See also: IRC log
<TomB> Previous: http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-minutes.html
<TomB> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jul/0043.html
TomB proposes accept minutes of 3rd July 2007
No objections,
<seanb> Alistair's regrets: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jul/0056.html
Resolved
Next telecon 17th July
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to propose dates in Oct for Amsterdam meeting on SKOS [recorded in [43]http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-minutes.html#action01] [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/10-swd-minutes.html#action01]
<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]
<Antoine> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jul/0012.html
<scribe> --DONE
Antoine: proposal is related to former SKOS
extension document
... with broaderGeneric, broaderPartitive etc.
... eg. one is meant to represent part-whole relationships
... some users have spotted these ideas and would like to use them
... so should we represent these ideas as part of SKOS?
TomB: what is your opinion?
Antoine: some correspond to commonly-accepted
relationships in thesaurus domain
... but may be some problems because some relationships are handled by
multiple SKOS properties, such as broaderPartitive and relatedPart
... but generally I thin it would be a good idea to recognise that these
properties were proposed
... and some users want to use these properties as part of their models
TomB: anyone know how extensively these
properties are already being used?
... it has a W3C URI and people are using it yet it's status seems
ambiguous
... anyone checked to see amount of usage?
Antoine: usage now is not important, but as
long as they remain public and they correspond to common thesaurus usage then
some users
... may start using them.
Seanb: what is cost to us to include them?
Antoine: not expensive, but I'm not sure they
cover all the established needs. Some papers describe these kinds of links,
but there are more
... but if we want to be extensive, or do we want to limit to the current
extensions?
TomB: has anyone raised any objections, other
than partitive issue?
... what status they attained in original project and why they weren't moved
into rest of spec?
Antoine: I think it was for the readability of
the standard, and to be clear about what properties can be extended by
users.
... For example, a kind of link that can be thought of is e.g. a painter, and
a painting process. This relationship is not currently expressed in the
... SKOS model, so some users may be confused about how to create their
extensions? Should they be a sub property of broader or some more core
property?
TomB: suggest we move on today, but discuss when Alistair is here to discover historical context
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to move Action 26 forward [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-minutes.html#action04] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to post user experience reports for ISSUE-26 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-minutes.html#action05] [CONTINUES]
-- ISSUE-33: Grouping Construct (http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/33)
Tomb: Alistair has proposed a way forward
-- ISSUE-33: Grouping Construct (http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/33)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0166.html
TomB: Does anyone disagree with this approach?
No response
Antoine: Sean raised some concerns about syntactic constraints
Seanb: haven't had time to consider this yet
Antoine: didn't know if there was redundancy
between syntactic and possible future semantic constraints
... wondering if more experienced people could say something about this
TomB: related to issue 31
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0166.html
TomB: Alistair has added comments about
relationship to OWL, specifically OWL-DL
... without Alistair's presence we can't make any progress on this today
TomB: last week Ralph suggested a discussion
about the difference between class and role
... is there anyone on the telecon to discuss this?
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph to Discuss possibility of meeting for RDFa in Cambridge [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-minutes.html#action02] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph to Discuss possibility of meeting for RDFa in Cambridge [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-minutes.html#action02] [CONTINUES]
TomB: Lisa is not on call
... so let's continue to next meeting
... not enough people on the call
[adjourned]