07:05:10 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #swd
07:05:10 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-irc
07:05:14 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #swd
07:05:23 <RalphS> rrsagent, please make log public
07:05:26 <berrueta> scribe: diego
07:05:29 <berrueta> scribenick: berrueta
07:05:34 <RalphS> Meeting: SWD Amsterdam F2F
07:05:40 <RalphS> zakim, this is swd
07:05:40 <Zakim> ok, RalphS; that matches SW_SWD(f2f)3:00AM
07:05:51 <RalphS> zakim, who's here?
07:05:51 <Zakim> On the phone I see MeetingRoom
07:05:52 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Antoine, TomB, berrueta, ivan, Simone, edsu, RalphS
07:06:28 <berrueta> [resuming discussion on Labelling Properties, subtopic H]
07:06:37 <Zakim> +Ralph
07:08:50 <seanb> seanb has joined #swd
07:09:42 <berrueta> aliman: for disjointness (subtopic G), I propose to describe semantics using normative prose, also for subtopic H
07:12:14 <Guus> Guus has joined #swd
07:13:40 <berrueta> aliman: we can describe the syntax constraint but make it informative
07:14:02 <RalphS> I agree with Sean that if we're going to state constraints, they should apply to graphs that can result from merges and application of owl:sameAs and not just to what might appear in a single Web document
07:14:23 <berrueta> TomB: we are implicitly talking about two different applications: a model checker and a syntax checker
07:15:21 <berrueta> ... we need to clarify what the role of each application is
07:15:34 <berrueta> Antoine: it can be the same application with two different modes
07:16:18 <berrueta> aliman: to find all insconsistencies, the application must check the semantics and then the syntax
07:17:32 <berrueta> sean: we can only take into account owl:sameAs in the semantic check
07:17:53 <RalphS> Alistair: I was looking for a lightweight, simple-to-implement checker by only looking at syntax but the bottom-line is that the semantics is what matters
07:18:08 <berrueta> guus: this document should be not just "SKOS semantics"
07:18:53 <berrueta> aliman: for every feature, they may be some syntax conditions and some semantic conditions
07:19:19 <berrueta> s/semantic conditions/semantic constraints
07:19:24 <RalphS> I think it's crazy for a SemWeb spec to consider it proper to ignore inconsistencies that can result from reading triples from more than one document
07:19:48 <berrueta> TomB: are they constraints in the vocabulary or in the use of the vocabulary?
07:20:38 <berrueta> TomB: a basic template to describe each issue (subtopic) there are syntactic conditions and semantic constraints on the use of the vocabulary
07:21:20 <berrueta> s/semantic constraints/syntax conditions
07:21:42 <RalphS> Alistair: semantic conditions are on the interpretation of the vocabulary and syntax constraints are on the use of the vocabulary
07:21:53 <berrueta> aliman: syntax constraints constrain the use of the vocabulary in RDF graphs
07:22:29 <Zakim> -Ralph
07:22:39 <berrueta> aliman: include a syntax constraint for disjointness (subtopic H)?
07:22:52 <Zakim> +Ralph
07:23:28 <berrueta> ... in the semantic we said "the property extensions of pref, lat and hidden are pairwise disjoint " (subtopic G)
07:24:02 <berrueta> sean: it seems to me similar to validation in OWL-DL
07:24:48 <RalphS> I believe the term "syntax constraint" will be confusing and we should find another term
07:24:49 <berrueta> guus: concerned about introducing two different definitions for the same thing
07:25:36 <seanb> suggestion is to use "graph constraints" rather than syntax constraints
07:26:10 <RalphS> "graph constraint" is better, yes
07:27:30 <berrueta> RESOLVED: all graph constraints should be moved into an informative section
07:28:34 <berrueta> aliman: the previous statement about pref, alt and hidden ... objects is now moved into an informative section
07:29:40 <berrueta> sean: agree with guus, we should not call this document "skos semantics", this might upset some people
07:29:59 <berrueta> RalphS: what's the motivation to make these appendix informative instead of normative?
07:30:31 <berrueta> aliman: due to redundancy in some cases, the graph constraints are weaker
07:30:46 <berrueta> ... if both are normative, it is really confusing. Which one to implement?
07:31:39 <berrueta> ... if they're informative, if you want to implement a checked, you just implement the semantic conditions and you catch most of the inconsistencies
07:32:19 <berrueta> RalphS: so the motivation is to make it easier to write a checker
07:34:20 <berrueta> guus: in OWL-DL, there is a separed part
07:34:57 <berrueta> aliman: move on into subtopic I
07:35:21 <berrueta> ... this cannot be expressed using triples, so how do we state it?
07:35:57 <berrueta> ... is it enough to use some prose to state this?
07:36:20 <berrueta> ... "there cannot be more than one preferred lexical label per "language" for any give resource"
07:36:22 <RalphS> If the motivation for making some constraints informative is to make it easier to write a conforming model checker then I think that motivation is mis-placed.  Our spec should make it clear to vocabulary authors what is expected rather than weakening the expectations in order to make it simpler to implement a tool that might search the Web for errors.
07:36:49 <berrueta> RESOLVED: (for subtopic I): "there cannot be more than one preferred lexical label per "language" for any give resource"
07:37:04 <berrueta> move on into subtopic J
07:37:11 <RalphS> MUST not rather than cannot?
07:38:45 <berrueta> sean: I don't belive our motivation here is to make it easier for validator implementors
07:39:45 <berrueta> guus: for each feature: the prose, and example, and in the appendix, describe the syntax constraints
07:39:51 <RalphS> ah, thanks Sean; so the motivation for an informative appendix is to make our spec authorship task simpler; in the case of inconsistencies in our _spec_ the prose is meant to be correct and the appendix might not be complete
07:39:56 <berrueta> ... not using two definitions in the same paragraph
07:40:02 <RalphS> q+ to ask about "cannot"
07:40:09 <Antoine> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#app-DLinRDF
07:40:24 <berrueta> aliman: subtopic K
07:40:45 <berrueta> aliman: if the range is plain literals, then they're OWL datatype properties
07:41:27 <berrueta> ... any objection?
07:42:41 <berrueta> guus: in OWL-Full, data property is a subprop of object property
07:43:41 <berrueta> aliman: is it redundant to say the a owl:datatypeProperty is also an rdf:Property?
07:44:23 <berrueta> guus: if we use OWL, we might want to split the schemas
07:44:56 <berrueta> aliman: happy to say they are rdf:Properties and owl:datatypeProperties
07:45:01 <RalphS> [regarding the previous resolution, we need a definition for "cannot".  I could not hear the resolution being proposed and do not support it as written.  Clearly an author _can_ write a graph that violates SKOS constraints.  If we said "MUST NOT be more than one preferred lexical label ..." or "a graph violates SKOS semantics if it contains more than one preferred label", it would be clear]
07:45:22 <berrueta> resolution for subtopic J is implicit in the previous for resolution
07:47:41 <berrueta> RESOLUTION (subtopic K): labelling properties are rdf:Properties and owl:DatatypeProperties
07:48:04 <berrueta> ralph: "cannot" does not have a clear meaning (in resolution of subtopic I)
07:48:44 <berrueta> aliman: "must" and "should" do not have meaning yet
07:49:11 <berrueta> ... you may say "prefLabel MUST be interpreted in a way that..."
07:49:29 <berrueta> ... but you cannot say "it MUST NOT be"
07:49:55 <RalphS> Alistair is trying to tell a tool how to interpret a graph rather than telling authors how to write a graph
07:50:08 <berrueta> ... it only makes sense if you say "prefLabel MUST be interpreted in a way that..."
07:50:17 <TomB_> TomB_ has joined #swd
07:50:28 <berrueta> guus: let's wait for the written text
07:50:58 <berrueta> [showing OWL reference in the screen, appendix E]
07:51:39 <berrueta> guus: see how the restrictions are written in that document
07:51:54 <RalphS> -> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#app-DLinRDF Appendix E. Rules of Thumb for OWL DL ontologies
07:52:04 <RalphS> (is what you're looking at, I believe?)
07:52:34 <berrueta> guus: let's go to the next topic
07:52:43 <berrueta> topic: semantic relation properties
07:53:08 <berrueta> sean: do we expect broader/narrower to be transitive?
07:53:32 <TomB> [moved microphone]
07:53:58 <berrueta> ... what's the way we expect applications to behave? or do we stick to semantics?
07:54:21 <berrueta> guus: why not transitive?
07:54:55 <berrueta> aliman: from an IR POV you might not want transitivity (the number of steps is relevant)
07:56:04 <berrueta> guus: the only alternative is to apply a pattern where we have two different properties... too complicated
07:56:51 <berrueta> aliman: my proposal is open to both possibilities
07:57:29 <berrueta> sean: if you don't say in the semantics if it is transitive or not, the applications may choose
07:57:48 <berrueta> ... rdfs:subClassOf is clearly transitive
07:57:57 <berrueta> ... but in this case, it is not so clear
07:58:41 <berrueta> Antoine: i discussed last week with a guy from Mondeca
07:59:42 <berrueta> sean: the semantics should be open
07:59:56 <berrueta> ... if you want them to be transitive, you may introduce transitivity youself
08:00:46 <berrueta> jon: what should a checker do?
08:01:07 <RalphS> The spec could say something such as "The primary use case for broader/narrower is in information retrieval.  For such cases, the application of OWL reasoning on transitive relations would weaken search results in many (most?) cases, therefore the SKOS specification does not demand that broader/narrower are transitive."
08:01:41 <RalphS> basically, I'm agreeing with Sean; if an application finds it useful to add explicit transitivity, it can do so
08:01:54 <berrueta> RESOLVED: we make no statement about the transitivity of broader/narrower
08:02:35 <berrueta> s/transitivity/transitivity and reflexivity
08:03:45 <berrueta> aliman: we can leave reflexivity open, this not constraints about cycles
08:04:04 <berrueta> antoine: the previous resolution forbids cycles
08:04:37 <berrueta> s/forbids/forbids forbidding
08:05:23 <berrueta> aliman: the issue about cycles is implicit in the previous one
08:05:51 <RalphS> [Sean, could you type your proposed resolution into irc please?]
08:06:19 <TomB> [it is already there - RESOLVED plus s/substitution...]
08:06:52 <RalphS> [ok, so Guus was just asking for a repeat -- thanks]
08:07:23 <seanb> Proposed: We make no statement about the transitivity or reflexivity of broader/narrower.
08:08:15 <berrueta> guus: i would be in favour of including an example on how to enforce these properties
08:08:23 <RalphS> [I'm confused about whether we're still discussing Sean's PROPOSED resolution or debating whether we've already RESOLVED it, but will let TomB as chair sort out the record]
08:08:40 <berrueta> antoine: should we propose such subproperty?
08:08:46 <seanb> [I believe we have resolved the issue as proposed]
08:09:01 <RalphS> [that's the sense I get too, Sean :) ]
08:09:26 <berrueta> sean: interaction between related and broad/narrow
08:10:12 <berrueta> aliman: there can't be any clash between broad/narrow and related
08:12:42 <berrueta> ... do we want to say anything about that?
08:13:13 <berrueta> ... the transitive closure of broader and related should be disjoint
08:13:21 <RalphS> [we've just closed ISSUE-44 with the resolution "We make no statement about ..."]
08:14:10 <berrueta> ... in the "minimal proposal" I put this sentence: "skos:related MUST be interpreted as disjoint with the transitive closure of skos:boader"
08:14:50 <berrueta> sean: this sentence captures what you want to say
08:15:23 <berrueta> aliman: I think the confussion is that the thesaurus standard also says that cycles are a problem
08:15:48 <berrueta> antoine: that does not appear in the use cases document
08:16:20 <berrueta> edsu: +1
08:16:55 <berrueta> RESOLVED: skos:related MUST be interpreted as disjoint with the transitive closure of skos:broader"
08:17:17 <berrueta> aliman: in this proposal i had skos:related as owl:SymetricProperty
08:17:32 <berrueta> guus: can you think in a counterexample?
08:17:48 <RalphS> that (proposed?) resolution is inconsistent with the previous resolution "we make no statements about transitivity"
08:18:20 <berrueta> antoine: this might introduce noise if the cardinality of the relation is high
08:19:12 <berrueta> aliman: there is some confussion about the meaning of a symmetric property
08:19:28 <Steven> Steven has joined #swd
08:19:43 <berrueta> ... se the note at the bottom of the "minimal proposal" 
08:20:09 <berrueta> guus: (to RalphS's comment) why?
08:20:14 <Steven> Steven has left #swd
08:20:28 <berrueta> ivan: because it talks about transitive closures
08:20:46 <RalphS> we can't both say "we make no statements about transitivity" and also say "interpreted ... with the transitive closure ..."
08:21:47 <berrueta> guus: these are different things, you can still do transitive closures. It's just wording
08:22:13 <berrueta> ... it's good to have this as an explicit note
08:22:38 <seanb> [The earlier resolution should be reworded to say that it's talking about whether broader is *transitive* or not, rather than general statements about transitivity.]
08:23:49 <berrueta> we agree in keeping broader inverse of narrower
08:24:11 <RalphS> I believe those resolutions are best interpreted as instructions to the spec editors and in that sense the details will only matter in the final words so I'm happy waiting for the next set of editors' drafts]
08:25:10 <seanb_> seanb_ has joined #swd
08:26:48 <Zakim> -Ralph
08:27:30 <Zakim> +Ralph
08:38:36 <berrueta> tom: the current SKOS spec explicitly says broad/narrow are transitive, so this is a change
08:41:19 <berrueta> topic: concept semantics
08:41:38 <TomB_> TomB_ has joined #swd
08:42:02 <berrueta> antoine: going through the wiki page
08:42:04 <TomB_> RalphS we are starting again
08:43:12 <berrueta> ... first problem: find a definition of skos:Concept
08:44:09 <berrueta> ... some informal semantics in the SKOS spec and the SKOS guide
08:44:28 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptSemantics Concept Semantics
08:46:08 <berrueta> aliman: all that prose about skos:Concept interpretation is pretty open
08:46:51 <berrueta> Antoine: compare the previous skos:Concept definitions with the "class" definition in RDFS semantics and OWL Overview
08:47:46 <berrueta> ... "class" in just a group of individuals
08:48:16 <berrueta> ... first question: can we say that skos:Concept rdf:type rdfs:Class?
08:49:09 <berrueta> ... this comes naturally, I propose to add the triple to SKOS semantics. It does not add much
08:49:16 <berrueta> ... do everyone agree?
08:49:21 <berrueta> ... agreed
08:50:01 <berrueta> ... 2nd question: skos:Concept rdf:type owl:Class?
08:50:31 <berrueta> ... I propose to add this triple, if we do so, we can even remove the first one
08:50:59 <berrueta> guus: no reason to object
08:52:54 <berrueta> antoine: 3rd question: are there instances of owl:Class that are also instances of skos:Concept?
08:54:04 <berrueta> ... this brings some ambiguity: "conceptualization" (skos:Concept) vs. "specification of conceptualization" (ontology)
08:54:37 <berrueta> ... owl:Classes are linked to their set of instances (extension)
08:55:23 <berrueta> ... but you cannot link the skos:Concept with the real objects in the world
08:56:10 <berrueta> guus: what's the proposal?
08:56:18 <berrueta> Antoine: there are several proposals
08:56:41 <berrueta> ... see the previous (3rd) question
08:57:39 <berrueta> aliman: there are 3 options w.r.t. the disjointess of skos:Concept and owl:Class: MUST, MAY BE, MUST NOT
08:58:42 <berrueta> Antoine: the first one is skos:Concepto owl:disjointWith owl:Class
08:59:13 <berrueta> aliman: the second one it the same as not saying anything about the disjointness
09:00:06 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-classes-as-values/ Representing Classes As Property Values on the Semantic Web [W3C Note 5 April 2005]
09:00:50 <berrueta> guus: you can take two views of the subject (for instance, a person)
09:01:25 <berrueta> ... from different abstract levels
09:02:20 <berrueta> ... from a SKOS POV, everything is a concept
09:02:40 <berrueta> ... it's difficult to solve this in one level
09:03:24 <berrueta> Antoine: this actually comes in the different proposals I made
09:03:49 <berrueta> ... bridging OWL and SKOS modelling, several use cases from the mailing list
09:04:34 <berrueta> ... some ontologies would benefit from the skos properties
09:05:44 <berrueta> ... the first solution i propose is to allow instances of owl:Class to be also instances of skos:Concept (no disjointness)
09:06:56 <berrueta> ... in the example, a #car is both an owl:Class and a skos:Concept and has a skos:broader and a skos:prefLabel
09:07:44 <berrueta> guus: note that skos:Concept is also an owl:Class
09:07:55 <berrueta> Antoine: there are some pros and cons
09:08:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html Ralph
09:08:18 <berrueta> ... pros: compatible with current semantics, simplicity, conciseness
09:08:42 <berrueta> ... no redundancy between individuals in the OWL world and individuals in the SKOS world
09:09:39 <berrueta> ivan: i'm trying to join a SKOS vocab about musical instruments and the music ontology
09:09:44 <Ralph> Chair: Guus
09:09:45 <ivan> zakim, who is here?
09:09:45 <Zakim> On the phone I see MeetingRoom, Ralph
09:09:46 <Zakim> On IRC I see TomB, seanb_, Guus, Zakim, RRSAgent, Antoine, berrueta, ivan, edsu, Ralph
09:09:58 <berrueta> danbri joins the meeting room
09:10:03 <Ralph> zakim, DanBri just arrived in meetingroom
09:10:03 <Zakim> +DanBri; got it
09:10:28 <Ralph> zakim, meetingroom has Guus, Tom, Sean, Diego, Antoine, Alistair, Ivan
09:10:28 <Zakim> +Guus, Tom, Sean, Diego, Antoine, Alistair, Ivan; got it
09:10:40 <Ralph> zakim, meeting room also has Ed
09:10:41 <Zakim> I don't understand 'meeting room also has Ed', Ralph
09:10:44 <Ralph> zakim, meetingroom also has Ed
09:10:44 <Zakim> +Ed; got it
09:11:52 <Ralph> zakim, meetingroom also has Jon
09:11:52 <Zakim> +Jon; got it
09:12:05 <berrueta> Antoine: drawbacks: we are implicitly in owl-full
09:12:47 <berrueta> danbri: will owl 1.1 be more permissive?
09:12:53 <berrueta> ivan: it might be
09:14:23 <Ralph> i/[resuming discussion on Labelling Properties/-> http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html day 1 minutes/
09:14:28 <berrueta> Antoine: other drawbacks: problems with re-usability, the mix may be done by different persons
09:14:42 <Ralph> i|[resuming discussion on Labelling Properties|-> http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html day 1 minutes|
09:15:23 <berrueta> ... difficulties with "tangible" things: who is the dc:creator of a #car?
09:15:52 <berrueta> ... moving into solution 2: different instances bridged by a dedicated property
09:16:30 <berrueta> ... on the left you have an individual in OWL, on the right you have a skos:Concept
09:16:52 <berrueta> guus: the only reason to do this is to be in OWL-DL
09:17:47 <berrueta> ... people might see this as complicated because they don't have the notion of the problem of mixing OWL and SKOS
09:18:43 <berrueta> aliman: recap. the issue is disjointness of owl:Class and skos:Concept
09:19:06 <berrueta> ... what patterns do we want to allow or disallow
09:20:09 <berrueta> guus: there are different worlds
09:20:22 <berrueta> ... in the vocab world, we have skos:Concept rdf:type owl:Class
09:20:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html Ralph
09:21:01 <berrueta> ... in a different level of abstraction, we have instances of skos:Concept
09:21:33 <berrueta> [guus draws a diagram in the whiteboard]
09:21:47 <berrueta> guus: we are overloading owl:Class
09:22:31 <berrueta> ivan: we accepted the first triple an hour ago, is this the problem?
09:23:26 <berrueta> guus: we cannot remove that triple
09:24:11 <berrueta> ... the only problem is OWL-DL conformance
09:24:28 <Ralph> ("first triple" is, I suppose, skos:Concept rdf:type owl:Class ?)
09:25:39 <berrueta> guus: introducing this bridge is a syntactical solution that is difficult for the user
09:25:59 <berrueta> aliman: do we allow people to mix levels? yes, if the want to
09:26:23 <berrueta> ... there will be people that may want to keep things separated
09:26:33 <berrueta> ... the bridge property allows that
09:26:57 <berrueta> guus: but at the cost of making SKOS more complicated
09:28:36 <berrueta> ... this is related with metamodelling in OWL-DL/Full
09:28:54 <berrueta> ... if you want to do metamodelling in OWL-DL, you have to coin two different URIs for the same thing
09:29:42 <berrueta> danbri: the value of bridging is not about classes, but instances
09:30:30 <berrueta> ivan: are you suggesting to use owl:sameAs to bridge?
09:30:33 <berrueta> danbri: no
09:33:18 <TomB_> TomB_ has joined #swd
09:33:20 <berrueta> guus: is the description of Henry VIII in the thesaurus different from Henry VIII, the person?
09:34:56 <berrueta> guus: with sameAs, every characteristic of one node is also a char. of the other one
09:36:02 <berrueta> sean: the concept represents the object, but is not the object (consider dc:creator)
09:36:32 <berrueta> aliman: we are proposing a pattern on how to do this, if you want ot
09:37:20 <berrueta> ... we are not discussing the introduction of new properties, but the semantics of skos:Concept, in particular its disjointness with owl:Class
09:38:33 <berrueta> guus: skos:Concept is the class of the things that exist in the vocabulary, that's the minimal
09:39:19 <berrueta> aliman: we will not say anything about the disjointness
09:40:05 <berrueta> sean: we should make clear that the omission is explicit
09:43:03 <berrueta> Antoine: the wiki page describes more patterns and variants
09:44:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html Ralph
09:45:26 <berrueta> topic: label relationships
09:46:06 <berrueta> guus: this appears in several use cases
09:46:26 <berrueta> ... for example, a concept has two labels and you want to express that one is an acronym of the other
09:46:39 <berrueta> ... we have three options
09:47:06 <berrueta> ... the last one (remove range restriction) is now invalid
09:47:27 <Ralph> [I hope someone will take photos of the whiteboard diagram that was used in the previous discussion]
09:47:33 <berrueta> ... let's try to find consensus in one of the other two
09:48:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html Ralph
09:49:55 <Ralph> [I believe the record adequately shows this meeting has consensus on skos:Concept rdf:type owl:CLass ]
09:50:46 <berrueta> [aliman describes his proposal in the board]
09:51:23 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLabels/ Capturing relationships between labels
09:51:39 <Ralph> ? that proposal ?
09:52:08 <ivan> Ralph, yes
09:52:11 <berrueta> guus: you can specialize the properties to refine the relationship (for instance: acronym)
09:52:42 <berrueta> aliman: see the next example. It uses fullForm, acronymForm
09:52:57 <Ralph> (that's really background; is Alistair focussing on his "minimal" proposal or his "label annotation" proposal?)
09:53:46 <berrueta> aliman: we are trying to workaround the restriction that forbids to use a literal as a subject in RDF
09:54:09 <berrueta> ... this pattern allows relationships of any arity
09:55:15 <berrueta> guus: i find it difficult to sell to users, due to bnodes and subproperties
09:55:32 <berrueta> ... many people want to avoid bnodes
09:55:50 <berrueta> danbri: you don't have to use bnodes, you can give them URIs
09:56:21 <berrueta> sean: this is just a tool issue
09:56:31 <berrueta> ivan: the reality today is that users type RDF
09:56:47 <berrueta> aliman: this pattern looks good in RDF/XML
09:57:39 <berrueta> ... you want the label relationship to be linked to a concept, so you know which concept it refers to
09:58:40 <berrueta> guus: let's discuss the other proposal to compare them
09:58:48 <Antoine> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLabels/ProposalThree
09:59:46 <berrueta> guus: this introduces a separated set of properties which end in -R
10:00:09 <berrueta> ... and a new skos:Label class
10:01:05 <berrueta> ... the main drawback is that you have two different ways to express a prefLabel
10:01:55 <berrueta> aliman: this proposal is not one proposal, but two different ones
10:02:04 <berrueta> ... there are two variants
10:03:02 <ivan> http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/public/skos/2007/10/f2f/label-relations.html
10:03:21 <ivan> (Alistair's comparison of the two)
10:04:18 <berrueta> ... there are four options indeed, but two of them are ruled out
10:04:44 <berrueta> ... can an instance of skos:Label have more that one plain literal value?
10:05:18 <berrueta> ... can two different instances of skos:Label have the same plain literal value?
10:06:17 <berrueta> ... how to tell the story? how is skos:Label different from the literal value?
10:07:12 <berrueta> ... there are four options for the relationship between skos:Label and RDF literals: many2many, many2one, one2many and one2one
10:07:35 <berrueta> ... many2one and one2one are the ones we have to choose from
10:08:29 <berrueta> ... in one2one, we have some interesting inferences
10:09:24 <berrueta> ... in many2one you have to tell the story of what skos:Label is
10:10:31 <berrueta> guus: in the first proposal we don't have a URI for the label, but in this one, we do
10:10:50 <berrueta> ... by introducing URIs to strings, we are opening a can of worms
10:11:18 <berrueta> aliman: we are not introducing URIs for strings, but for something that has a string
10:11:39 <berrueta> guus: not from the user's perspective
10:12:15 <berrueta> ivan: if you use bnodes, you have problems to express the relationship
10:12:48 <berrueta> guus: the simple fact that you have to tell a story is what makes SKOS complicated
10:14:40 <berrueta> antoine: the same string will be involved in several relationships
10:15:50 <berrueta> guus: i suggest we accept alistair's proposal
10:16:38 <berrueta> tom: rises the issue of comparision between string literals
10:16:45 <berrueta> s/rises/raises
10:17:48 <berrueta> tom: are "FAO"@en the same as "FAO"@en in the same graph, provided they're different nodes?
10:19:28 <berrueta> aliman: I suggest we agree in the pattern, there is no need to agree in the URIs of the properties and classes
10:20:21 <berrueta> antoine: what if we mix two concept schemes? which scheme should we attach the label relationships to?
10:22:40 <berrueta> sean: let's think in how to solve this regardless of the RDF graph, and then try to fit it into the RDF model
10:25:43 <berrueta> guus: do strings have identity? when translating wordnet, we gave a URI to literals
10:26:22 <berrueta> aliman: from a logical POV, the bijection is a good thing
10:28:40 <berrueta> guus: let's make a pragmatical resolution
10:29:22 <berrueta> danbri: I like alistair's proposal, maybe with other names
10:30:06 <ivan> ralph, DanBri refers to the proposal of Alistair
10:30:28 <Ralph> _which_ of Alistair's proposals?
10:30:47 <berrueta> tomb: willing to go along with this
10:30:56 <Ralph> ah, proposal 4
10:31:10 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLabels/ProposalFour "Minimal Label Relation" Proposal
10:31:42 <TomB_> TomB_ has joined #swd
10:32:38 <berrueta> sean: i prefer proposal four
10:33:08 <seanb_> [I think "Guus's" proposal is -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLabels/ProposalThree]
10:33:59 <berrueta> jon: concerned about cross-vocab relationships in proposal 4
10:34:36 <berrueta> aliman: i think the only viable option is proposal 4, but i would be happy to delay the decission
10:34:55 <Ralph> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/AmsterdamAgenda
10:35:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html Ralph
10:35:39 <berrueta> edsu: proposal 3 is more open to extension, it gives more choices
10:36:09 <berrueta> antoine: my favourite option was "remove range restriction", then Guus's simple extension
10:37:13 <berrueta> berrueta: i prefer Guus' simple extension, but i'm happy with Alistair's
10:37:54 <berrueta> ivan: i prefer Guus', but no problem with Alistair's
10:38:27 <ivan> s/but no problem with Alistair's/but with the 1-1 version of Alistair/
10:39:51 <berrueta> guus: just an observation: people nearer from the user's community prefer strings-as-resources
10:42:04 <berrueta> Antoine: in the "remove range restriction", we let users to decide if they want a resource or not
10:42:18 <berrueta> aliman: but it leaves undefined the semantics of such resources
10:42:45 <berrueta> [break for lunch]
10:42:46 <Ralph> [lunch/breakfast break]
10:43:30 <Ralph> [I don't yet have a strong preference between "Minimal Label Relation" proposal and "Simple Extension" proposal but Ed's point about greater extensibility is attractive to me]
10:43:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html Ralph
11:49:09 <seanb_> scribe: seanb
11:49:31 <seanb_> [Ralph: we're starting again....]
11:49:43 <GuusS> GuusS has joined #swd
11:50:38 <seanb_> Returning to label relations
11:50:52 <seanb_> Guus: Alistair describes four options.
11:50:59 <seanb_> ...Only one makes sense
11:51:21 <seanb_> ..If you introduce an explicit resource, you do this to represent one label
11:51:34 <seanb_> ...doesn't make sense to have 2 literal values for the same label resource
11:51:55 <seanb_> ...In the web context, makes no sense to assume unique 1-1 relationship between
11:52:05 <seanb_> ...label resources and literals.
11:52:17 <seanb_> ...Leaves us with many-one.
11:52:39 <seanb_> ...label resources have one literal. Could be multiple resources with the same label
11:53:06 <seanb_> ...proposes Guus's proposal with many-one.
11:53:45 <seanb_> ...whichever approach you take, contextualisation is important.
11:54:00 <seanb_> ...e.g. only within this context, an acronym rel holds
11:54:36 <Ralph> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Sep/0013.html Guus' simple extension proposal
11:54:59 <seanb_> ...seeLabelRelation needs to be introduced into Guus's
11:55:30 <Ralph> (well, that was Tom's modification of Guus' proposal)
11:56:08 <seanb_> ...boils down to minimally committing to Alistair's proposal. Then postpone
11:56:16 <seanb_> ...decision on labels as resources.
11:56:39 <seanb_> ...could canvas opinion on this.
11:57:14 <seanb_> Alistair: Adopting minimal relation solution doesn't bar us from introducing label resources in the future
11:59:16 <seanb_> Guus: would like to go for ProposolFour, but with the option of revisiting
11:59:27 <seanb_> Jon: Needs to be able to say to vocab owners
11:59:48 <seanb_> ...here's a lossless way that you can bring your vocabularies into SKOS
12:00:08 <seanb_> ...and relate those resources to concepts. So the work is to create the concept
12:00:16 <seanb_> ...URIs. 
12:00:52 <seanb_> ...so less comfortable leaving this discussion
12:02:02 <seanb_> Jon: Also think it's useful to support inference pattern
12:02:23 <seanb_> ...define resource with a preflabel, then by inference the literal becomes
12:02:34 <seanb_> ... the preflabel for the concept
12:02:55 <seanb_> Guus: Makes the proposals similar. Have both expressions of label relations
12:03:29 <seanb_> Guus: New issue, label as resource?
12:03:50 <seanb_> ...intrinsic value in label as resource as this is already present in a number
12:04:02 <seanb_> ...of vocabularies. Makes it easier to migrate
12:04:58 <seanb_> Alistair: If you want to contextualise the relationships, need an n-ary pattern
12:06:12 <TomB_> TomB_ has joined #swd
12:06:43 <seanb_> Antoint: Could have a constraint that you have only one label resource per literal *in a vocabulary*
12:07:03 <seanb_> Alistair: Need to represent that the label resource is in the vocabulary
12:08:23 <seanb_> ...containment is difficult to represent explicitly
12:09:09 <seanb_> ...comment that keeps coming back "we have a term oriented view with metadata on terms"
12:09:19 <seanb_> ..."Why can't I do that in SKOS?"
12:11:24 <seanb_> Guus: Boils down to accepting the minimal label relation solution 
12:11:30 <seanb_> ...and opening a new issue
12:12:03 <seanb_> PROPOSAL: Accept the minimal label relation solution. Details/naming to be worked out.
12:12:28 <seanb_> PROPOSAL: Open an issue. Should there be a Label Resource in the SKOS vocabulary?
12:12:42 <Ralph> [I'm willing to second *any* proposal at this point so we can put a stake into this ground and move forward :) ]
12:13:03 <seanb_> Proposal one. Two abstentions: Antoine, Tom
12:13:13 <seanb_> Proposal one accepted
12:13:39 <seanb_> Proposal two. No objections, no abstentions
12:14:28 <seanb_> ACTION: Guus to write up the issue and add to issue list.
12:14:56 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html Ralph
12:15:00 <seanb_> Topic: Recipes
12:15:27 <Ralph> i/we're starting again/scribenick: seanb_/
12:15:57 <seanb_> Tom: walk through issues. 
12:16:16 <Ralph> -> http://madcreek.com/w3c/swdwg_f2f_issues.html Consolidated Recipes Issues List
12:16:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html Ralph
12:16:23 <seanb_> Jon: Issues by number (rather than importance)
12:16:28 <seanb_> ...Issue 16.
12:17:02 <seanb_> ...suggests a deadline on this action
12:17:36 <seanb_> ...nice Xmas present?? :-)
12:17:51 <seanb_> Diego: issue 17
12:18:09 <seanb_> ...took action to write draft for recipe 6
12:18:35 <seanb_> ...requirements
12:18:44 <seanb_> ...1.extended config
12:18:49 <seanb_> ...2.slash namespace
12:19:12 <seanb_> ...proposed three alternatives
12:19:31 <seanb_> ...first two similar. Only difference. First is script, second is servlet/program
12:19:56 <seanb_> ...much easier to deploy a script than a program. Should consider the script
12:19:59 <seanb_> ...option.
12:20:36 <seanb_> ...in both cases, recipe includes rewrite rules.
12:21:04 <seanb_> ...Third option uses HTTP redirection to a SPARQL server.
12:21:35 <seanb_> ...implemented using sesame. Works fine. 
12:21:46 <seanb_> ...Use cases from list using similar approach
12:22:13 <seanb_> ...need to choose alternatives and then write recipe
12:22:45 <seanb_> ...could include more than one (e.g. 1st and 3rd), but that's two different recipes.
12:23:02 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/17 issue 17
12:23:31 <seanb_> Sean: what's the downside with lots of recipes?
12:23:54 <seanb_> Alistair: pattern here is to redirect to some service. 
12:24:04 <seanb_> ...details of implementation of service are secondary
12:25:07 <seanb_> Jon: primary difference between 5 and 6 is that the RDF is being served as th result of a query
12:25:46 <seanb_> Alistair: Separation of concerns. How to write server configuration and how to implement how that serving's done.
12:25:58 <seanb_> Jon: Diego is talking about (at least) a 7th recipe. 
12:27:31 <seanb_> Alistair: Would be inappropriate to include instructions on implementing dynamic service for HTML
12:27:36 <Zakim> -Ralph
12:27:41 <seanb_> ...could be done in many different ways.
12:27:57 <seanb_> [Ralph -- we've lost you?]
12:28:04 <Zakim> +Ralph
12:28:07 <Zakim> -MeetingRoom
12:28:08 <Zakim> +MeetingRoom
12:29:55 <seanb_> Ivan: can't say what "the best" configuration is
12:30:13 <seanb_> Jon: Challenge with this recipe is that earlier cases were recipes -- much more
12:30:32 <Ralph> q+ to propose a specific example case
12:30:34 <seanb_> ...prescriptive. Here, it's much more open-ended.
12:30:46 <seanb_> ...this is the most common
12:30:55 <seanb_> Alistair: possibly the most important
12:31:16 <ivan> ack ral
12:31:16 <Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to ask about "cannot" and to propose a specific example case
12:32:13 <seanb_> Ralph: propose that they implement a query service to return wordnet rdf on the w3 site
12:32:49 <seanb_> ...if any WG people would like to help it would be a useful test case.
12:32:53 <aliman> aliman has joined #swd
12:33:09 <aliman> q+ to comment on implementation independent URLs for partial RDF data
12:33:11 <seanb_> ...supports Alistair's view that we not build too much implementation detail into the document
12:33:40 <seanb_> dan: surprised to hear that a SPARQL endpoint is central to scenario
12:33:46 <Ralph> s/they implement/we implement/
12:33:58 <seanb_> ...thought small vocabulary sets were the idea.
12:34:08 <seanb_> ...has large vocab gone center stage?
12:34:31 <Ralph> I don't think SPARQL endpoint is _central_ to the point but it's now an interoperable way to illustrate the scenario
12:34:33 <seanb_> Alistair: Recipes 1 - 4 are more siuted for publishing smaller things. Notes say 
12:34:44 <seanb_> ... that 5 or 6 are for bigger vocabs.
12:34:44 <Ralph> q+ to clarify for DanBri
12:35:21 <seanb_> Alistair: Option 3 problem. Doesn't give an impl independnet URI for the data. 
12:35:25 <Zakim> aliman, you wanted to comment on implementation independent URLs for partial RDF data
12:35:41 <seanb_> ...start off with the upper rewrite rules. 
12:35:48 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/BestPracticeRecipe6 option 3
12:36:00 <seanb_> ...then add internal rewrite rules to rewrite to SPARQL qery
12:39:33 <Ralph> the issue here is exposing just the "right" amount of implementation detail
12:40:09 <Ralph> as SPARQL is nearing end of REC track, I suggest we're on firm ground if we use SPARQL to expose just enough implementation detail to illustrate the scenario
12:40:28 <seanb_> RESOLUTION: Recipe 6 recast as an implementation pattern. Example 3 of HTTP redirect made a little more complex to show an internal query based response. Illustrative example on W3C.
12:40:34 <Ralph> I wouldn't use DESCRIBE as in Diego's draft, but that's easy to fix
12:40:43 <Simone> Simone has joined #swd
12:41:18 <seanb_> ACTION: Diego to recast Recipe 6
12:41:39 <Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to clarify for DanBri
12:42:01 <seanb_> ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation.
12:42:34 <Ralph> drop action 2
12:42:52 <Ralph> oops, undrop action 2
12:43:09 <Ralph> I expect that Diego and I will work together both on the recast and the example implementation
12:43:16 <seanb_> Jon: Issue 19. Is this in scope? 
12:43:27 <seanb_> ...if in scope, how do we implement it?
12:43:51 <seanb_> dan: What's the server market? Apache, IIS?
12:44:04 <seanb_> ...what would get us 90%?
12:44:19 <seanb_> ...be wary of creating a big framework.
12:44:34 <seanb_> jon: maybe 3/4 would do it.
12:44:42 <Ralph> q+ to propose that we create a way for people to submit other implementations but not devote energy in the WG to produce them
12:45:31 <Ralph> yes, pointing to a W3C Wiki for submissions would be a fine implementation
12:45:45 <seanb_> Guus: minimal effort would be preferable!
12:45:58 <seanb_> ...so it's in scope, but minimal effort
12:46:20 <seanb_> Ralph: *no* effort! Put up a wiki page and let others contribute. Don't even have time
12:46:24 <Ralph> ack me
12:46:24 <Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to propose that we create a way for people to submit other implementations but not devote energy in the WG to produce them
12:46:26 <seanb_> ...to test stuff. 
12:46:42 <seanb_> Tom: Where does the wiki live? WHo controls it? Who controls access?
12:47:15 <seanb_> Ivan: public wiki page linked from document would be fine.
12:47:32 <seanb_> guus: limit to W3 members?
12:47:45 <seanb_> dan: too many people drifting around.
12:48:13 <seanb_> Ivan: positive experience of this in the past
12:48:41 <seanb_> ACTION: Ralph to come up with a URI for wiki page
12:48:56 <seanb_> Jon: Issue 22. IE hack/workaround
12:49:11 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/22 action 22
12:50:19 <seanb_> ...will resolve issue 22 by implementing suggestion a)
12:50:37 <seanb_> Jon: Issue 23
12:51:02 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/23 issue 23
12:51:05 <seanb_> ...organisations won't implement recipe due to allowoverride not being allowed
12:51:07 <Ralph> s/action 22/issue 22/
12:51:34 <seanb_> ...could add discussion that recipes could be done in server configuration
12:51:58 <seanb_> ...include alternative implementation in each recipe showing server config vs htaccess
12:52:48 <seanb_> Diego: If you can't use htaccess then go speak to your IT department....
12:53:04 <Ralph> I like "3. Point out that each of the recipes can be implemented directly in httpd.conf
12:53:04 <Ralph> files without enabling AllowOveride and show how to do that for at least one of them
12:53:05 <Ralph> "
12:53:06 <seanb_> Dan: Also hosting providers
12:53:45 <seanb_> ralph: Likes jon's compromise proposal. point out that it can be done by the server admin with an example
12:54:55 <seanb_> jon: Because recipes are in htaccess, this is used as an excuse to not implement by sys admins
12:55:47 <seanb_> ACTION: Jon to make changes as proposed
12:56:12 <Ralph> I think step 1,
12:56:13 <Ralph> [[
12:56:14 <Ralph> 1. Briefly discuss the relative performance and security disadvantages of
12:56:14 <Ralph> .htaccess files, or at least point to such a discussion.
12:56:15 <Ralph> ]]
12:56:20 <Ralph> is lower priority for us
12:56:34 <seanb_> Jon: Issue 24
12:56:47 <Ralph> fine to do it, but could also be dropped as out of scope if we chose to drop it
12:56:58 <seanb_> Jon: May be subsumed by cool URis.
12:57:02 <seanb_> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/24
12:57:24 <seanb_> ...rationale behind redirect choices. 
12:57:41 <Ralph> +1 to referencing SWEO Note
12:57:43 <seanb_> ...may be able to just reference the cool uris note.
12:58:00 <berrueta> +1
12:58:09 <seanb_> RESOLUTION: Issue 24 resolved by referencing Cool URIs note
12:58:19 <seanb_> Jon: Issue 30
12:58:22 <seanb_> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/30
12:58:24 <Ralph> [I hope the SWEO Note will ultimately get a different title than "Cool URIs" :) ]
12:59:12 <seanb_> Alistair: Raised this because in the XML world, args about what you put in your
12:59:28 <seanb_> ...xml namespace. 
13:00:10 <seanb_> ...RDDL describing the relationship between resources.
13:00:18 <seanb_> ...Note quite the same as what we're doing
13:00:30 <seanb_> ...Should at least have some sort of story. 
13:01:44 <seanb_> ivan: wouldn't be shocked if this document wasn't referenced here.
13:02:40 <seanb_> Ralph: Propose that we defer the issue
13:02:51 <TomB> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments.html
13:03:18 <Ralph> issue 30 is really "what can appear at an RDF namespace URI?" and is a big topic that, given our remaining charter lifetime, we should defer
13:04:26 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments/ "Associating Resources with Namespaces" Draft TAG Finding 5 October 2007 
13:04:52 <seanb_> Jon: Should we raise an issue about publishing vocabs using RDFa/GRDDL?
13:05:15 <seanb_> ...is that within scope?
13:05:53 <seanb_> Ralph: Suggestst that this should be out of scope due to lack of experience
13:06:14 <seanb_> Tom: Michael took action to clarify scope for Cool URIs. Could that be used here?
13:06:43 <seanb_> Ralph: skeptical that we could achieve closure
13:07:22 <Ralph> s/closure/closure on testing implementations/
13:07:26 <seanb_> Tom: Propose that we acknowledge their existence, but not go much further
13:09:04 <seanb_> ACTION: Jon to add words that acknowledge the existence of RDFa as potential mechanisms, but it's out of scope here. 
13:09:17 <seanb_> Jon: Issue 58
13:09:20 <seanb_> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/58
13:09:56 <seanb_> Jon: Diego has solution that fixes some of the problems. 
13:10:24 <seanb_> ...do we publish this (with limitations) or change all the recipes using type-maps
13:10:50 <seanb_> Alistair: if you want to do conditional redirects, need a type-map up front. 
13:12:12 <seanb_> ...simple solution using a single redirect, but required rdf&html in the same directory
13:13:47 <Ralph> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jul/0177.html Alistair's mail on type maps
13:13:56 <seanb_> Ivan: general response to this was "write a php script" and do the logic there.
13:14:33 <seanb_> Ralph: Sounds like a good contribution for the wiki page
13:15:12 <seanb_> Jon: Could also be explicit about the cases where the simple recipes fail to handle 
13:15:24 <seanb_> ...things. Point to recipe 6/7 as a way of  solving things.
13:15:36 <seanb_> Jon: No, that's not a good idea....
13:16:02 <seanb_> Alistair: Should talk to someone from Apache. Are conditional redirects common?
13:16:25 <seanb_> dan: Have some Apache contacts
13:16:44 <Ralph> I'm not confident that the example in recipe 6 will handle all content negotiation situations either; it may well end up with similar restrictions to recipes 3, 4, and 5
13:16:48 <seanb_> ...can pass on a request
13:17:19 <seanb_> ACTION: Dan/Alistair to ask apache about conditional requests
13:17:30 <seanb_> RESOLUTION: Hold until further information available
13:17:34 <Ralph> s/requests/redirects/
13:17:40 <seanb_> Jon: Issue 60
13:17:43 <seanb_> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/60
13:18:24 <seanb_> ...IPTC work.
13:18:50 <seanb_> Ralph: Combination of SWEO Note + Recipes will probably address this
13:19:04 <seanb_> Ed: SWEO note talks about this
13:19:53 <seanb_> Ralph: suggests we defer 
13:20:20 <seanb_> RESOLUTION: Issue is out of scope of Recipes and is Closed.
13:20:52 <Ralph> s/defer/defer on the IPTC code URI question/
13:21:10 <seanb_> Jon: Draft form by the end of the year. 
13:21:18 <seanb_> Guus: Reviewers?
13:21:31 <Ralph> s/Issue is out/Issue 60 is out/
13:22:50 <seanb_> ACTION: Guus/Tom to solicit reviewers for the Recipes document. 
13:23:00 <seanb_> Possible reviewiers: 1WG + 1 SWEO + Karl Dubost?
13:23:15 <seanb_> s/reviewiers/reviewers
13:23:52 <seanb_> Guus: If we think we're done, we should publish this as a Note. Need to ask this question in December
13:24:34 <seanb_> ACTION: TF leaders to prepare a version for review in December
13:24:45 <seanb_> s/a version/a version of Recipes
13:24:49 <Ralph> ("done" in the sense of "we don't currently have a plan to do more work on this")
13:25:11 <seanb_> Diego: Issue about online server testing (Issue 20)
13:25:12 <Ralph> (not as in "we believe this covers all the questions that could be covered")
13:25:31 <seanb_> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/20
13:25:50 <TomB> (+1 Ralphs)
13:26:03 <seanb_> [diego demos service]
13:26:52 <seanb_> [sorry ralph -- it's running on localhost....]
13:28:20 <seanb_> Diego: would like to host this on a public server somewhere
13:29:09 <seanb_> ...concerned about security though. Could be used for DoS attacks
13:30:05 <Ralph> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2006Dec/0072.html Diego's pointer to his tests
13:31:19 <seanb_> Tom: is this service related to finalising the note
13:31:40 <seanb_> Jon: Only to the extent that it would be useful to be able to point to it from the note..
13:31:53 <seanb_> Ralph: valuable resource. 
13:32:06 <seanb_> ...similar to RDFa tests that we discussed yesterday
13:32:26 <Ralph> i.e. non-normative but very useful
13:32:28 <TomB_> TomB_ has joined #swd
13:32:30 <seanb_> Jon: Question. Where would you host it?
13:32:43 <seanb_> ...W3C might be interested?
13:33:02 <seanb_> Diego:Can host once the security problems are fixed.
13:33:34 <seanb_> RESOLUTION: Issue 20 resolved by adding a reference to Diego's service
13:35:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html Ralph
13:36:37 <Ralph> zakim, list attendees
13:36:37 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been MeetingRoom, Ralph, DanBri, Guus, Tom, Sean, Diego, Antoine, Alistair, Ivan, Ed, Jon
13:39:21 <Zakim> -Ralph
13:39:24 <Zakim> +Ralph
13:55:42 <Ralph> Thanks, Antoine and Guus, for hosting us
13:56:00 <Ralph> [I look forward to seeing the photograph of the participants]
14:00:19 <ivan> hey ralph, we are getting back
14:02:43 <Ralph> [hope the weather is nice there.]
14:03:53 <TomB> scribe is danbri
14:04:01 <TomB> guus> skos planning ... review issue list
14:04:36 <Ralph> scribenick: scribe
14:04:40 <scribe> guus ... who can work on docs?
14:04:42 <Ralph> scribe: DanBri
14:04:46 <scribe> ... aim at a wd
14:05:16 <Ralph> i/scribe is/Topic: SKOS Planning/
14:06:54 <scribe> guus: some progress on rels between labels
14:07:07 <scribe> ...re anno on label, some work to be formulated
14:07:21 <scribe> ...basiclexicallabelsemantics ... covered this am
14:07:33 <scribe> ...contentschemecontainment to discuss now
14:07:53 <scribe> broadernarrowersemantics and conceptsemantics ie 44 54 closed
14:07:54 <scribe> also 31
14:08:11 <scribe> ... conceptschemelabellinginteractions open
14:08:16 <scribe> ...26 closed but we opened a related one
14:08:38 <scribe> al: conceptschemelabellinginteractions is about rel between lex labels and concept schemes
14:08:49 <scribe> ...typically in a thes, each concept has to have a preferred lex label
14:09:05 <scribe> ...various constraints which, while perhaps not needing to go in the semantics ... we might want to tlak about how to achieve
14:09:22 <scribe> ...rulesandconformance issue
14:10:17 <scribe> al: proposed that resolve RulesAndCOnformance ie isssue 35, by noting that the SKOS semantics is explained using prose so we wont use any rule syntaxes
14:10:51 <scribe> guus: 37 SkosSpecialization, eg. partitative
14:11:09 <scribe> al: the actual issue here, ... how does a 3rd party create and publish extensions to skos
14:11:20 <scribe> ... we could resolve this issue by including some guidance in the doc
14:11:29 <scribe> ...we could talk about whether we want to do it ourself
14:11:34 <scribe> ...we have this skos extensions namespace
14:11:45 <scribe> ... in which there are various specialistions of broader and narrower 
14:11:54 <scribe> guus: thats another issue, re what to do with those
14:12:08 <scribe> ...conceptmappinglinks ie issue 39
14:12:15 <scribe> al: one of the important next ones to consider
14:12:34 <scribe> antoine: good that there have been some other contribs in this area
14:12:50 <scribe> issue 40 Coordination / eg. side effects of asperin vs asperin
14:13:24 <scribe> sean: its compound terms
14:14:02 <scribe> al: you dont have to get heavily into the semantics
14:14:13 <scribe> ... if you have side effects and you have asperin
14:14:36 <scribe> if you tag a doc with 4 things, ... how to show the groupping
14:14:42 <scribe> qplus
14:14:58 <scribe> sean: if i tag ...
14:15:04 <scribe> (missed sorry)
14:15:17 <scribe> al: if you want the interaction you can implement a query expansion 
14:15:37 <scribe> ... but we dont need to say 
14:16:33 <scribe> dan: reminds me of rdf:Bag which proved unused
14:16:49 <scribe> john: these are raised issues not open issues, whats the process
14:16:57 <scribe> guus: first review the list quickly then rate importance
14:17:08 <scribe> 41 ... UseLangTagsInExamples
14:17:14 <scribe> al: literals shoudl always have a lang tag
14:17:23 <scribe> ... not a real issue, more a Primer action
14:17:35 <scribe> 45: NaryLinksBetweenDescriptorsAndNonDescriptors
14:17:48 <scribe> eg. "Use X plus Y@
14:17:55 <scribe> (excuse my punctuation)
14:18:10 <scribe> or "Use X OR Y"
14:18:16 <scribe> guus: different to coordination
14:18:30 <scribe> al: no, capturing the nondescriptor and the things it cites is different
14:18:35 <scribe> ...but related issue
14:18:49 <scribe> 46, IndexingAndNonIndexingConcepts
14:19:08 <scribe> antoine: linked to the existance in some concept scheme ... things that can be in coordinations
14:19:17 <scribe> ... unique role is to apply as modifiers
14:19:24 <scribe> guus: eg. iconclass
14:19:31 <scribe> antoine: also LCSH
14:19:51 <scribe> 47, MappingProvenanceINformation
14:20:28 <scribe> MappingProvenanceInformation 47
14:20:30 <scribe> next...
14:20:42 <scribe> IndexingRelationship 48
14:20:54 <scribe> al: we need to be able to relate a res to a concept
14:21:09 <scribe> antoine: i think we already made the requirement
14:21:20 <scribe> ...maybe we should move some of these out
14:21:32 <scribe> guus: dont think they belong to the language
14:21:42 <scribe> LexicalMappingLInks 49
14:21:53 <scribe> al: implciit in this, idea of labels as part of a specific vocab
14:22:08 <scribe> ... here we are saying we might want to map lexically
14:22:17 <scribe> guus: only possible if you have URIs for the lexical entries
14:22:27 <scribe> CompatibilityWithDC 50
14:22:37 <scribe> al: to make sure what we say is fitting in neatly with the dc abstract model
14:22:53 <scribe> CompatibilityWithISO11179, important metadata std, should be considered
14:23:17 <scribe> john: at the open forum, i presented on skos, one of the primary Qs I was asked ... re compatibility
14:23:30 <scribe> john: conf was about metadata registries
14:23:44 <scribe> ... sig portion of the audience used 11179 as their definitive spec
14:24:13 <scribe> ... people were saying "if i wanted to implement skso in concept of an 11179 registry..."
14:24:26 <scribe> ... a lot of ppl have requirement to use a formal published standard
14:24:39 <scribe> ... and they could use it if it got to REC and had mappings to other stds
14:24:57 <scribe> al: next two are re newer thesaurus stds
14:25:06 <scribe> COmpatibilityWithISO2788
14:25:50 <scribe> CompatibilityWithISO...
14:26:03 <scribe> ReferenceSemanticRElationshipSpecialiations 56
14:26:07 <scribe> ... relates to other issue
14:26:09 <scribe> ...
14:26:17 <scribe> guus: apart from open issues, looking at raised issues
14:26:28 <scribe> ... we work on WD that addresses current open issues
14:26:36 <scribe> mapping relationships, 39
14:26:44 <scribe> lexicalmappinglinks 49
14:27:04 <scribe> referencesemanticrelationshipspecializations 56
14:27:08 <scribe> guus: i suggest to take these 3
14:27:25 <scribe> ... they all are at level of "whatare the parts of a vocab"
14:27:31 <scribe> al: also coordination needs new vocab
14:27:38 <scribe> guus: thats thorny
14:27:42 <scribe> al: no more than the others
14:27:57 <scribe> ed: in 56 ... something in there for coordination?
14:28:10 <scribe> guus: if we want to get to REC, we owe community a new WD now
14:28:18 <scribe> ...we can state issues that are open
14:28:23 <scribe> ...but we owe them a new draft
14:28:29 <scribe> ...needed within next 2 months
14:28:32 <scribe> al: fair enough
14:28:37 <scribe> guus: ordering, not priority
14:28:49 <scribe> al: in this case drop 49 lexicalmappinglinks
14:28:57 <scribe> guus: so we do 39 and 56
14:28:59 <scribe> opening them now
14:29:15 <scribe> ConceptualMappingLinks 39:
14:29:20 <scribe> issue owner: antoine
14:29:45 <scribe> admin ... guus: we are using RaisedBy for issue owner, tooling issues 
14:30:31 <scribe> (logs in to issue tracker)
14:31:17 <scribe> referencesemanticrelationshipspecializations 56
14:31:29 <scribe> al: as dan says, we start to tread on toes of owl
14:31:37 <scribe> guus: i can take this one
14:31:44 <scribe> issue owner for 56: Guus
14:32:07 <scribe> guus: re planning
14:32:14 <scribe> ...looking at our package of docs
14:32:31 <scribe> Use Cases ... Syntax, Semantics or Reference doc, .... and Primer.
14:32:40 <scribe> ... suggest PRimer also has info on guidelines
14:32:55 <scribe> ... ie. how to do things
14:33:08 <scribe> best to distribute work and glory :)
14:33:28 <scribe> ... some prev discussions at telecon
14:33:37 <scribe> ... Ed asked if he could contrib to a PRimer
14:33:46 <scribe> ed: yeah, definitely
14:34:01 <scribe> ... i would like to work with someone, as not written such a doc before
14:34:10 <scribe> ...sounds like Alistair and I could ...
14:34:17 <scribe> guus: for primer i was thinking there should be another lead
14:34:27 <scribe> ... I assume Al will take major lead with reference docs
14:34:36 <scribe> ... so better if someone else takes major lead with Primer
14:34:53 <scribe> al: I can live with that, sure .... I will try to contrib to primer but happy to have someone else 
14:34:56 <scribe> ... on primer
14:35:04 <scribe> guus: so who else re primer
14:35:12 <scribe> antoine: i am willing to help
14:35:36 <scribe> guus: if you can make it fit your work description within Stitch (acronym) it could work in your job in Ams
14:35:40 <scribe> ...with a number of other contribs
14:36:01 <scribe> guus: so who can share this work
14:36:05 <scribe> ...and names of the docs
14:36:43 <scribe> al: Re name "Reference" I was thinking to make quick reference
14:37:05 <scribe> general waryness of Syntax and Semantics
14:37:14 <scribe> al: Reference or Reference Manual
14:37:16 <scribe> Reference.
14:37:25 <scribe> ed: Whats the status of the Core GUide
14:37:42 <scribe> al: most of Core Guide I would move to Primer
14:38:10 <scribe> guus: needs to be a systematic 
14:38:16 <scribe> who else helps re Reference_
14:38:28 <scribe> Sean. Dan (helper only, esp re OWL bridge)
14:38:44 <scribe> guus: Use Cases doc is now finished. Antoine and Daniel and John were editors.
14:39:14 <scribe> ...if he has time for this WG, Daniel Ruben from Stanford might have time here for Reference or PRimer
14:39:38 <scribe> guus: for Reference, I expect minimally that doc to be rectrack
14:39:43 <scribe> ... i view it as a new publication
14:39:51 <scribe> ...with clear links to the original sources where it came from
14:39:55 <scribe> ... as soon as possible
14:40:04 <scribe> ... realistic timeline?
14:40:11 <scribe> ...1st a draft, non editors. ...
14:40:18 <scribe> al: 2 months for an editors draft
14:40:34 <scribe> al: could try for faster
14:40:39 <scribe> 6 weeks?
14:41:16 <scribe_> scribe_ has joined #swd
14:41:26 <scribe_> ... worth having a big attack at 1st edit pass
14:41:41 <scribe_> al: would 6 weeks be enough?
14:42:05 <scribe_> guus: proposal is 6 weeks to editors draft
14:42:07 <scribe_> Sean: ISWC happens in those weeks
14:42:33 <scribe_> danbri: who will be there? al, not, sean yes.
14:42:41 <scribe_> ...also KnowledgeWeb review gets in the way
14:42:48 <scribe_> guus: rest of oct, beginning of Nov, to get something out
14:43:08 <scribe_> guus: if we do a 1st WD ... we need to start resolving some other issues
14:43:24 <scribe_> ... if by end of our charter we have agreed on a Last Call draft, thats a good schedule
14:43:46 <scribe> al: we need ... 1st public WD, ... 
14:43:56 <scribe> guus: if we need a 2nd, we do a 2nd
14:44:04 <scribe> ... moment you are done you do a Last Call WD
14:44:09 <scribe> 4 to 6 weeks for review from the world
14:44:16 <scribe> process for react to comments
14:44:22 <scribe> then the group decides where next
14:44:26 <scribe> handle objections if they happen
14:44:40 <scribe> guus: during comment period, if errors in design emerge, can do a new LC
14:44:52 <scribe> ... if happy with LC handling, can request Candidate Recommendation stage
14:45:04 <scribe> ... need 2 impls of each feature in the lang
14:45:08 <scribe> ivan: what does this mean re skos
14:45:18 <scribe> guus: have vocab checkers that implement the semantics
14:45:52 <scribe> danbri: if thats the case, DTD checkers would be enough to get any xml spec thru CR
14:45:57 <scribe> ivan: its up to the WG
14:46:22 <scribe> ... if it was only a vocab in sense of foaf etc, strictly speaking it doesn-t need any implementation in sense of software
14:46:49 <scribe> sean: there are all these conditions ... not just syntactic
14:46:55 <scribe> ... to check it is being used properly
14:47:35 <scribe> ivan: question in case of skos, is do we need it?
14:47:42 <scribe> guus: minimal woould be better
14:48:05 <Ralph> q+ to consider implementations
14:48:36 <scribe> q+
14:48:46 <scribe> ralph: i tihnk we need to show people are using skos
14:48:59 <scribe> re full module checker, ... we might not want to make that a CR criteria
14:49:26 <scribe> ... we will want to show there are interoperable implementations
14:50:15 <scribe> ralph: eg 2 or more websites that publish skos docs, 2 or more tools that do sometihng useful
14:50:36 <scribe> guus: ralph, you tihnk a vocab checker is not necessary
14:50:41 <scribe> ..the wg can decide that 
14:51:01 <scribe> ... a model checker that tests the informal constraints in our appendix sets the bar quite high
14:51:44 <scribe> sean: always inclear to me what a skos impl is
14:51:51 <scribe> al: my dc paper last year ... 3 classes ... 
14:51:54 <scribe> ...vocab dev tool
14:51:58 <scribe> ... indexing app
14:52:03 <Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to consider implementations
14:52:04 <scribe> which consumes a vocab in skos
14:52:18 <scribe> ... and a searching app
14:52:21 <scribe> something like swed
14:52:38 <scribe> ivan: i am still arguing here ... thats different
14:52:41 <scribe> in svg world, ...
14:52:46 <scribe> implementations eg. the plugin
14:53:02 <scribe> the CR only requires implementations in the case of SVG
14:53:12 <scribe> it doesnt require showing use
14:54:08 <Ralph> MIT-related, non-W3C: swick@mit.edu
14:54:17 <Ralph> s/MIT-related, non-W3C: swick@mit.edu//
14:54:42 <Ralph> DanBri: the spirit of W3C specifications is that something doesn't make it to Recommendation unless it shows that it is useful [to some community]
14:55:14 <aliman> danbri: class of languages to define languages, dtds, xml schema, skos is yet another language. pushing skos out without proving how it's useful, bad idea. need to show how the world is made better. need to show people are producing, and people are consuming it. E.g. two major thesauri available for use using current SKOS spec (don't need full model check). Another thing, skos with non-thesaurus RDF, so show how SKOS mixes with other stuff. Tell the story, then
14:55:29 <scribe> thx al
14:55:30 <Ralph> +1 to DanBri
14:55:40 <scribe> john:  i have an app ... 
14:56:00 <scribe> ... that uses skos, i dont know if it counts as an "implementation" 
14:56:13 <scribe> ... but i plan to allow import into the app of skosbased ontologies
14:56:20 <scribe> ... so i need import validity checker
14:56:26 <scribe> ... intend to set it up as a checker
14:56:26 <Ralph> q+ to make a suggestion to Jon
14:56:29 <scribe> webservice
14:56:31 <scribe> ack me
14:56:42 <scribe> ... will do in next 4 or 5 months
14:57:13 <scribe> ralph: johns interesting point ... that  any time you find a piece of spec that you dont know how to interpret
14:57:16 <scribe> ... try to write a test case
14:57:40 <scribe> ... if we use test cases to record resolutiosn that we have made
14:57:52 <scribe> ... and to document things that the implementors believe to be true about the spec
14:58:15 <scribe> ... i dont think we want to go so far as to write a huge test suite that tests EVERYTHING
14:58:25 <scribe> q+ to ask re testAMONIALS
14:58:33 <Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to make a suggestion to Jon
14:58:41 <scribe> john: we have a test cases doc in our deliverables
14:58:52 <scribe> guus: am hearing consensus that this isnt required
14:59:03 <scribe> ... we dont really have the people to run that bit, except sean
14:59:43 <scribe> guus: during LC ... we can prepare implementation report doc
15:00:06 <scribe> if we can manage to be readywith LC around april, we will only need a few months extension
15:00:43 <scribe> guus: ... id be v uncomfortable publishing some of these issues near LC
15:00:47 <scribe> and we cant do everything now
15:00:57 <scribe> so i would expect at least two WDs to be done close to LC
15:01:13 <scribe> ivan: at some point close the WG and discuss in the CG how to finsih them
15:01:27 <scribe> ... we would need to make a case to extend
15:02:15 <scribe> danbri: why not just ask now? for extension
15:02:19 <scribe> ivan: other non skos things
15:02:31 <scribe> ... when we go to an extension, we have to say exactly what it is for
15:02:36 <scribe> ... if only skos, thats a clear arg
15:03:12 <scribe> guus: important thing is that this WG ... if we make that schedule, LC in April ... May and June will still be busy periods, bringing doc thru CR
15:03:19 <scribe> ...rest of work is mostly for the chairs
15:03:30 <scribe> ...for your planning, you can expect this work to die down around summer next year
15:03:51 <scribe> timecheck: 5.05pm
15:04:14 <scribe> ConceptSchemeContainment next
15:04:28 <scribe> (back in 10 minss)
15:09:56 <scribe_> scribe_ has joined #swd
15:11:19 <ivan> ivan has joined #swd
15:16:59 <scribe> resumed
15:17:32 <scribe> Module: Concept Schemes
15:17:43 <scribe> al: so the use case i had in my mind was ...
15:17:49 <scribe> ... eg i receive some rdf data
15:17:57 <scribe> ... in that data, two diff thesauri schemes are defined
15:18:11 <scribe> ... want to be able to show someone there are two schemes, and show them which is which
15:18:14 <scribe> ...thats the use case
15:18:23 <scribe> ... minimal way
15:18:32 <scribe> ... tried to be consistent with rdfs isDefinedBy
15:18:42 <scribe> ... implicitly depracates skos:inScheme
15:18:57 <scribe> semantics are just that skos ConceptScheme is a class
15:19:21 <scribe> (pls someone post the link, wont transcribe detail)
15:20:29 <scribe> danbri: clever proposal, 2nded
15:20:35 <Ralph> are we looking at -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/36 ConceptSchemeContainment ?
15:20:41 <scribe> al: couple of "may" statements
15:20:49 <edsu> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptSchemes/MinimalProposal
15:20:50 <scribe> ralph, MinimalProposal
15:20:52 <scribe> thx
15:21:09 <scribe> al: can use sparql to ask if this semantic ... in this graph
15:24:01 <scribe> guus: re wordnet eg, considered using owl imports
15:24:10 <scribe> al: parag here says we could have conceptscheme as owl ontology
15:24:22 <scribe> .. .diff may as the one re named graphs and conceptscheme
15:25:08 <scribe> (discussion of what comes as std in sparql vs out of band server controls)
15:25:25 <scribe> guus:i like the proposal
15:25:31 <scribe> ...nice use of isDefinedBy
15:26:03 <scribe> al: if you do think of conceptschemes as named graphs
15:26:41 <scribe> ... you dont ever need to use the isDefinedBy
15:26:51 <scribe> danbri: you could generate them explicitly using SPARQL CONSTRUCT tooling
15:27:08 <scribe> guus: this uses our base level mechanisms, ie rdf, rdfs etc, to the max
15:27:14 <scribe> ...and we only do extras when needed
15:27:42 <scribe> q+ to ask re DL
15:27:54 <scribe> al: with inScheme, was no notion of cardinality
15:28:05 <scribe> ...with isDefinedBy, implicitly saying aconcept is only defined by one concept scheme
15:29:09 <Ralph> I'm pretty certain that isDefinedBy is not an owl:functionalProperty
15:29:57 <scribe_> scribe_ has joined #swd
15:29:57 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_isdefinedby rdf:isDefinedBy (a "utility property")
15:30:18 <scribe_> al: the rdfs spec says "isDefinedBy may be used to indicate an rdf vocab in which a resource is described"
15:31:13 <scribe_> guus: if we get comments that they would like another term ... we could have same notion in skos or a subprop but for moment i see no real need
15:32:38 <scribe> john: inScheme allowed a concept to be related to multiple schemes
15:32:51 <scribe> ... but isDefinedBy is ok that way too
15:33:03 <scribe> al: personally i would like to explore us being a bit stricter
15:33:03 <Ralph> (that is, I'm pretty sure that no W3C spec says rdfs:isDefinedBy is an owl:FunctionalProperty but I think that this would be consistent with intent]
15:33:44 <scribe> (what ralph said ... i think i didn-t argue hard enough for functioanl within rdfcore)
15:33:59 <scribe> guus: am happy to define inscheme as subprop of isdefinedby, and recommend latter
15:34:36 <scribe> antoine: q re issue this morning for mixing owl and skos
15:36:08 <scribe> proposal: to close issue Concept Schemes
15:36:12 <Zakim> +??P41
15:36:22 <dlrubin> dlrubin has joined #swd
15:36:26 <Ralph> zakim, ??p41 is Daniel
15:36:26 <Zakim> +Daniel; got it
15:36:35 <scribe> guus summarising
15:36:44 <aliman> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptSchemes/MinimalProposal?action=recall&rev=1
15:37:13 <scribe> guus: until now, proposal meeting with moderate enthusiasm
15:37:20 <scribe> ... keep inScheme for historical reasons
15:37:27 <scribe> ... define as subprop of isDefinedBy from rdfs
15:37:35 <scribe> ... with some practice for how to use it in skos context
15:37:41 <scribe> ... antoine asks how to handle hasTopConcept
15:38:27 <scribe> guus: i-m happy computing it
15:38:43 <scribe> danbri: only if you have a complete description
15:39:01 <scribe> danbri: is it used?
15:39:03 <scribe> al: yup
15:39:06 <scribe> guus: keep it
15:40:02 <scribe> guus: proposal is to accept the proposal from alistair as a resolution for closing issue 36
15:40:15 <scribe> ...with two remarks
15:40:27 <scribe> 1. for historical reasons, inscheme is kept as a subprop of isDefinedBy
15:40:32 <scribe> 2. we dont touch hasTopConcept
15:40:42 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-spec-20051102/#inScheme skos:inScheme
15:40:48 <scribe> al: are we explicitly depracating skos:inScheme
15:41:17 <scribe> danbri: precedents for deprecation?
15:41:32 <scribe> al: in prev WG we useed OWLs classes for these
15:41:40 <scribe> danbri: i suggest doing likewise here
15:42:19 <aliman> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptSchemes/MinimalProposal?action=recall&rev=1
15:43:35 <scribe> guus: formalities
15:43:41 <scribe> .. no objections, abstentions
15:43:46 <scribe> ... resolved by consensus
15:44:34 <scribe> we agree 3. that depracated (using approporiate owl vocab) is part of the accepted proposal
15:45:20 <Ralph> s/depracated/deprecating skos:inScheme
15:45:43 <scribe> thanks ralph!
15:46:06 <scribe> ADJOURNED!
15:46:16 <Ralph> q+ to thank the hosts
15:46:21 <Zakim> scribe, you wanted to ask re testAMONIALS and to ask re DL
15:46:25 <danbri> ack ralph
15:46:25 <Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to thank the hosts
15:47:35 <Ralph> did Guus just say "no meeting next Tuesday"?
15:47:41 <danbri> thanks Ralph for 10 years of RDF work!
15:48:06 <Ralph> [/me pulls more grey hair :) ]
15:48:27 <edsu> Ralph: yes
15:48:58 <Ralph> Guus: next meeting 23 October
15:49:26 <Antoine> Antoine has left #swd
15:49:28 <Ralph> [now really adjourned]
15:49:30 <dlrubin> dlrubin has left #swd
15:49:32 <Zakim> -Daniel
15:49:35 <Ralph> zakim, list attendees
15:49:35 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been MeetingRoom, Ralph, DanBri, Guus, Tom, Sean, Diego, Antoine, Alistair, Ivan, Ed, Jon, Daniel
15:49:40 <Ralph> rrsagent, please draft minutes
15:49:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html Ralph
15:57:02 <Zakim> -MeetingRoom
15:57:07 <Ralph> bye :)
15:57:40 <Zakim> SW_SWD(f2f)3:00AM has ended
15:57:45 <Zakim> Attendees were MeetingRoom, Ralph, DanBri, Guus, Tom, Sean, Diego, Antoine, Alistair, Ivan, Ed, Jon, Daniel
16:15:48 <Ralph> zakim, bye
16:15:48 <Zakim> Zakim has left #swd
16:16:01 <Ralph> rrsagent, bye
16:16:01 <RRSAgent> I see 9 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-actions.rdf :
16:16:01 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Guus to write up the issue and add to issue list. [1]
16:16:01 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-irc#T12-14-28
16:16:01 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Diego to recast Recipe 6 [2]
16:16:01 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-irc#T12-41-18
16:16:01 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation. [3]
16:16:01 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-irc#T12-42-01
16:16:01 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Ralph to come up with a URI for wiki page [4]
16:16:01 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-irc#T12-48-41
16:16:01 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Jon to make changes as proposed [5]
16:16:01 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-irc#T12-55-47
16:16:01 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Jon to add words that acknowledge the existence of RDFa as potential mechanisms, but it's out of scope here.  [6]
16:16:01 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-irc#T13-09-04
16:16:01 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Dan/Alistair to ask apache about conditional requests [7]
16:16:01 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-irc#T13-17-19
16:16:01 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Guus/Tom to solicit reviewers for the Recipes document.  [8]
16:16:01 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-irc#T13-22-50
16:16:01 <RRSAgent> ACTION: TF leaders to prepare a version for review in December [9]
16:16:01 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-irc#T13-24-34