See also: IRC log
<Tom> Previous: http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-swd-minutes.html
<Ralph> Tom welcomes Margherita Sini from FAO
Tom: welcomes Margherita Sini
Margherita: From FAO, Food and Agriculture Org. of the UN
<Antoine> http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-ucr/#UC-Aims links to the AIMS project / Agrovoc
Margherita: looking at SKOS for services for their users
PROPOSED to accept minutes of the Dec 04 telecon:
RESOLVED: Minutes accepted.
Next telecon: 8 January 1600 UTC
<scribe> ACTION: Quentin to review Editor's draft of SKOS Reference [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/20-swd-minutes.html#action02] [CONTINUES]
Alistair: hope to get caught up this week
<Antoine> or was it Sean?
<scribe> ACTION: Vit to review Editor's draft of SKOS Reference [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/20-swd-minutes.html#action03] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Alistair and Guus write draft section in primer on relationship between SKOS concepts and OWL classes for OWL DL users [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/06-swd-minutes.html#action05] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Antoine to come up with a revised Conceptual Mapping proposal based on the comments received [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-swd-minutes.html#action01] [DONE]
Antoine: (to Ed and Alistair) will handle integration of content
Antoine: there has been a formal proposal to postpone to later re: semantic axioms, etc.
... mapping links are restricted to skos:Concepts
... updated discussion section to account for skos:exactMatch and about using one concept scheme
<Zakim> Aliman, you wanted to ask Antoine to summarise recent discussion on mapping
Alistair: Antoine, can you summarize the points being raised re: modifications to the proposal?
Antoine: differences between overlapping match and relating match
Alistair: re: inexactMatch, what is difference between that and overlapping?
Alistair: Wants to confirm that in new proposal that overlapping and deprecating inexactMatch
... re: extension module
... has sketched out what the module what it would like. Might be able to continue on without addressing labels as resources
... extension might be published as another means later
... but could be done now
... possibly as a note by us or elsewhere
... Shall I take an action to sketch out the underlying issue for the WG to possibly consider as a resolution for inclusion?
Ed: Are open issues in issue tracker, do those have to be closed? (re: labels as resources)
Tom: Group needs to take a stand.
Ralph: We will be judged at the time we go to last call and at time to request candidate recommendation. Easiest way to track them is in the issues list, which is a combination of external comments and internal issues
... We should respond to external comments before proceeding to next level of maturity.
Ed: Alistair's proposal is good then.
Tom: Propose action on Alistair to write up a document on extension and labels
... not proposing a solution, but what is in scope for current work and an approach toward that which can be done later in an extension
<scribe> ACTION: Alistair to propose an approach to clarify which aspects of the extension module should be in scope for the candidate recommendation package. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/11-swd-minutes.html#action06]
Antoine: re: issue 39
<Zakim> aliman, you wanted to say something about breaking up issue 39
<Zakim> aliman, you wanted to say about breaking up the issue 39
<Ralph> scribenick: antoine
Tom: comments of formal status wrt ISSUE-39 proposal?
Guus: there seems to be enough consensus
Tom: we can have a discussion on this and close the issue on next call
Alistair: I have something to say.
... 3 independent topics of discussion
... first is grouping constructs (39-A)
<marghe> yes i am in favor of that
Alistair: second is parallel vocabularies between semantic relations and mapping ones (39-B)
... third is relatedMatch versus overlappingMatch
Tom: Antoine willing to send a message on the list saying that we will have discussion next week?
<scribe> ACTION: Antoine to send a msg proposing a resolution for next week telecon on ISSUE-39 considering Alisatir's 3 subtopics [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/11-swd-minutes.html#action07]
<scribe> ACTION: Alistair and Guus to prepare material for next week on Concept Schemes vs OWL Ontologies [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/30-swd-minutes.html#action04] [CONTINUES]
Alistair: clarification on where we are?
Guus: no commitment on whether SKOS concepts can be instances of OWL class
Alstair: point was on containment and inScheme
Guus: We need to revisit our decision.
Alistair: We would need this as soon as possible
... We don't have much time before Christmas.
Tom: Which decision do we need to revisit?
Alistair: The one according to which we would deprecate inScheme, replaced by isDefinedBy
... there was discussion
... problems with respect to backward compatibility and isDefinedBy semantics.
<Ed: > I think this was Jon's email regarding inScheme? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Nov/0016.html.
Tom: Would be helpful to have the reconstructed proposal
Antoine: I sent a mail about this, re-opening the issue
Alistair: We have to re-resolve it again
Tom: It would be nice to solve this next week
Alistair: Antoine's mail has a proposal in it
... could be good enough
... as a focus for decision
Tom: Does the action on Ralph fit this?
Ralph: I can't say how it interacts.
Alistair: Antoine's resolution does not prevent the use of isDefinedBy.
Ralph: what I hoped to do was to research RDF core's notion of isDefinedBy semantics
Tom: 2 questions:
... first consider Antoine's proposal
... then consider the use of isDefinedBy
... can someone take an action to propose to discuss this issue on next telecon?
<scribe> ACTION: Antoine to send a mail to the list so as to have a discussion on ISSUE-36 and isDefinedBy for next week's telecon [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/11-swd-minutes.html#action09]
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to write up the issue [of Label Resource] and add to the issue list. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html#action01] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph to reconstruct proposal for semantics of isDefinedBy [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/30-swd-minutes.html#action02] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Ben and Michael to address comments by Tom [regarding maintenance of wiki document http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/RDFa] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/20-swd-minutes.html#action14] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Ben to prepare draft implementation report for RDFa (with assistance from Michael) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html#action03] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Ben to update RDFa schedule in wiki [http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/RDFa#RDFa_schedule] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html#action04] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph to ask rdfa tf to respond to Sean Palmer's suggestion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/27-swd-minutes.html#action11] [DONE]
<Ralph> 2007-12-06 RDFa TF telecon
Ralph: the major issue is the interpretation of @instanceOf
... there is a new proposal from Mark Birbeck
... positive reviews by Ben
Tom: I'd suggest that we move the actions
<scribe> ACTION: Dan to ask Apache about conditional redirects [recorded in [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/20-swd-minutes.html#action18] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Guus/Tom to solicit reviewers for the Recipes document. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/20-swd-minutes.html#action20] [DONE]
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph and Ed to review recipes document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/11-swd-minutes.html#action18]
Tom: The editors of recipes document need to send a note to the list.
Tom: Which status?
Ralph: Still a WD
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph propose resolution to ISSUE-16 "Default behavior" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/20-swd-minutes.html#action23] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph to come up with a URI for wiki page [for Recipes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/20-swd-minutes.html#action24] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/20-swd-minutes.html#action25] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Vit and Elisa to include in the document all the target sections plus an allocation of sections to people and potentially a standard structure for sections [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html#action07] [CONTINUES]
Tom: meeting adjourned