16:02:41 RRSAgent has joined #swd 16:02:41 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-irc 16:02:43 Zakim has joined #swd 16:02:46 rrsagent, bookmark 16:02:46 See http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-irc#T16-02-46 16:02:50 Quentin has joined #swd 16:02:51 zakim, this will be swd 16:02:56 Meeting: SWD WG 16:02:59 Chair: Guus 16:03:04 ok, Tom, I see SW_SWD()11:00AM already started 16:03:12 Ralph has joined #swd 16:03:44 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0071.html 16:03:45 scribe: diego 16:03:51 scribenick: berrueta 16:04:00 rrsagent, please make record public 16:04:09 zakim, who's on the call? 16:04:13 On the phone I see no one 16:04:13 zakim, who is here? 16:04:21 On the phone I see no one 16:04:31 Previous: http://www.w3.org/2008/01/08-swd-minutes.html 16:04:33 On IRC I see Ralph, Quentin, Zakim, RRSAgent, marghe, aliman, JonP, seanb, berrueta, Tom, vit, Simone, Clay, Antoine, Guus 16:05:06 Regrets: 16:05:40 topic: admin 16:05:40 dlrubin has joined #swd 16:05:48 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0071.html 16:06:08 restarting in 2 minutes to recover bridge state 16:06:09 PROPOSED to accept minutes of the Jan 8 telecon: http://www.w3.org/2008/01/08-swd-minutes.html 16:06:19 RESOLUTION: accepted minutes 16:06:39 next telecon: 22 January 2008 16:06:46 topic: skos 16:06:58 ACTION: Quentin to review Editor's draft of SKOS Reference [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/20-swd-minutes.html#action02] 16:07:02 --done 16:07:07 ACTION: Vit to review Editor's draft of SKOS Reference [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/20-swd-minutes.html#action03] 16:07:09 --done 16:07:23 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0004.html Quentin's review of SKOS reference 16:07:28 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0044.html Vit's review of SKOS reference 16:08:17 aliman: looked at those reviews 16:08:40 ... neither quentin's nor vit's are about technical issues 16:08:46 ... mostly about wording 16:09:14 Zakim has joined #swd 16:09:15 Guus: propose to write a new version and ask the reviewers 16:09:21 zakim, who's on the call? 16:09:23 sorry, Ralph, I don't know what conference this is 16:09:25 zakim, this is swd 16:09:31 On IRC I see dlrubin, Ralph, Quentin, RRSAgent, marghe, aliman, JonP, seanb, berrueta, Tom, vit, Simone, Clay, Antoine, Guus 16:09:34 ok, Ralph; that matches SW_SWD()11:00AM 16:09:38 zakim, who's on the phone? 16:09:46 On the phone I see [LC], ??P19, ??P31, ??P18, Margherita_Sini (muted), ??P37, +012242aaaa, Jon_Phipps, Antoine_Isaac, Ralph, ??P43, ??P49, ??P53, ??P57, +1.617.395.aabb 16:10:24 guus: send the new draft and a mail explaining how the comments by the reviewer's were addressed 16:10:36 aliman: quite aggressive 16:10:41 zakim, Jon_Phipps is me 16:10:44 +JonP; got it 16:10:45 guus: you can put TODO's 16:10:52 edsu has joined #swd 16:11:14 +[LC.a] 16:11:28 zakim, LC.a is me 16:11:29 tom: discussion on the naming of some properties and a class that contain the word "relation" 16:11:37 +edsu; got it 16:11:50 q+ to comment on label naming 16:12:00 ... suggests it might be clearer if we re-order the words 16:12:08 ... "relatedLabel" 16:12:22 +1 16:12:39 Guus: please take this into consideration for the draft 16:13:14 zakim, ??p37 is Alistair 16:13:14 +Alistair; got it 16:13:25 Quentin has joined #swd 16:13:52 aliman: i choose the previous name to make a distinction with all of the "*Label" relationships 16:14:18 Guus: suggests to add a note to explain this 16:14:37 zakim, ??p19 is Guus 16:14:37 +Guus; got it 16:14:59 zakim, ??p53 is Sean 16:14:59 +Sean; got it 16:15:51 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0004.html 16:15:52 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0004.html 16:15:58 zakim, who is here? 16:15:58 On the phone I see edsu, [LC], Guus, ??P31, ??P18, Margherita_Sini (muted), Alistair, +012242aaaa, JonP, Antoine_Isaac, Ralph, ??P43, ??P49, Sean, ??P57, +1.617.395.aabb 16:16:02 zakim, aaaa is Quentin 16:16:03 On IRC I see Quentin, edsu, Zakim, dlrubin, Ralph, RRSAgent, marghe, aliman, JonP, seanb, berrueta, Tom, vit, Simone, Clay, Antoine, Guus 16:16:07 +Quentin; got it 16:16:16 zakim, ??p31 is Simone 16:16:17 +Simone; got it 16:16:40 aliman: quentin pointed an inconsistency between the text and the resolution at the f2f 16:17:17 ... we can do a quick fix 16:17:33 zakim, Simone is really Diego 16:17:33 +Diego; got it 16:17:56 Guus: let's add pointers to the issues in the document 16:18:22 zakim, aabb is Ben 16:18:23 +Ben; got it 16:18:32 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] 16:18:35 --continues 16:19:34 GuusS has joined #swd 16:20:06 guus: move on into SKOS primer 16:20:14 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/DraftPrimer Current draft of SKOS Primer 16:20:25 Quentin: i sent the review today 16:20:36 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0078.html 16:21:04 Quentin: one of my comments is that we do not make any reference in the primer to the semantics 16:21:39 ... a use case instead of separate examples would be quite useful 16:22:37 ... other comments are related to the issues to be discussed later 16:23:06 marghe: i plan to send my review by next week 16:23:21 guus: these actions (on marghe and Quentin) were not captured last week 16:23:42 Quentin++ 16:23:55 ACTION: marghe to review the SKOS primer 16:25:05 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] 16:25:08 --continues 16:25:16 deadline 22 Jan 16:25:35 guus: move to ISSUE 36 16:25:36 q+ to ask about Tom's comments on Primer (in the agenda) 16:25:51 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0019.html Antoine on problems with closing ISSUE-36 16:26:01 Antoine: last week we made a resolution about ISSUE 36 16:26:12 ... actually when looking at the initial wording of the issue 16:26:26 ... it is about linking relationships with the schema 16:26:39 ... so the resolution is not complete, part of the problem still exists 16:27:02 GuusS: our resolution last week was an ammendment of a previous one 16:27:30 ... we need to track these resolutions 16:27:36 ... please look at the initial wording 16:27:52 q+ to mention I have a placeholder for ... in reference 16:28:41 aliman, you wanted to comment on label naming and to mention I have a placeholder for ... in reference 16:29:29 aliman: in SKOS reference we have a small note: we haven't made any commitment on this issue 16:30:05 ... it is implied that there will be a section showing a pattern for querying 16:30:48 ack Tom 16:30:48 Tom, you wanted to ask about Tom's comments on Primer (in the agenda) 16:30:48 http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptSchemes/MinimalProposal?action=recall&rev=1 16:31:59 .. the reference has a section on SKOS and named graphs 16:32:31 GuusS: to Antoine: write what you think the resolution to issue 36 should be 16:33:10 Tom: discusses about the syntax of the examples 16:33:19 ... N3 might be more readable 16:33:28 ... it depends on the intended audience 16:33:52 I heard Tom express concern that N3 could be _less_ readable ? 16:33:53 ... which components of SKOS are basic and which are advanced? 16:34:55 s/N3/graphs represented as pictures/ 16:35:11 -> http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/2008/SUBM-n3-20080114/ Notation3 (N3): A readable RDF syntax 16:35:18 Ralph: nice! 16:35:27 Tom: which document should be cited for N3? 16:35:29 -> http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/2008/SUBM-turtle-20080114/ Turtle - Terse RDF Triple Language 16:35:44 GuusS: it makes sense to use the same notation in both documents 16:35:58 ... unless there is a very good reason 16:36:18 ... many people will read first the primer and then the reference 16:37:14 GuusS: i suggest to the editors to look at the pointers by Ralph 16:37:33 Antoine: we need to sync with aliman and seanb 16:38:02 ACTION: Guus to schedule to discussion on the notation in two weeks time 16:38:20 ACTION: Antoine to track the resolutions to ISSUE 36 16:38:47 s/notation/notation (syntax) used in SKOS examples in Reference & Primer/ 16:38:53 GuusS: move to issue 44, only a few minutes for this 16:39:08 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0052.html This and other threads in the mailing list 16:39:48 Antoine: there is some discussion on if broader/narrows should be transitive 16:39:57 q+ to comment on transitivity of broader 16:40:06 ... some people are not convinced by our decission during the f2f 16:40:55 GuusS: i suggest in the reference we state that broad/narrower are not transitive, discuss the rationale, and point to a specialization in which we define a transitive broad/narrower 16:41:17 aliman: there is a need for both of them in different use cases 16:41:29 ... this is common pattern 16:42:11 ... a design pattern to solve this is two have a non-transitive property and a transitive subproperty 16:42:27 GuusS: i agree, i know this pattern 16:43:15 ... but technically it cannot be a subproperty, it leads to inconsistent semantics 16:45:30 aliman: one of the rules of thumb in OWL reference is "do not mess with the vocabulary" 16:46:00 +Elisa_Kendall 16:46:03 ... wonders if we should have rules of thumb for SKOS 16:46:17 GuusS: this is a different matter, SKOS is not a language like OWL 16:46:38 Elisa has joined #swd 16:47:04 seanb: alistair's point is that if we allow users to make assumptions about the vocabulary, we can introduce an hindrance on interoperability 16:47:32 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-minutes.html Ralph 16:47:37 GuusS: leave this for now 16:48:02 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] 16:48:05 --continues 16:48:11 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] 16:48:12 --continues 16:48:18 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] 16:48:19 --continues 16:48:20 -Margherita_Sini 16:48:28 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] 16:48:38 --done 16:48:41 -> http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action05 resolution of ISSUE-39 16:48:53 "RESOLUTION: Accept Antoine's proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Dec/0083.html as a resolution to ISSUE-39." 16:48:56 Ralph: do you agree with closing the issue? 16:49:16 ACTION: Ralph to check whether the common interpretation of [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action10] 16:49:38 --continues 16:50:01 GuusS: the second action is a dup 16:50:07 topic: rdfa 16:50:43 ben: we hope in a couple of days we can have something for the reviewers 16:51:38 -Antoine_Isaac 16:51:57 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] 16:51:59 --continues 16:52:03 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] 16:52:05 --continues 16:52:08 ACTION: Ben to distribute RDFa syntax draft to reviewers by Monday [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/08-swd-minutes.html#action10] 16:52:10 --continues 16:52:14 ACTION: Diego to review RDFa syntax document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action12] 16:52:16 --continues 16:52:20 ACTION: Ed to review RDFa syntax document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action13] 16:52:22 --continues 16:53:10 GuusS: if the document is available by the end of this week, we have to postpone the decission by one week 16:53:28 +Antoine_Isaac 16:53:46 q+ to ask if there is an action on the RDFa editors to request a decision 16:54:06 q- 16:54:17 ... the decission might be scheduled for Feb 5th 16:54:21 Tom, you wanted to ask if there is an action on the RDFa editors to request a decision 16:55:20 ACTION: Ben to prepare the email to request the decission for publishing on Feb 5th 16:55:40 topic: recipe 16:55:49 ACTION: Ralph to review recipes document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/11-swd-minutes.html#action18] 16:55:50 --done 16:55:54 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0062.html Ralph's review of the Recipes 16:56:00 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] 16:56:02 --done 16:56:18 ACTION: Ralph propose resolution to ISSUE-16 "Default behavior" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14] 16:56:20 --continues 16:56:30 ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes implementations] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html#action03] 16:56:32 --continues 16:57:12 jon: the reviews are great, we are working on integrating their comments 16:57:30 ... we are still shooting for a pre-publication next week 16:57:54 ... w.r.t. the comments from W3C Systems Team, not sure 16:58:27 GuusS: if you can integrate ralph's and ed's comments, we are in a position to publish a new draft 16:58:44 ... decission in Jan 29 16:59:16 -Antoine_Isaac 16:59:42 ACTION: Jon and Diego to propose a decission on publishing the next Recipes draft by next week 16:59:56 GuusS: make sure that the WG has the proposal 17:00:02 topic: vocabulary management 17:00:28 zakim, ??p43 is Vit 17:00:28 +Vit; got it 17:00:52 Elisa: planning to hold a call later this week and to work on our action 17:01:01 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] 17:01:03 zakim who is here? 17:01:04 --continues 17:01:46 zakim, ??p57 is Daniel 17:01:46 +Daniel; got it 17:01:51 zakim, [lc] is Clay 17:02:18 +Clay; got it 17:02:20 zakim, ??p18 is TOm 17:02:20 +TOm; got it 17:02:40 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-minutes.html Ralph 17:03:09 zakim, list attendees 17:03:09 As of this point the attendees have been Margherita_Sini, +012242aaaa, Antoine_Isaac, Ralph, +1.617.395.aabb, JonP, edsu, Alistair, Guus, Sean, Quentin, Diego, Ben, Elisa_Kendall, 17:03:14 ... Vit, Daniel, Clay, TOm 17:03:16 -Ben 17:03:18 [adjourned] 17:03:21 * can also stay on 17:03:26 -Vit 17:03:31 -Elisa_Kendall 17:03:42 antoine, can you call back in? 17:04:03 -??P49 17:04:16 -Diego 17:04:28 hopefully not your cube mate 17:04:35 [adjourned] 17:04:42 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-minutes.html Ralph 17:05:52 +Antoine_Isaac 17:05:55 -Clay 17:06:29 Topic: transitive broader [informal] 17:06:48 Antoine: the idea is that transitive broader be a superproperty of broader 17:06:57 scribenick: ralph 17:07:15 Antoine: if we do that then statements using broader cannot be retrieved using the super property 17:07:31 ... the standard modelling pattern is good but we have a standardization problem 17:07:44 Daniel: so there really aren't two types of 'broader' 17:07:50 Clay has left #swd 17:07:52 -Antoine_Isaac 17:07:55 ... to me, there's only one kind of 'broader' 17:08:23 Sean: seems to me from reading the discussion that people want to be able to query against 'broader' and get transitive closure on query 17:08:37 ... so there's really only one 'broader' but there's a way to query over a more general notion 17:08:43 ... the general notion would not be used in assertions 17:08:54 Daniel: I don't see a difference between query and assertion 17:09:03 Sean: there may be inferences I can draw from assertions 17:09:28 +Antoine_Isaac 17:09:50 Daniel: in the OWL community you make limited assertions and do a lot of inferencing 17:10:14 -Antoine_Isaac 17:10:19 Alistair: if transitive form is superproperty we could have a convention that we only ever assert the subproperty 17:10:28 ... but the superproperty is available for query 17:12:51 +Antoine_Isaac 17:12:55 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/thes/1.0/guide/20040504/#3.9 17:14:20 Guus: [worries about community usage] 17:14:31 Alistair: choice of which is subproperty and which is superproperty 17:15:24 ... direct one could be 'broader' -- the one that people use -- which would affect existing SKOS data 17:15:42 Sean: is there really an analog for the transitive closure of 'broader' in current thesauri ? 17:15:58 ... if I have a paper thesaurus, I don't really have a transitive closure without having to do a lot of work 17:16:06 ... the transitive closure is not actually represented anywhere 17:16:16 Alistair: agree, but the point is the practicalities 17:16:29 ... in certain applications it is convenient to compute the transitive closure and then query it 17:17:00 Sean: that's fine, which suggests the pattern of using direct 'broader' in assertions and a transitive 'broader' that I use in queries 17:17:44 Guus: whatever we do, the transitive property should be a superproperty of the direct one else the semantics are wrong 17:18:08 ... the direct property: "a is a direct broader term of b", without saying anything about transitivity 17:18:24 ... remember that transitivity does not inherit 17:18:37 Daniel: I'm worried about this confusing the community 17:18:57 Guus: Sean points out that the community does not currently have this logical notion; they do it at query time 17:19:23 Sean: yes, I'm suggesting non-transitive 'broader' used in assertions and a different, transitive, relation that is only used in query 17:19:42 ... I hope this satisfies those who want 'broader' to be transitive in some way 17:19:46 Alistair: I agree 17:20:24 Guus: but be clear that this is not [currently] being used in a pure logical way; it's a procedural thing 17:20:51 Ed: there's an example at the end of the primer, but it doesn't follow this pattern and would need to be changed 17:21:19 Quentin: the transitive version of broader and narrower should be present; we're speaking of creating knowledge organization systems so these should be taken logically 17:21:51 ... in some application the developer might want to use SKOS as a simple representation and might want some very simple logical inference 17:22:07 ... without requiring the full capabilities of OWL 17:22:21 ... their concept of hierarchy is a simplification of subsumption 17:22:41 ... this might just mean that we need to look at a SKOS extension 17:23:01 ... but I know there is opposition to extensions as they require additional namespaces 17:23:40 Guus: if you're going to write an assertion, e.g. in a namespace document, you use 'broader' and if you want to write a query you can use 'broaderTransitive' 17:24:09 Alistair: if we do have 'broaderTransitive' or 'broaderClosed' in SKOS then two of the semantic conditions in the data model become very easy to state 17:24:27 ... e.g. 'skos:related disjointfrom skos:broader' 17:24:44 ... and to assert some irreflexive relations 17:25:15 ... I would like to see a broaderTransitive/broaderClosed superproperty described normatively 17:25:26 ... rather than omitting it or leaving it to a community extension 17:25:35 Antoine: agree 17:25:48 Sean: agree, and it would reduce the repetition of this discussion 17:26:17 Guus: any chance of getting this written up for discussion next week? 17:26:41 Alistair: are you suggesting we introduce two new terms in the SKOS vocabulary and include them in the editor's draft? 17:26:52 Guus: yes, in particular the editor's draft we're going to review next week 17:27:32 Ralph: I'd recommend sending this to the WG in a separate email 17:27:42 Sean: related to ISSUE 44 17:28:08 -Daniel 17:28:12 -Quentin 17:28:14 -edsu 17:28:15 -Ralph 17:28:17 -Alistair 17:28:18 seanb has left #swd 17:28:20 -Antoine_Isaac 17:28:20 edsu has left #swd 17:28:22 -Guus 17:28:23 -JonP 17:28:26 -Sean 17:28:31 -TOm 17:28:32 quentin: transitive version of broader should be present -- speaking of creating KOS, forcing applications to take them logically. In some systems & applications, use SKOS as simple representation, and simple inference with it (not full OWL). SKOS vocab to do thesauri, taxonomies, hierarchies, concept of hierarchy very simplification of subsumption, as broader is loose meaning. SKOS... 17:28:34 Al's notes ... 17:28:35 SW_SWD()11:00AM has ended 17:28:35 transitive as super ... 17:28:36 Attendees were Margherita_Sini, +012242aaaa, Antoine_Isaac, Ralph, +1.617.395.aabb, JonP, edsu, Alistair, Guus, Sean, Quentin, Diego, Ben, Elisa_Kendall, Vit, Daniel, Clay, TOm 17:28:37 antoine: problem, all statements asserted using transitive broader cannot be retrieved by 17:28:38 daniel: aren't two types of broader? 17:28:40 sean: if use pattern (transitive super) don't use that for assertions, use for querying? people want to query against broader, and get transitive when query; assertions about direct; 17:28:42 daniel: assertions vs. query? 17:28:43 sean: assertions -- directly asserted; may be inferences I can draw. 17:28:45 daniel: proposing two different types of broader, confusing. agree with you, make minimal assertions, do the rest by inference, legitimate. 17:28:47 guus: BT standard term in thesaurus community; what people state as BT is always direct broader; so by definition, our semantics of broader, if it is equal to BT, then it needs to be not transitive, otherwise people get confused. 17:28:49 quentin: as a sub-property, examples described as in skos core guide? 17:28:51 guus: sub-property has to be direct; if do that, what we call broader, will not be same semantics as thesauri, because only assert direct one. that's only way semantics. 17:28:54 aliman: other way around from guus, would affect existing SKOS data; if do as guus says, 17:28:56 sean: analog for transitive closure of broader in thesauri? If have a paper thesaurus, don't really have transitive closure, not represented... 17:28:59 aliman: required 17:29:01 sean: to have skos:broader as direct, and introduce some new super-property as transitive closure 17:29:03 quentin: I would agree as well. 17:29:05 guus: I you want to have a transitive and a direct, then transitive is always super-property. transitivity doesn't inherit 17:29:08 daniel: existing relations so, worried about confusing the community. How do you know which to use? 17:29:10 guus: sean is saying, in community, don't have logical notion. Do it at query/computation time. 17:29:12 sean: broader used in assertions, not transitive, then property used in query which is transitive. relatively clear statement, answers concerns of people requiring broader to be transitive. 17:29:15 guus: clear not being used in a logical sense; if want to get closure, have to do procedural thing; haven't seen logical use of thesauri yet. 17:29:18 sean: needs some careful explanation in reference and primer. 17:29:20 ed: in tail end of primer, example of doing it not the right way, will have to be changed. 17:29:23 antoine: will not be huge effort 17:29:24 ...extension described in docs earlier, need to look at again. 17:29:26 guus: broader & broaderTransitive should be in spec, if write docs, use broader, if want to query, use broaderTransitive. If SKOS spec specifies broaderTransitive. 17:29:29 aliman: makes some conditions easier to state 17:29:31 guus: comes down to wording 17:29:33 aliman: would like to see super-property in the spec 17:29:35 antoine: i agree 17:29:37 sean: i agree 17:29:39 guus: i agree too ... can we have this in some short form in editor's. Two new URIs in SKOS vocabulary. Suggest broaderTransitive rather than broaderClosed 17:29:42 ralph: recommend separate email on this -- here's what we've done to editor's draft and why 17:29:44 guus: who is issue owner? temporary resolution of issue 44. I'll write it tonight. 17:29:51 i/transitive as super/scribenick: aliman 17:30:12 rrsagent, draft minutes 17:30:12 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-minutes.html Ralph 17:30:18 did in my desktop wiki :) 17:30:44 zakim, bye 17:30:44 Zakim has left #swd 17:30:59 rrsagent, bye 17:30:59 I see 24 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-actions.rdf : 17:30:59 ACTION: Quentin to review Editor's draft of SKOS Reference [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/20-swd-minutes.html#action02] [1] 17:30:59 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-irc#T16-06-58 17:30:59 ACTION: Vit to review Editor's draft of SKOS Reference [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/20-swd-minutes.html#action03] [2] 17:30:59 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-irc#T16-07-07 17:30:59 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] [3] 17:30:59 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-irc#T16-18-32 17:30:59 ACTION: marghe to review the SKOS primer [4] 17:30:59 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-irc#T16-23-55 17:30:59 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] [5] 17:30:59 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-irc#T16-25-05 17:30:59 ACTION: Guus to schedule to discussion on the notation in two weeks time [6] 17:30:59 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-irc#T16-38-02 17:30:59 ACTION: Antoine to track the resolutions to ISSUE 36 [7] 17:30:59 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-irc#T16-38-20 17:30:59 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] [8] 17:30:59 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-irc#T16-48-02 17:30:59 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] [9] 17:30:59 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-irc#T16-48-11 17:30:59 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] [10] 17:30:59 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-irc#T16-48-18 17:30:59 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] [11] 17:30:59 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-irc#T16-48-28 17:30:59 ACTION: Ralph to check whether the common interpretation of [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action10] [12] 17:30:59 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-irc#T16-49-16 17:30:59 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] [13] 17:30:59 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-irc#T16-51-57 17:30:59 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] [14] 17:30:59 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-irc#T16-52-03 17:30:59 ACTION: Ben to distribute RDFa syntax draft to reviewers by Monday [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/08-swd-minutes.html#action10] [15] 17:30:59 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-irc#T16-52-08 17:30:59 ACTION: Diego to review RDFa syntax document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action12] [16] 17:30:59 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-irc#T16-52-14 17:30:59 ACTION: Ed to review RDFa syntax document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action13] [17] 17:30:59 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-irc#T16-52-20 17:30:59 ACTION: Ben to prepare the email to request the decission for publishing on Feb 5th [18] 17:30:59 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-irc#T16-55-20 17:30:59 ACTION: Ralph to review recipes document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/11-swd-minutes.html#action18] [19] 17:30:59 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-irc#T16-55-49 17:30:59 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] [20] 17:30:59 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-irc#T16-56-00 17:30:59 ACTION: Ralph propose resolution to ISSUE-16 "Default behavior" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14] [21] 17:30:59 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-irc#T16-56-18 17:30:59 ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes implementations] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html#action03] [22] 17:30:59 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-irc#T16-56-30 17:30:59 ACTION: Jon and Diego to propose a decission on publishing the next Recipes draft by next week [23] 17:30:59 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-irc#T16-59-42 17:30:59 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] [24] 17:30:59 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-irc#T17-01-01 17:32:34 dlrubin has left #swd