IRC log of swd on 2007-08-07

Timestamps are in UTC.

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