposal to accept
... Upcoming tcon July 10
... Tom will Chair
... Next F2F meeting
<RalphS> results of November f2f poll
Guus: after summer will need
meeting resolve SKOS and RDFa issues.
... Should we have SKOS meeting in Korea or separate venue?
... For RDFa US is likely candidate
Ralph: Only Guus couldn't be in
Cambridge for SKOS
... 5 said they can't be in Korea
Antoine: If SKOS were in Europe, that is preferable.
Ralph: First two weeks in Nov are
... 3rd week of Nov is a big US holiday, so we'd be at end of Nov.
Guus: We could select Amsterdam.
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to propose dates in Oct for Amsterdam meeting on SKOS. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-minutes.html#action01]
TomB: can we pick early Oct?
Guus: We should do a web
... for RDAa meeting--cambridge venue?
Ralph: only 3 people wanted a
... suggest that RDFa be taken up in XHTML2 meeting
... there are 2 new chairs for XHTML2
... Roland Merrick and Steven Pemberton
... correction Steven Pemberton
<scribe> ACTION: Discuss possibility of meeting for RDFa in Cambridge. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-minutes.html#action02]
Issue-26: RelationshipsBetweenLabels (http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/26)
Guus: Two current proposals, simple extension and minimal label.
<RalphS> (RDFa hopes to be substantially done by Nov, so the question of a f2f agendum for it was considered low priority by Ben)
Guus: gave this to ontology
engineering students. Will post results to list.
... Other issue is comment from Antoine on naming Guus used
... Instead of prefLabel, use prefLabelR--antoine wonders if this is good naming
... we could discuss
edsu: Does adding an "R" used elsewhere?
Guus: was in OWL
... Actually in OWL it was dropped.
... You need a lexical way of having difference.
Antoine: This is not really
explicit and confusing, as could be interpreted as
... you have properties with R and label relation
... this is a worry
Guus: "resource" might be
... There was also discussion as to whether relation was bijectional
... Alistair was going to propose resolution for issue 33. Action not yet been done.
... Proposal to leave it at that
seanb: Wasn't there mail from Allistair in June proposing this?
Guus: if you are willing to look, we'll move on.
seanb: will look for url
-- ISSUE-31 BasicLexicalLabelSemantics proposed resolution
See thread from:
-- ISSUE-31 BasicLexicalLabelSemantics proposed resolution
See thread from:
Guus: John, I can clarify what I
... we had discussion on the potential ontological commitment
... should the concept be in only one scheme
Guus: if there is no clear reason
to say this is the case, we should not specify
... The other issue is whether broader/narrower can be between concepts in 2 different schemes
... I don't see concerns here yet
JonP: this has to do with
... there was also question whether concept can be in more than one scheme.
Guus: from web approach, whether
concepts belong to scheme is something owner should have
... whether you use broader/narrower for that is another question
JonP: you should look at mapping vocabulary
<seanb> I think this is also related to issue 36: http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/36
Guus: We have equivalent concepts and overlapping concepts
Antoine: I was proposing using broader/narrower relations
Guus: I feel uncomforable
replicating OWL vocabulary here
... for equivalence we have equivalentClass and sameAS
... we hav union and negation
... would hamper usability if we introduce redundancy
Antoine: equivalentConcept may exist in another namespace, so we would turn to a less satisfactory concetp
Guus: why not use sameAs?
Antoine: the meaning of the
concepts are the same, but sameAs states equivalence of the
... if you have metadata about the concepts, then this information would be aggregated around unique resource
Guus: you can't use equivClass
because they are not equivalent.
... so we will need further discussion
... do we have an owner for issue 31?
... it was proposed by Alistair
... so Alistair will be owner
Mapping Topic Maps to SKOS:
Antoine: what Alistiar has
proposed is interesting, but I am concerned about constraints
... people in WG should look at this before next week.
... I'm questioning use of 'syntactic constraints'--I'm not used to that and its relevance to people outside the WG
... is this a good way to specify semantics?
... even Alistair not sure
... people should look at whether this is proper way to do things
Guus: there are analogies in owl.
Guus: every parser might flag a warning as a syntactic condition
Antoine: so no problem specifying
semantic constraints at syntactic level?
... I am ok with this.
Guus: Sean--what do you think?
seanb: where is this?
Guus: if you look at issue 31 and
go to wiki page, you see skos semantics labeling.
... you see semantic conditions
... it is not about the statement but whether semantic considtions are ok
... for language tag, there is no other option...
Guus: will you look at this and see whether this form is ok?
Antoine: this may be redundant
with owl specification
... I am ok with what is there.
Mapping Topic Maps to SKOS:
Guus: this is the wrong link--I
... I'll resend a new message
Guus: There is support for properties of narrower/broader
Antoine: should we raise this as an issue?
Guus: we have these subtypes on our issue list
Antoine: the standardization level is different?
Guus: We can indicate how to do
... at moment, topic map community isn't very large
Antoine: while broader/narrower
is something that might come from outside topic map
... people have said they would use it for their vocabulary case
Guus: we have these things on our issue list
Anotoine: I don't think so
... we have issue 37 on skos specialization
Guus: should we include in skos
the broader/narrower specialization?
... could Antoine raise that issue?
seanb: is there a use case that picks up on that?
Antoine: yes in one of the use cases
<scribe> ACTION: Antoine to raise issue of adding broader/narrower relations in skos [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-minutes.html#action03]
Guus: suggestions on how to move forward these discussions?
<TomB> I have proposed the following section of the SKOS Semantics wiki draft as a resolution for this issue:
Guus: some of these issues need to be resovled at f2f meeting
<TomB> This is section of the SKOS Semantics wiki draft, which defines a semantics for skos:Collection, skos:OrderedCollection, skos:member and skos:memberList.
<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.
<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.
<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
TomB: On issue 33, I added
... Alistair proposes to address issue 33 by getting wiki draft of skos semantics
... his proposal is that we focus on that part of wiki draft for skos that we can agree on
Guus: we cannot decide on this while issue owner is not here.
TomB: the proposal was that
Alistair would make the proposal explicit and that we would
discuss that section on a tcon.
... I propose we do that at the f2f
Guus: ok, we should schedule that for next week.
Guus: there is proposal for resolution of issues
RalphS: I haven't see responses from group members for the resoution. I need comments from them.
Guus: let's look at issue 2
Proposed resolutions to ISSUE-2, ISSUE-5, ISSUE-25, ISSUE-29, ISSUE-4
Guus: if that is consensus in the subgroup, I'm happy with it
<RalphS> Custom Attributes for RDF shorthand
Guus: any discussion?
... should we go through and accept them?
RalphS: I would like some sense that other WG members have given input
Guus: these are
... these are fine with me. No real commitments that worry me.
... I propose we resolve and accept RDFa issue 2
... so carried
<RalphS> CURIEs in Predicate Attributes
Guus: next is issue 5
RalphS: the subtelty that the
task force has not abandoned the compact URIs
... XHTML is advocating compact URIs
... task force continues to go along with it.
... it will be controversial in HTML community
... Proposed resolution relates to URL part
... This proposed resolution is ok, but this wg may give recommendation to task force as to whether they should still continue persue compact URIs
Guus: I suggest we leave this
until this can be explained to rest of group
... issue 25
... this doesn't look as simple
RalphS: Issue 1 is simple
Discussion on ISSUE-1: reification
<TomB> +1 on Issue-1 - i.e., not support reification
Guus: seems wise decison to
... I propose we resolve issue 1 based on Ben's message
Guus: so carried
... issue 3
Discussion thread on ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type
Guus: this is not one we can
... is Michael here?
... I suggest we leave it to issues 1 and 2
RalphS: the class and role issue
relates to how we value clarity of semantics in class
... we need clearer way to express semantics. Momentum for using class
Guus: we skip to agenda item 5
Guus: any current actions?
vit: there is discussion on naming of terms but these should be taken over by Elisa
RalphS: if Elisa proposes text to discuss, then we can discuss, but there is no action on her for this
vit: what are requirements on
version identification and report on results of
... on identifying versions...
... this will be by end of July at soonest.
Guus: shouldn't be a problem.
<RalphS> Ralph: that sounds like reasonable progress
vit: it will take longer to gather the answers.
Guus: we are at end of the time.
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to move Action 26 forward [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-minutes.html#action04]
Guus: people representing user communities should compare different proposals
<RalphS> ACTION: Guus to post user experience reports for issue-26 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-minutes.html#action05]
Guus: I will use same
... so makes easier to comapre. We need explicit feedback.