SWD WG -- 22 Jan 2008

<TomB> Previous: http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-minutes.html

<TomB> scribe: benadida

<TomB> scribenick: benadida

Tom: propose that we accept minutes from 15 Jan telecon

RESOLVED, minutes accepted

SKOS

--> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/Deliverables#SKOS

Tom: can we take a decision to publish on this call?

Ralph: if reviewers are happy, don't mind.

Guus: me neither

Alistair: we addressed all comments in reviews, all sensible
... last week agreed to propose a resolution on ISSUE-44

<Ralph> PROPOSED: To publish the SKOS Reference Editors' Draft 18 January 2008 [Alistair 2008-01-22]

<scribe> ... new draft incorporates this proposal

Guus: still need to agree to this.

Alistair: Quentin's comment no longer applies
... exactmatch property, transitive?
... added a number of new issue to tracker, fine-grained, corresponds to decision points

<Ralph> Alistair: added a bunch of editorial notes to -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20080118#L1309 Section 10

Alistair: Vit's review: comment on introduction, "what is skos?"

<scribe> ... new appendices D, E and F for discussions

<ed> Zakim: LC is me

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: a number of points re: section 7, now issues in the tracker
... comments on section titles, some have been renamed

Alistair: ISSUE-36, some text proposed to resolve that issue.
... most of that text pushed to appendix E
... using name of concept scheme as name of RDF graph, then used to query
... Tom raised point that label relations confusingly named, ed note + issue.
... Tom also raised comment about statement of formal definitions, worth discussing.

[scribe lost track of some the discussion]

Alistair: a number of hooks for input and links to issues in tracker.

Tom: resolution to ISSUE-44 on critical path to WD?

Alistair: could publish with issue open, or do we have to resolve it?

Tom: on agenda
... are you proposing that it be published as WD?

Alistair: yes.

Tom: should we discuss ISSUE-44 beforehand?

Ralph: prefer to make decision on WD independent of ISSUE-44

Alistair: plenty in draft that relates to open issues
... could add an additional ed. note.

Ralph: I'd like to see that.

<scribe> ACTION: Alistair to add editorial note linking ISSUE-44 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action01]

Tom: PROPOSAL publish SKOS as WD.

Ralph: second.
... I see a 7.6.6 reference to ISSUE-44, might be enough.

<scribe> ACTION: [DONE] Alistair to add editorial note linking ISSUE-44 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action02]

Alistair: yes it's good enough.

Tom: anyone against publishing as WD?

[no objections]

Ralph: abstentions?

[none]

RESOLUTION: SKOS published as WD

Ralph: there will be a W3C homepage blurb

<scribe> ACTION: Ralph get SKOS WD published [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action03]

Alistair: will publish a revision of editors' draft.

<Ralph> Ralph: please put real refs in for @@X's

<Ralph> Alistair: ok, will do

<scribe> ACTION: [DONE] 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/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action04]

<scribe> ACTION: Guus to schedule to discussion on the notation (syntax) used in SKOS examples in Reference and Primer in two weeks time, i.e. on 29 January [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action05]

<scribe> ACTION: Alistair and Guus write draft section in primer on relationship between SKOS concepts and OWL classes for OWL DL users [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action06]

<scribe> ACTION: Margherita to review the SKOS primer [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action07]

<Ralph> Margherita's review of SKOS Primer

Tom: when should we take a decision to publish SKOS primer?

Antoine: hope to send mail in coming days on this topic

Ed: been out of touch for 3 days, catching up ASAP.

Ralph: not sure we can take a decision today

Tom: agreed.

<scribe> ACTION: Antoine to track the resolutions to ISSUE 36 [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action08]

Antoine: seems like we can aim to resolve this issue

<Ralph> Re: [SKOS] About Closing ISSUE-36 ConceptSchemeContainment [Antoine 2008-01-19]

Tom: some confusion about exact text for agreement. It would help to put the text into meeting record.

[discussion about the text]

<Ralph> Antoine's proposed resolution to ISSUE-36

Ralph: resolve to close ISSUE-36?

Tom: PROPOSE http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0093.html as resolution to ISSUE-36

Alistair: +1, though the wording is slightly different from what Antoine put together

Antoine: we can live with that.

Alistair: yes.

Tom: RESOLVED http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0093.html as resolution to ISSUE-36

RESOLVED http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0093.html as resolution to ISSUE-36

Tom: ISSUE-44: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0052.html

Guus: broad consensus about resolution I sent.
... would we make revised naming for broader and narrower a part of this resolution

Antoine: not at all asking for that.
... I've raised the issue, but I support a resolution to ISSUE-44 without considering this naming convention stuff.

Guus: then I propose to resolve the issue.

<Guus> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0090.html

<Guus> Issue 44

<Ralph> Issue 44

[question missed by Scribe]

Guus: applications shouldn't treat broaderNarrower as transitive
... but broadertransitive narrowertransitive should
... if that becomes common practice, we may accommodate that in the standard.

Tom: PROPOSE that we accept http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0090.html as resolution to ISSUE-44

Ralph: Sean owns the issue, and supports the resolution.

<Ralph> Sean's support for this resolution

Tom: any objections?

[none]

RESOLVED, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0090.html as resolution to ISSUE-44

Alistair: ISSUE-44, originally covered transtivity of skosbroader, but also reflexivity, so all other stuff in ISSUE-44 has been moved to other issues. We can deal with remaining issues separately.

Tom: what about issues 68,69,70.

Alistair: could put them on agenda and talk about them, wait for feedback.

<scribe> ACTION: Alistair to propose an approach to clarify which aspects of the extension module should be in scope for the candidate recommendation package. [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action09]

<scribe> ACTION: Alistair and Guus to prepare material for next week on Concept Schemes vs OWL Ontologies [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action10]

<scribe> ACTION: Guus to write up the issue [of Label Resource] and add to the issue list. [recorded in [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action11]

http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html#action01]

<scribe> --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]

Tom: new SKOS issues
... propose that we postpone until future telecon

<Ralph> scribenick: ralph

RDFa

Ben: Mark and I have been discussing some final details
... I expect to work on the Syntax draft later today
... Mark and I have some differences of opinion

<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 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14]

http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html#action03]

<scribe> -- continues (in progress)

<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] [CONTINUES]

<scribe> ACTION: Diego to review RDFa syntax document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action12] [CONTINUES]

<scribe> ACTION: Ed to review RDFa syntax document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action13] [CONTINUES]

<scribe> ACTION: Ben to prepare the email to request the decision for publishing on Feb 5th [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-minutes.html#action18] [CONTINUES]

Tom: should we change the date?

Ben: let's wait to pick a date until there's actually a draft in the hands of the reviewers

Tom: do you want to elaborate on the nature of the open issues?

Ben: these are edge cases but they seem to be important to resolve in order to phrase the model correctly
... they have to do with "chaining"
... e.g. "I know a Person who knows a Person named Ben who knows a person named Ralph"
... there are different opinions on whether @href completes triples that might appear higher up in the parse tree
... these are fairly advanced uses of RDFa and won't affect initial users
... this issue has some sub-issues
... how to handle @rel='next'
... it's critical to some consumers that the existing keywords be supported
... details of how to do this need to be finalized
... Mark is holding us to high standards of perfection for the document

<scribe> scribenick: benadida

Recipes

<scribe> ACTION: Ralph propose resolution to ISSUE-16 "Default behavior" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14] [CONTINUES]

Ralph: decided not to change anything in current editor's draft

Diego: want to study the issue a bit more.

<scribe> ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes implementations] [recorded in [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]

http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html#action03]

<scribe> --continues

Ralph: +2 months
... not going to make progress until w3c systems folks have finished bringing a DB in house.
... on hold.

<scribe> ACTION: Jon and Diego to propose a decision on publishing the next Recipes draft by next week, i.e. by 22 January [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-minutes.html#action23] [DONE]

<Ralph> ISSUE 16

<Ralph> (content negotiation using User-agent)

Ed: there are rewrite rules in the recipes for serving up vocabs that look for IE, and return HTML representation, ignoring accept headers from IE.
... small issue.

Tom: PROPOSAL to publish Recipes as WD.
... objections?

[none]

scribe: abstentions?

[none]

<ed> not i :)

RESOLVED to publish Recipes as WD.

Guus: we need to send out emails to relevant mailing lists

<scribe> ACTION: Alistair and Diego to solicit feedback via mailing lists on WD [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action22]

<Ralph> s/RESOLUTION: SKOS published as WD/RESOLUTION: SKOS Reference published as WD/

Vocabulary Management

<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]

Vit: had a call, and another scheduled to work on changes to draft.

ADJOURNED

Guus: in a position to review our schedule.

<scribe> ACTION: Chairs to put schedule review on agenda. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action24]

- DRAFT -

SWD WG

22 Jan 2008

Attendees

Contents

SKOS

RDFa

Recipes

Vocabulary Management

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output