14:59:32 RRSAgent has joined #swd 14:59:32 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/08/07-swd-irc 14:59:36 Zakim has joined #swd 14:59:43 zakim, this will be swqd 14:59:45 zakim, this will be swd 14:59:45 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, RalphS 14:59:49 ok, RalphS, I see SW_SWD()11:00AM already started 14:59:54 zakim, who's on the phone? 14:59:54 On the phone I see +003130889aaaa 15:00:06 Meeting: SWD WG 15:00:26 +[LC] 15:00:37 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Aug/0009.html 15:00:50 zakim, 003130889aaaa is Guus 15:00:50 sorry, Guus, I do not recognize a party named '003130889aaaa' 15:00:53 Antoine has joined #swd 15:01:02 +Ralph 15:01:09 zakim, LC is edsu 15:01:09 +edsu; got it 15:01:10 zakim, +003130889aaaa is Guus 15:01:14 +Guus; got it 15:01:23 -> http://www.w3.org/2007/07/24-swd-minutes.html previous 2007-07-24 15:01:48 Elisa has joined #swd 15:02:05 Regrets: Tom, Daniel, Diego 15:02:33 +Antoine_Isaac 15:03:50 JonP has joined #swd 15:03:53 +Elisa_Kendall 15:04:02 +JonP 15:04:41 seanb has joined #swd 15:05:23 apologies -- will be a couple of minutes late dialing in.... 15:05:27 berrueta has joined #swd 15:06:11 Scribe: Elisa 15:06:16 scribenick: elisa 15:06:34 Topic: Admin 15:06:54 zakim, list attendees 15:06:55 As of this point the attendees have been Ralph, edsu, Guus, Antoine_Isaac, Elisa_Kendall, JonP 15:06:58 zakim, who is here? 15:06:58 On the phone I see Guus, edsu, Ralph, Antoine_Isaac, Elisa_Kendall, JonP 15:07:01 On IRC I see berrueta, seanb, JonP, Elisa, Antoine, Zakim, RRSAgent, RalphS, edsu, Guus 15:07:46 Proposed: Minutes of two weeks ago accepted http://www.w3.org/2007/07/24-swd-minutes.html 15:08:23 Proposed next telecon will be in two weeks, 21 August 15:08:36 -> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/39408/skos-ftf-amsterdam/results F2F poll results; 11 answers thus far 15:09:09 aliman has joined #swd 15:09:09 W.r.t. on F2F poll, Guus proposes that there may be another way to go on this 15:09:19 there is still another week for responses 15:09:48 +??P18 15:10:01 Simone has joined #swd 15:10:11 there are issues with several of the dates -- conflicts with other meetings, holidays 15:10:36 Guus is still proposing to have the F2F on October 8-9 in Amsterdam, based on results of the poll at present 15:11:17 The meeting topic will be primarily SKOS, which means a full agenda already, even without other topics 15:11:44 Guus proposes that F2F should be 8-9 October in Amsterdam 15:11:49 Ralph second 15:12:13 Resolved to meet 8-9 October in Amsterdam 15:12:36 Simone, you didn't answer http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/39408/skos-ftf-amsterdam/ yet -- can you travel to Amsterdam on 8-9 October? 15:12:48 Guus will plan logistics; need to set up web page 15:12:59 (same question for Sean) 15:13:09 ACTION: Antoine & Guus will take on setting up logistics 15:13:18 +??P41 15:13:34 zakim, ? is Sean 15:13:34 sorry, RalphS, I do not recognize a party named '?' 15:13:39 zakim, +? is Sean 15:13:39 sorry, RalphS, I do not recognize a party named '+?' 15:13:46 zakim, ??p41 is Sean 15:13:50 +Sean; got it 15:14:14 @Ralph: I think has some logistical problem at office, but my boss has holidays and I'm waiting for he 15:14:31 Topic: SKOS 15:15:15 ACTION: Guus to email a proposal to the list about the issue of containment [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/24-swd-minutes.html#action01] 15:15:16 DONE: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jul/0164.html 15:15:17 ok, Simone; thanks. 15:15:42 Main point is that containment should not be handled at the level of SKOS constructs -- 15:15:57 it should be handled outside of SKOS, although it is important 15:16:06 may need to be resolved at the F2F 15:16:11 +??P7 15:16:14 Zakim, ??P7 is me 15:16:14 +Simone; got it 15:16:37 Ralph: alot of the SKOS discussions have been what we generally need for the language (SKOS) but depends on other context 15:16:47 context including RDF, etc. 15:17:21 Ralph had kept generally quiet on some of these issues, deferring to others on what should be in the 15:17:29 thesaurus related vocabulary 15:17:45 Guus: in particular issues such as containment, provenance 15:18:22 Question regarding language, containment issues (Antoine?) 15:18:32 Zakim, mute me 15:18:32 Simone should now be muted 15:19:27 Was wondering if these issues dealt only with statements, does not know if the element of the statement is also contained in the concept scheme based on the definition of containment 15:19:53 Guus; there is a more general issues, possibly in 2003 -- discussion on social implications of RDF statements 15:20:15 what can other people say about your resources ... paragraph was deleted from the original RDF 15:20:20 specifications 15:20:21 q+ to say, I guess the question to ask is: what breaks if we remove skos:inScheme? 15:20:32 Guus is concerned that we are going down the same road here 15:21:05 Antoine's point would be to keep to the simple solution, SKOS would not try to deal with containment of statements, 15:21:22 but we should keep the notion of containment of concepts 15:21:41 Keeping inScheme -- which should address this 15:22:09 Guus: thus you could do about half -- concepts but not statements 15:22:38 Antoine: the obvious mechanisms don't handle this relationship between concepts and concept schemes 15:23:04 -Simone 15:24:01 +??P7 15:24:16 Zakim, ??P7 is me 15:24:16 +Simone; got it 15:24:19 q+ How does this relate to issue 36? http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/36 15:25:37 Guus: wondering why we need InScheme, given that ontology people have not been talking about this ... 15:25:48 aliman, you wanted to say, I guess the question to ask is: what breaks if we remove skos:inScheme? 15:26:13 Alistair: question is why did we decide we needed it in the first place, and what breaks if we remove it 15:26:37 It would be good to have a short list of the use cases that helped make that decision 15:27:04 I have two thesauri, and merge the two graphs, but then want to display the contents from only one 15:27:25 zakim, ??p18 is Alistair 15:27:25 +Alistair; got it 15:27:49 Alistair: we used InScheme to do this before we had named graphs -- 15:27:51 +1 to using the use cases to decide if a feature is important 15:28:18 Guus: if you talk about a concept in a scheme, we look at the namespace URI, and don't trust that 15:28:37 q+ to say the use cases for skos:inScheme were quite simple originally, nothing to do with authenticity or provenance 15:28:38 everything in the namespace belongs to the scheme 15:29:09 Sean: if they don't make the assumptoin about the namespace and graph overlapping ... answered by the 15:29:41 fact that tools / developers make the assumption that statements are about elements that happen to occur in the same graph 15:29:58 why aren't people using rdfs:isDefinedBy ? 15:29:59 Ralph: why aren't people using isDefinedBy 15:30:05 Guus: 15:30:10 we could actually 15:30:19 say in the document that this is the preferred practice 15:30:25 Jon: 15:30:56 the discussion is related to issue 36, and 36 and 35 are both confused ... issue 36 is that the 15:31:19 broader /narrower relationship between concepts is actually an issue with the concept scheme 15:31:37 question is does the concept exist without the container 15:31:52 how do you express properties of the container under the current circumstances 15:32:06 is broader / narrower actually an issues wrt the concept scheme 15:32:30 Guus: yes - you need to use reification to use isDefinedBy 15:33:08 Jon: this goes to another conversation -- about whether broader / narrower is about relations within or across concept schemes 15:33:32 is the concept scheme a required property of a concept -- membership in a concept scheme 15:33:34 q+ to wonder if relationships between concepts are non monotonic 15:33:43 are concepts aggregated within a concept scheme 15:33:56 ack aliman 15:33:57 aliman, you wanted to say the use cases for skos:inScheme were quite simple originally, nothing to do with authenticity or provenance 15:34:08 these are questions we need to answer before addressing the issues around inScheme 15:34:25 q+ to ask about whether we should be considering some abstract model 15:34:37 Alistair: it was never a requirements for inScheme -- original issues were much more naive, did not 15:34:42 address provenance, etc. 15:34:57 focus was more on how to pull schemes apart once merged 15:35:13 there may be some reasonable work-arounds based on the original use cases 15:35:35 Jon: what kind of containment are we talking about -- containment or aggregation 15:35:49 Alistair: this isn't a question we've asked in any depth to date 15:36:04 Jon: if you delete a concept scheme, do the concepts "in" it go away? 15:36:15 from a traditional thesaurus point of view, the thesaurus is composed of the concepts, thus if you 15:36:39 destroy the thesaurus you destroy the concepts, but from a semantic web point of view, you might 15:36:46 want to do this differently 15:37:05 Jon: what we probably want is aggregation rather than containment 15:37:23 Ralph: does aggregation have any specific interpretation in this context 15:37:34 Jon: thinking about OO development 15:37:45 ack RalphS 15:37:45 RalphS, you wanted to wonder if relationships between concepts are non monotonic 15:38:04 Ralph: does this map onto Sean's earlier comment 15:39:09 Jon: this is a problem for someone exposing data on the web -- 15:39:14 q+ to advocate opaque URIs 15:39:46 Ralph: is there a community of people who would want to destroy data using this mechanism ... 15:40:17 I'm a little worried that people might be viewing the semantics of inScheme in a way that might be nonmonotonic 15:40:50 if you have two concepts a and b and a concept scheme that might define relationships between them, and another concept scheme that defines different relations between them 15:40:55 are they the same concepts 15:41:24 if the relationships that scheme 1 defines when you refer to scheme 2 should still be true ... 15:41:55 Guus: we have the notion of owl:deprecated 15:42:11 ack seanb 15:42:11 seanb, you wanted to ask about whether we should be considering some abstract model 15:42:20 Ralph: ... two concept schemes would not want to deprecate each other 15:42:49 Sean: wondering if it would be easier to do this without the RDF ... thinks this muddies the water a bit, 15:43:02 worrying about named graphs, triples, etc. 15:43:43 instead we should think about what aggregation might mean, then worry about translation to underlying triples that might represent it; thinks about this similarly to how he thinks about the owl abstract syntax 15:44:06 q+ to respond to sean to ask: fair enough, but if we model above RDF, then how do we model? What language do we use? 15:44:25 Ralph: wondering if this is something we could describe in terms of the owl abstract syntax -- 15:44:41 ack aliman 15:44:41 aliman, you wanted to advocate opaque URIs and to respond to sean to ask: fair enough, but if we model above RDF, then how do we model? What language do we use? 15:44:43 Sean: we need to be clear about how the model fits together without worrying about the triples 15:45:08 Alistair: is sympathetic, but we need to model it somehow, and if we aren't using RDF, how would we model it 15:45:44 Sean: the activity we've had with respect to owl 1.1, we've used abstract syntax to define the model ... 15:46:33 Elisa: there may be something in UML that helps, but answering the questions in English is a first step 15:47:04 Elisa: maybe it's not a bad idea to draw a picture 15:47:19 ... try to tease out what we consider "inside" SKOS and what we consider at this moment to not be inside SKOS 15:47:42 ... having spent a lot of time on provenance, I have mixed feelings about what kinds of constructs should be used 15:48:01 ... Deb McGuinness has developed PML (Proof Markup Language) to describe some of these things 15:48:27 ... I use PML when something is not precise enough 15:49:24 ... 'draw a picture' -- i.e. create a metamodel 15:49:25 Sean: not suggesting that we have something formal, but drawing the picture would be very useful (i.e., creating a metamodel) 15:50:00 Alistair: we should start with some simple use cases and then go from there 15:50:32 Jon: focus on the use first then the solution makes sense 15:50:54 Alistair: taking an operational approach first was the only way to do this originally 15:51:02 s/Jon/edsu/ 15:51:11 Jon: are the use cases something we could effectively add 15:51:35 Alistair: I'm thinking of little stories, more specific to the use cases we currently have, that would 15:51:44 describe the behavior 15:51:55 Jon: we're lacking the simple user stories 15:52:17 Antoine: I agree, and some of the things we have in the use case document could provide the context for that 15:52:30 we could describe the strategies that need to be used to solve them 15:52:50 Alistair: Jon's use case is really rich with little stories and could be used for that 15:52:57 q+ to outline different relation types 15:53:05 Antoine: his organizations use case could also be used as a basis for this 15:53:27 Alistair: should we set up a wiki page to describe user stories as a starting poitn 15:53:46 Guus: I think the notion of having a collection place for the different options here would be good 15:53:50 JonP has joined #swd 15:54:15 Antoine: if the time schedule is within weeks, he can set up a wiki as a starting point 15:54:42 Guus: we have two concepts, a scheme that describes a relationship between them, a second concept scheme ... 15:55:02 Ralph: how do we actually think amplifications are helping 15:55:19 s/amplifications are helping/applications are behaving/ 15:55:20 Guus: we will see how far we can get with this 15:55:56 Continue Guus' two actions, Alistair's action 15:56:12 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] 15:56:14 --continues 15:56:24 Topic: RDFa 15:56:37 Ralph: spent some time cleaning up documents, etc. 15:57:06 at telecon last week Shane ? took an action to start fixing up the editor's draft for the syntax document 15:57:15 Guus: new working draft soon? 15:57:52 Ralph: yes, though can't provide an exact schedule in the moment -- they are behind where they wanted to be, but converging on the technical issues 15:58:12 there are details on how to spell certain things, for example, but close to consensus on most things 15:58:45 Guus: so it would be good to have a new working draft soon. how will this work, as two working groups have to approve this 15:58:57 Ralph: doesn't see difficulties 15:59:06 Topic: Recipes 15:59:18 actions continued 15:59:36 Guus: would it be good to schedule some time for Recipes at the F2F? 16:00:05 Jon: yes, that would be useful, to get consensus on whether certain issues should be addressed, also useful to have a hard deadline for a draft we can discuss 16:00:16 +1 to put the recipes into the agenda at the F2F 16:00:20 Guus: we will reserve some time for the recipes .. 16:00:39 Topic: Vocabulary Management 16:00:57 Elisa: I have made some progress and would like time on the next telecon to talk about this 16:01:42 Jon: regrets for 21 & 28 August telecons 16:02:01 -Alistair 16:02:02 -JonP 16:02:03 zakim, list participants 16:02:04 As of this point the attendees have been Ralph, edsu, Guus, Antoine_Isaac, Elisa_Kendall, JonP, Sean, Simone, Alistair 16:02:07 -Guus 16:02:08 -Sean 16:02:11 -edsu 16:02:14 -Antoine_Isaac 16:02:17 -Simone 16:02:18 rrsagent, please draft minutes 16:02:18 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/08/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS 16:03:30 Chair: Guus 16:06:29 edsu has left #swd 16:08:07 rrsagent, please draft minutes 16:08:07 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/08/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS 16:10:44 [DONE] ACTION: Diego to repeat test without q values re: ISSUE 58 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/24-swd-minutes.html#action02] 16:11:11 [PENDING] ACTION: Guus to move ISSUE-26 forward [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-minutes.html#action04]. 16:11:31 [PENDING] ACTION: Guus to post user experience reports for ISSUE-26 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-minutes.html#action05] 16:11:43 [PENDING] 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] 16:11:57 [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph propose resolution to Recipe issue 1.3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/24-swd-minutes.html#action09] 16:12:12 rrsagent, please draft minutes 16:12:12 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/08/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS 16:16:10 from earlier comments, putting them in the record: 16:16:20 Antoine: RDF containment would enable to describe the provenance of statements... 16:16:25 Antoine has left #swd 16:16:28 ... but not the provenance of concepts in concept scheme ... 16:16:34 rrsagent, please draft minutes 16:16:34 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/08/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS 16:17:08 http://www.w3.org/2007/08/07-swd-minutes.html 16:18:03 scribeoptions: -implicitContinuations 16:18:05 rrsagent, please draft minutes 16:18:05 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/08/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS 16:23:05 -Ralph 16:23:07 -Elisa_Kendall 16:23:08 SW_SWD()11:00AM has ended 16:23:09 Attendees were Ralph, edsu, Guus, Antoine_Isaac, Elisa_Kendall, JonP, Sean, Simone, Alistair 16:23:11 seanb has left #swd 16:23:19 zakim, bye 16:23:19 Zakim has left #swd 16:23:21 rrsagent, bye 16:23:21 I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/07-swd-actions.rdf : 16:23:21 ACTION: Antoine & Guus will take on setting up logistics [1] 16:23:21 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/07-swd-irc#T15-13-09 16:23:21 ACTION: Guus to email a proposal to the list about the issue of containment [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/24-swd-minutes.html#action01] [2] 16:23:21 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/07-swd-irc#T15-15-15 16:23:21 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] [3] 16:23:21 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/07-swd-irc#T15-56-12