See also: IRC log
<Ralph> previous 2007-12-18
<Quentin> Happy new year all
Accepted: Minutes of Dec 18 Telecon
<Ralph> scribe: Jon
<aliman> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/67 -- state formal definitions
Alistair: Has had a look at Tom's comments and has raised Issue-67
... happy to discuss alternatives
<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]
Alistair: It would be helpful if Quentin could expand on his comments about transitivity
Quentin: Couldn't find any agreement on transitivity of broader, narrower but recalls that we had decided not to say anything about transitivity
Alistair: what needs to be done to this doc before publishing as WD?
Quentin: Need to modify formal definition of exactMatch or change the name to something like 'similarMatch'
Alistair: Is a naming issue or a functionality/semantics issue
Quentin: If you keep the semantics as is, then you need to change the term. If you keep the term then u need to change the semantics
Alistair: Asked myself for every property which ones should be transitive. Trying to stick to Antoine's specs
... took the most cautious position wrt exactMatch
... should exactMatch be transitive?
... Would answering that question satisfy Quentin's issue?
Antoine: thinks the name 'exactMatch' may be problematic
Sean: There is no notion of what the mapping relation is for exactMatch
<Zakim> seanb, you wanted to ask about the definition of "Exact Mapping"
Alistair: We really wanted to state the formal aspects of the base model without too much additional 'practical' explanation
... Most of this could be explained more fully in the primer and references to other docs, like the British standards
Guus: So what do we need to resolve before we publish
Alistair:
<Antoine> @Jon: I support "exactMatch"!
Alistair: Should exactMatch be transitive? Issue 2: What is the transitivity of skos:broader?
<Ralph> Quentin's review
Alistair: If we resolve those 2, will that make it possible to publish?
... we resolved to say nothing about transitivity of skos:broader, but the prose states that broader is _not_ transitive
Guus: Tom, Quentin, (informally) would u vote in favor of publishing if those 2 issues were resolved?
<TomB> okay with me to publish
Guus: Alistair, could you please send email on how we should address these issues
<scribe> ACTION: Alistair send an email to the list by the end of next week that the reviewers can agree with and then propose publishing as WD by Jan 22 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/08-swd-minutes.html#action02]
Guus: Comments by non-reviewers should be treated as comments from reviewers
<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]
<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: 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] [CONTINUES]
<aliman> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20071223#L2430
<scribe> Agenda: ISSUE-36
<Ralph> issue 36
Guus: PROPOSED: Accept Antoine's resolution to ISSUE-36
<scribe> From the Agenda:
Antoine proposes that the WG adopt the following
resolution for Issue-36 [2]:
RESOLUTION: skos:inScheme is not deprecated, skos:inScheme is not a
subproperty of rdfs:isDefinedBy. In accordance [3] can be kept, but
adding inScheme in the proposed vocabulary as well as domain and range
statements for this property. It should also include the following
sentence: "The SKOS Primer also defines best practices for using
skos:inScheme to explicitly state the relationship between a SKOS
conceptual resource and the concept scheme(s) to which it belongs."
The general idea is "we let the opportunity of using rdfs:isDefinedBy
for some purposes open, but skos:inScheme is clearly what is needed for
concept scheme membership and we keep it in the SKOS language".
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Dec/0058.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptSchemes/MinimalProposal?action=recall&rev=1
see also: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Oct/0141.html, which sums up all the points Antoine made in favor of the accepted resolution.
<ed> JonP++
<mhausenblas> +1
SO RESOLVED
<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]
<mhausenblas> RDFa schedule
<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]
<aliman> My actions under SKOS topic are continued
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph to add pointer to Alistair's mail on grouping constructs as a note to resolution of ISSUE-39. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action05] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph to check whether the common interpretation of rdfs:isDefinedBy fits the reasoning that was made in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Oct/0141.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action10] [CONTINUES]
Daniel: There's still a small issue that needs to be resolved, but it's not worth postponing the review of the draft
... will have version available by next week
... worrying about unintended consequences if the issue isn't resolved before review
<TomB> I suggest Ben take an action
<TomB> Ralph, my phone is bad - can you please convey my suggestion?
Daniel: have begun writing the implementation report and this is looking very good
<TomB> Ralph, can you please suggest Ben take an action?
<TomB> The meeting notes do not reflect the process
<TomB> for moving forward with RDFa
Diego, Ed: No problem reviewing despite postponement
Daniel: Creative Commons is on verge of endorsement of RDFa
<scribe> ACTION: Ben to distribute RDFa syntax draft to reviewers by Monday [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/08-swd-minutes.html#action10]
<mhausenblas> RDFa Implementation Report (first draft)
<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/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html#action05] [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] [DONE]
<scribe> ACTION: Diego to review RDFa syntax document by early January [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action12] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Ed to review RDFa syntax document by early January [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action13] [CONTINUES]
<Ralph> Ed's review
Guus: Comments from reviewers in by beginning of next week
... shooting for publication by Jan 22
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph and Ed to review recipes document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/11-swd-minutes.html#action18] [CONTINUES]
<Ralph> ACTION: Ralph see if W3C Systems Team can help with question on Apache conditional redirects [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/08-swd-minutes.html#action17]
<scribe> ACTION: Dan to ask Apache about conditional redirects [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html#action07] [DROPPED]
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph propose resolution to ISSUE-16 "Default behavior" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes implementations] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html#action03] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph to review recipes document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/11-swd-minutes.html#action18] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Ed to review recipes document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/11-swd-minutes.html#action18] [DONE]
return to topic: SKOS
<aliman> Can Antoine & Ed give update on primer?
<Antoine> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/DraftPrimer
Antoine: suggest that we can move forward with the primer without Action 4
... should be ready for review this week
Guus: volunteers to review?
<mhausenblas> +1
marghe: willing to review
<ed> marghe: thanks!
<marghe> ok for me
Quentin: I can review too
<ed> JonP, Quentin: thanks!
<ed> Antoine: thanks for all your work on the Primer
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph to add pointer to Alistair's mail on grouping constructs as a note to resolution of ISSUE-39. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action05] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph to check whether the common interpretation of rdfs:isDefinedBy fits the reasoning that was made in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Oct/0141.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action10] [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]
<ed> Antoine: thanks again for picking up all that slack