See also: IRC log, previous 2008-01-29
RESOLVED to accept minutes of the Jan 29 telecon
Next telecon: 12 February 2008 1600 UTC
Upcoming telecons and scribes - ScribeDuty
ACTION: Chairs to put schedule review on agenda. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action24] [CONTINUED]
guus: which triple notation we will use in our
docs?
... see if we can reach concensus on this.
Alistair: I prefer using Turtle in the ref
... it is most readable
... alternative would be N triples.
... this follows RDF semantics
<Ralph> Turtle - Terse RDF Triple Language
Alistair: In primer, would be nice to see alternative presentations
guus: I have preference for same notation in both docs
<Ralph> Notation3 (N3): A readable RDF syntax
seanb: I'm agnostic. I prefer more human-readable syntax, like Turtle
guus: Ntriples too?
seanb: yes.
Antoine: I don't mind either choice
<Ralph> Turtle Compared To N-Triples
guus: We recently had new document on Turtle
... my preference is Turtle. We used it in best practices too
... I propose the referene and primer use Turtle notation
Ralph: we don't need the syntax extensions in
N3
... Turtle is a subset of N3
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 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action05] [DONE]
RESOLVED: We will use Turtle syntax as defined in SUBM-turtle-20080114
-- SKOS Reference (Alistair, Sean)
ACTION: Alistair to solicit feedback via mailing lists on WD [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action22] [DONE]
Request for Comments: SKOS Reference
ACTION: Alistair to make a proposal for Issue 40 (Concept Coordination) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action09] [CONTINUED]
ACTION: Alistair to respond to original query regarding Issue 41 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action10] [DONE]
<Ralph> issue 41 [Alistair 29-Jan]
ACTION: Antoine to propose resolution to Issue 32 based on text from the primer [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action07] [DONE]
Antoine: Recommends SKOS user to use prefLabel as unambigous means to identify concepts
guus: I propose to accept the resolution
Alistair: We have usage conventions. This is a
use convention in which there are cases we wouldn't follow them
... Most classification systems have non-unique labels
... sounds like we expect people to follow convention--people might not
follow the usage convention
... There are exceptions to the rules
Marghe: This is important to consider the
language
... We may have two prefLabel reference for same language
guus: I think the resolution is ok
Margherita: Can we identify a concept?
... through a URI?
guus: yes we can
... I'm not sure what to do with Alistair's remark
Ralph: I'm not persuaded that Antoine's language is inappropriate or confusing
Alistair: I would like another paragraph saying
"however, there are cases where we expect people won't follow this
convention"
... SKOS data model only captures some things.
... We expect people to follow use conventions not captured in skos data
model
... there are exceptions where people will diverge from practice
... we expect some usage conventions people will follow always and some
they'll want to diverge
Ralph: many other W3C Recommendations use the IETF conventions of MUST and SHOULD. We could use this in the SKOS specifcation, which would make the intend clear, but as we're not currently doing that in the document it could be a lot of work to revise the document.
Alistair: saying SKOS data model doesn't
enforce doesn't bring this out
... We can say this is good practice--I don't want people to think that if
they break this, they aren't following skos
... we should have a paragraph illustrating when people will diverge from the
convention--exceptions to the rule
<Ralph> RFC 2119 "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"
guus: Suggestion to editors of primer to consider this. But I think resolution is ok
Alistair: There are usage conventions that we
could bring out
... we could consider using keywords in relation to those
Ralph: would be lots of work to have doc use keywords
guus: I'd like to propose to accept the resolution
Antoine: ok
Ralph: others in W3C will tell us we SHOULD use the RFC 2119 keywords :)
guus: proposing to resolve issue 32
RESOLUTION: ISSUE-32 resolved per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public /public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0193.html
ACTION: Alistair and Guus to prepare material for next week on Concept Schemes vs OWL Ontologies [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action10] [DONE]
ACTION: Sean to propose postponing the issue. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action08] [DONE]
Sean: The skos core guide includes reference to
rules, which is not clear what these rules are
... current working draft doens't include reference to rules
... I propose we postpone the issue
Ralph: seconded
RESOLUTION: ISSUE-35 postponed
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/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action09] [CONTINUES]
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]
ACTION: Alistair and Guus to check the text in the primer on relationship between Concept Schemes and OWL Ontologies. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action13] [CONTINUES]
RIF comments
Antoine: over past week, we tried to address
comments from people
... regarding relations between OWL classes and skos concepts
...new version tries to address this
... There are a few to-dos for the document
... Two important comments, we want advice on...
... first is getting examples
... do we do this now?
guus: We should have range of examples
<aliman> +1 on range of examples
guus: We should add a complete case study
... No need for one consistent example through the primer
... opinions?
... Don't worry about it in this version.
... In terms of graphs--done by hand?
Alistair: yes
Antoine: this takes lots of time
... better if we do this in later version
guus: you might try a tool to generate the graph
Margherita: There is no need for the graph
guus: with this input, don't let this block publication of the working draft
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/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action06] [DONE]
RDFa Syntax draft ready for review:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0176.html
ACTION: Ed to review RDFa syntax document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action13] [DONE]
-> review of current draft of 'RDFa syntax [Ed 5-Feb]
ACTION: Diego to review RDFa syntax document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action12] [DONE]
-> review of current draft of 'RDFa syntax' [Diego 29-Jan]
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] [CONTINUES]
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] [DONE]
ACTION: Ben to prepare the email to request the decision for publishing on Feb 12th [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action24] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Ralph confirm with the RDFa Task Force that the current RDFa Syntax document is the Last Call candidate and note that SWD WG plans to put that resolution on its 12-Feb agenda [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action19] [DONE]
Ralph: I also confirmed during the RDFa call that the XHTML2 WG understands that we intend to put the question on RDFa Last Call on 12 Feb
ACTION: Diego to solicit feedback via mailing lists on WD [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action22] [DONE]
ACTION: Ralph propose resolution to ISSUE-16 "Default behavior" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14] [CONTINUES]
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] [CONTINUES]
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]
Ralph: Elisa sent me a new editor's draft
... did anyone see mail from her? (I did not)
... ah, but she did update the wiki
Guus: let's ask Elisa to send mail
... I will ask her to send mail
-> issue 46; IndexingAndNonIndexingConcepts
Antoine: not much progress on this one but it
is an identified requirement
... the identification of things in conceptual hierarchies that may look like
concepts but are not, as they can't be used alone
... e.g. LCSH subdivisions
... in LCSH you can augment a concept with another that adds a shade of
meaning
... sometimes you can use these alone but sometimes it has been specifically
related for this qualification purpose
Guus: needs more discussion then
... accept this as an open issue
-> issue 47; MappingProvenanceInformation
Antoine: Jon Phipps and Alan Ruttenburg wanted
this for their applications
... to distinguish mappings according to their sources
... we might go for a solution that resembles the concept scheme containment
solution
... needs more work
Guus: could indicate a possible practice
... I'm willing to own this issue
Antoine: should be able to adapt something from concept scheme containment paragraph
[adjourn]
Change Log
$Log: 05-swd-minutes.html,v $ Revision 1.10 2008/02/06 02:34:29 swick Correct Jon, per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0019.html