See also: IRC log
RESOLVED: accept minutes of July 10 telecon: http://www.w3.org/2007/07/10-swd-minutes.html
<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] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/17-swd-minutes.html#action01] [CONTINUES]
<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] [DONE]
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to move ISSUE-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]
Alistair: re: simple extension proposal. There are two distinct "flavors". Guus assumed one, Antoine the other. A need exists to clearly distinguish those flavors.
Alistair: about interpretaion of
skos label and RDF plain literals
... not ready to discuss the SimpleExtension issue, and awaiting Guus' user experience report re: different flavors
<scribe> ACTION: Alistair to state the difference between the two flavours of the SimpleExtension proposal for issue 26 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/17-swd-minutes.html#action05]
<RalphS> Alistair: in -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0060.html my bijection message I mistakenly referred to issue 33 rather than issue 26
Ed: will grouping constructs be documented somewhere?
Alistair: suggested procedure is
to work on 2 wiki drafts: 1) skos primer with grouping
constructs overview; 2) skos semantics with formal
specifications discussing grouping constructs. Once first
drafts exist, the WG considers as whole.
... the 2 drafts are linked
Tom: goal is to have W3C recommendation, one of the docs would be on semantics, as part of a larger package.
Alistair: propose resolution for issue 33 ... Post 166 is the technical resolution for issue 33
<RalphS> PROPOSED: ISSUE 33 is resolved with the design in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/Semantics/Grouping?action=recall&rev=4
Alistair: I expect us to revisit this issue.
<RalphS> Alistair: I expect there to be issues with this grouping module but we can raise those as separate issues
Tom: we can resolve for now, but if at a later point we need to reopen this we can. For momentum we should resolve.
Alistair: more specific issues can be addressed separately as needed
RESOLUTION: ISSUE 33 is resolved with the design in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/Semantics/Grouping?action=recall&rev=4
Jon: how do we mark an issue as resolved? Can mark it manually and move state to "closed".
Tom: Issue 31 Alistair proposed a way forward on BasicLexicalLabelSemantics
<RalphS> issue 31: BasicLexicalLabelSemantics
Alistair: idea of makring triples
as optional was the only way at the time I could see that
people will want to use SKOS with OWL DL
... also thinking about namespace
... re: skos semantics, OWL flavors, and inference engines
Dan: get DL people involved in discussion
Alistair: the triple is optional in case where you want to stay within DL.
<RalphS> Alistair: I meant the notation "[DL-optional]" to mean that the triple is optional in the case that the application wants to be within OWL-DL
<Antoine> Annotation properties must not be used in property axioms. Thus, in OWL DL one cannot define subproperties or domain/range constraints for annotation properties.
Alistair: some triples will take us out of DL into OWL Full. How to mark that? If you want to stay within DL, it's marked as optional?
Tom: Alistair is trying to say that if you want to remain within OWL DL you don't use this triple.
Alistair: there could be a subset of SKOS that allows this, akin to OWL Full and OWL DL
<RalphS> Ralph: we seem to be heading toward having SKOS-FULL and SKOS-DL. (ugh)
Antoine: if we accept the triple then we're in OWL Full
<RalphS> Antoine: suggest the notation "[OWL-Full]" in place of "[DL-optional]"
Ed: are there use cases for inferencing using OWL Full as opposed to OWL DL
<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] [DONE]
RalphS: thanks the WG for input on @class / @role / @instanceof
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph propose resolution to Recipe issue 1.3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/24-swd-minutes.html#action09] [CONTINUES]
Jon(?) and Diego: re: .htaccess 'accept header' and header which EXACTLY matches "application/rdf+xml"
<scribe> ACTION: Diego to write test to confirm what's broken about recipes as stated re: ISSUE 58 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/17-swd-minutes.html#action08]
<RalphS> Ralph: issue 58 came up in the context of when the HTTP spec permits multiple Accept: headers
<RalphS> Ralph: the question for issue 58 is really wether our current recipe permits a comma-separated list of acceptable content types
Elisa: I've thrown in some
paragraphs in Wiki. I took Alistair's comment on re-titling
section, and have added paragraph on 404 errors.
... possibility to add Vocab Mgmt. on agenda for 10 mins. next week?
... will try to have more substantial text for discussion