15:52:50 RRSAgent has joined #swd 15:52:50 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/02/19-swd-irc 15:52:57 Meeting: SWD WG 15:53:06 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0069.html 15:53:12 Chair: Tom 15:53:20 rrsagent, please make record public 15:53:42 -> http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html previous 2008-02-12 15:54:19 msporny has joined #swd 15:56:09 TomB has joined #swd 15:56:55 Ralph - is the call set up already? 15:57:24 SW_SWD()11:00AM has now started 15:57:30 +Ralph 15:57:34 +[LC] 15:57:49 +??P16 15:57:53 zakim, lc is Ed 15:57:53 +Ed; got it 15:58:01 zakim, ??p16 is Tom 15:58:03 +Tom; got it 15:58:21 Regrets: Jon, Michael, Daniel, Margherita, Simone, Vit, Guus 15:58:42 Antoine has joined #swd 15:58:59 vit has joined #SWD 15:59:09 Quentin has joined #swd 15:59:18 Clay has joined #swd 15:59:26 berrueta has joined #swd 15:59:53 +??P28 15:59:55 + +0122427aaaa 15:59:59 +[LC] 16:00:01 zakim, I am ??P28 16:00:03 zakim, LC is Clay 16:00:05 +msporny; got it 16:00:15 zakim, aaaa is Quentin 16:00:19 +Clay; got it 16:00:31 +Quentin; got it 16:00:51 +[CTIC] 16:01:00 zakim, ctic is Diego 16:01:25 +Diego; got it 16:01:33 + +0186528aabb 16:01:36 zakim, aabb is Alistair 16:01:41 +??P32 16:01:45 +Alistair; got it 16:01:48 zakim, ??p32 is Mark_Birbeck 16:01:48 +Mark_Birbeck; got it 16:01:57 scribenick: aliman 16:03:35 markbirbeck has joined #swd 16:04:03 seanb has joined #swd 16:04:07 Elisa has joined #swd 16:04:56 +Elisa_Kendall 16:05:22 +Antoine_Isaac 16:05:36 +??P41 16:05:36 zakim, ??p41 is Sean 16:05:38 +Sean; got it 16:05:40 TOPIC: ADMIN 16:06:03 RESOLVED: to accept minutes of the Feb 12 telecon: 16:06:04 http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html 16:06:30 tomb: remind everyone, we're trying to find a date 4-7 may for f2f, possibly amsterdam 16:06:42 ACTION: Chairs to put schedule review on agenda [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action24] 16:06:44 --continues 16:06:52 TOPIC: RDFa 16:07:05 ACTION: Ralph to let the Task Force know that SWD requires extended response on editor's draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action04] 16:07:07 --done 16:07:15 ACTION: Ralph to ask task force to recommend appropriate time frame [for Last Call review] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action16] 16:07:17 --done 16:07:29 ralph: tf sees nor eason to go beyond 6 weeks 16:07:35 ??: didn't we say 4 weeks? 16:07:49 http://www.w3.org/mid/47BAF08E.8080600@digitalbazaar.com 16:07:59 s/??:/Manu:/ 16:08:30 [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0073.html proposed 4 weeks] 16:08:38 ralph: yes, 4 weeks. guus had suggested 6. also i did query the tag because they refer to rdfa in upcomging draft findings. also queried web accessibility, whether 6 weeks sufficient. unofficial response from tag member that 4 april is ok. official response from wai, 4 april fine with them too. 16:08:50 ... TF felt 4 weeks sufficient. 16:09:34 tomb: looking at message from manu, earlier today, says roughly march 18 if publish today. proposal to have last call finish 4 april? 16:09:43 ralph: need to decide ready for last call first. 16:09:59 ... TF says 4 weeks sufficient, and won't be published today. 16:10:25 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] 16:10:27 --done 16:10:34 (by shane) 16:11:25 tomb: email from shane in agenda, shane says TF has made all needed edits ... set end of last call comment period 4 april, draft below to last call ... differences between version accepted by xhtml wg 2 weeks ago. 16:11:39 ... this is the proposal? 16:12:38 manu: yes, latest editors draft is one we want to go to last call. Ed's first sets of comments, Diego's first and second set, Ivan's comments integrated. Ed's signed off comments, Diego has too, as has Ivan (except for one small editorial change). 16:13:13 tomb: comment from ed & diego, then someone review diffs between version we're being asked to approve today, and version approved by xhtml2 wg. 16:14:11 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0065.html response to reviews [Manu, 2008-02-17] 16:15:02 ed: i reviewed the changes, manu sent out detailed response. [looks for link]. very happy with response. discussion i saw was focused on processing section, in general my comments were eye-level, not completely specific as were diego's. processing section hard to read, because in natural language, that was my main comment. response was, test cases are geared to that, rather than for one... 16:15:04 ...reference implementation. use of test cases is really nice, happy with that. rest of the comments were nit-picks, typos etc. 16:15:42 diego: all my comments have been properly addressed, happy with current draft, hope to see it published. wonder if might appear new issues once implementors catch up with current draft, but for me current draft is ok. 16:15:49 ed: i would like to see it go forward too. 16:16:01 tomb: nature of diffs? 16:17:26 q+ to note remaining open RDFa issues 16:18:20 mark: there were errors in the processing model which diego spotted, also ivan herman. couple of them resulted in changes to processing model which were simple, e.g. where values weren't being passed down through elements which had no rdfa attributes on. couple of changes which required fairly large changes to processing model. one which diego asked, when to we reset the triples list to... 16:18:21 ...zero, got to heart of recursive processing model, required changes to how levels communicated with each other, return value to be added, completion of triples moved to after recursion step. a few changes, relatively large, but consequence of actual errrors in the porcessing model. 16:19:15 tomb: mark, any reason to think diffs are significant enough to bring that back to xhtml 2 wg, or are you satisfied we can move forward with these corrections? 16:19:52 mark: given way xhtml2 wg reviewed it, not necessary to go back. we asked if anyone feels need to review it, nobody came back. myself, shane, steven fixed these issues. 16:20:33 ack Ralph 16:20:33 Ralph, you wanted to note remaining open RDFa issues 16:20:47 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/products/2 RDFa open issues 16:21:19 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/6 xml:lang 16:21:58 ralph: there are 6 open issues for rdfa, some have to do with primer so can ignore. for issue 6 (xml:lang) on XML literals ... we haven't made any changes there mark? (ignoring xml:lang for XML literals). 16:22:31 mark: we ignored xml:lang before, even for plain literals, because it's not part of XHTML. we can only use lang. 16:22:40 ralph: current editor's draft refers to xml:lang 16:22:47 mark: you're right 16:22:56 tomb: how serious are remaining open issues 16:23:24 mark: one aspect not done by RDF/XML either, secondly minor question of whether attribute is processed, which can easily be resolved. 16:23:43 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/7 issue 7 16:23:56 ralph: issue 7, bunch of issues mostly editorial, dealt with all of those. 16:24:06 ... can mark 7 closed. 16:24:16 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/8 issue 8 16:24:28 ... issue 8 has to do with lists, we;ve decided to defer special processing for lists and containers. (postponed) 16:24:56 ... 11 & 43 about primer, those don't affect us right now. issue 63? about canonicalisation of XML literals, just closed. 16:25:21 tomb: any other issues, before we take a decision on last call? 16:25:33 ralph: handling of xml:lang affect ed or diego's comments? 16:25:36 ed: not mine 16:25:47 diego: no for me too 16:25:51 markbirbeck_ has joined #swd 16:25:59 tomb: question about tag's draft finding self-describing web? 16:26:15 ralph: part of my query to tag about 4 april review deadline ok, informal response says ok. 16:26:32 tomb: so ralph good enough to go with? not an obstacle? 16:26:34 ralph: no. 16:27:21 s/no./TAG draft finding is not an obstacle to Last Call for RDFa 16:28:14 http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080218/ 16:28:20 PROPOSED: that RDFa syntax editors' draft 18 Feb 2008 http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080218/ be published as last call working draft. 16:28:52 manu: that URL responds to diego and ivan's latest 16:29:02 tomb: diffs between version of 17th and 18th? 16:29:38 manu: diffs are still done against Jan 25 (ed & diego reviewied) so all diffs are covered between one that xhtml reviewed, one that ed revied, one that diego reviewed. 16:29:55 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Feb/0087.html 16:30:14 ... diffs between 17 and 18 are mostly ivan's comments, issues responded to in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Feb/0087.html are diffs between 17 and 18 16:30:43 http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080218/rdfa-syntax-diff.html 16:31:34 manu: doc put out on 25 jan, ed & diego reviewed. we put a new one out on 17 feb addressing ed & diego. ivan came in with new set of changes, feb 18 draft is response to ivan's comments. so one on 18 has ed's diego's and ivan's comments integrated. 16:31:54 ... 18th feb version is approved in TF, what we've been talking about in this telcon. 16:32:53 Ed: I'll second the proposal. 16:32:55 tomb: any objections? 16:32:57 RESOLVED: that RDFa syntax editors' draft 18 Feb 2008 http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080218/ be published as last call working draft. 16:33:22 ACTION: ralph to publish rdfa syntax as last call WD 16:33:40 ralph: are we resolved 4 april as end of last call? 16:34:09 .. (longer than 4 weeks) ... any reason to do it sooned? 16:34:14 tomb: today is 19 ... 16:34:34 ralph: could be published by friday 22, so 4 weeks from then is friday march 21 16:34:41 ed: what is normal last call period? 16:34:46 ralph: 4-6 weeks 16:35:46 ralph: my only issue with march 21, I had specifically mentioned 4 april to tag and wai, neither of them indicated and hardship, but reluctant to go back and say only 4 weeks 16:36:15 manu: can set at 4 and extend to 6? in email i sent this morning, there are no other w3c groups that have reviewed ... 16:36:30 ralph: both tag and wai are interested, not dependendant but interested. 16:36:40 tomb: deadline april 4? 16:37:10 ralph: i think tf was interested in more time to respond to any questions raised during last call. 16:37:58 mark: flavour of discussions the other day, great for tag & wai, but lots of comunities may pay attention now, so good to get those things in asap, so can respond. 16:38:55 q+ 16:38:56 tomb: one consideration is time to address issues. but also issue of giving potential reviewers enough time. groups out there will pay attention & review. so if give just 4 weeks, wonder if it allows enough time for other groups to do reviews. looks like tradeoff between time for reviewers and tf to respond. 16:39:26 ralph: mark, could you characterise nature of substantive changes that affect implementations between this editor's draft and previous WD. 16:40:37 mark: easier to implement. rules much more reflect implementation. looking positive. community i'm thinking of is microformats community, some people would like to review, not sure what we gain by giving them more than 4 weeks, so not sure 4 weeks any worse than 6. 16:40:48 tomb: xhtml2 wg opinion on length of review? 16:40:54 mark: didn't discuss 16:41:40 ralph: if we want to go ahead with march 21, i can send followup messages to wai and tag, noting the earlier date, if they have an issue they can come back to us. we have option to extend last call, ample precedent. 16:42:00 PROPOSED: to have 4 week period for last call for rdfa syntax with option to extend 16:42:13 tomb: any objections? 16:42:24 ... [none] 16:42:41 RESOLVED: to have 4 week period for last call for rdfa syntax (ending march 21) with option to extend 16:42:58 ACTION: Ben to prepare draft implementation report for RDFa (with assistance from Michael) [recorded in [recorded in 16:43:00 http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14] 16:43:01 --continues 16:43:25 -Mark_Birbeck 16:43:32 TOPIC: SKOS 16:43:45 ACTION: Sean to propose a way to handle deprecated properties (updating RDF schema) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action06] 16:43:46 --continues 16:43:54 ACTION: Ralph to publish Feb 12th version of SKOS primer as working draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action05] 16:43:56 --continues 16:43:58 ralph: in progress 16:44:21 ACTION: Alistair to make a proposal for Issue 40 (Concept Coordination) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action09] 16:44:23 --continues 16:44:33 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] 16:44:34 --continues 16:44:48 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] 16:44:49 --continues 16:44:58 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] 16:44:59 --continues 16:45:27 tomb: deprecated properties, issue to decide what to do covered in sean;s action 16:45:37 ... moving on to open SKOS issues ... 16:45:55 ACTION: Alistair and Antoine to propose priorities on how to resolve issues 48 through 84 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action12] 16:45:57 --done 16:46:20 tomb: I pasted link to top 10 (actually top 13 or so), need to focus on getting these issues resolved over next few weeks. 16:46:43 ... taking first one on list, issue 54 ... 16:46:52 ACTION: Antoine to propose a resolution for ISSUE 54 by next telecon [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action11] 16:46:53 --done 16:47:49 antoine: idea was, two aspects to issue on concept semantics, one to have declaration of skos concept class in terms of owl class etc., done, other aspect is relationship between instances of skos concept and instances of owl class, and this could be taken on in issue 80 (skos - owl patterns), so proposed to close issue 54 because first aspect is solved, and second can be dealt with in issue 80. 16:48:33 PROPOSED: Section 3 of the SKOS reference is adopted as a partial solution to ISSUE-54. ISSUE-54 is CLOSEd. ISSUE-80 is now OPENed. 16:48:42 aliman: sounds good to me 16:48:49 tomb: any objections? 16:49:02 RESOLVED: Section 3 of the SKOS reference is adopted as a partial solution to ISSUE-54. ISSUE-54 is CLOSEd. ISSUE-80 is now OPENed. 16:49:08 http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-skos-reference-20080125/#L1289 16:49:44 s/SKOS reference/SKOS reference http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-skos-reference-20080125/#L1289/ 16:50:23 ACTION: antoine to close ISSUE 54 in tracker with links to resolution 16:51:30 tomb: moving on to priority 5, issues 74 & 71, there's a link to a posting from alistair (by way of antoine), and discussion by antoine. 16:51:32 q+ 16:54:22 antoine: start with issue 71, about question of parallel mapping vocabulary, or whether keep to semantic relations vocabulary, skos:broader, skos:related, skos:narrower. question is whether to keep this one for mapping purposes, or whether to create specifici mapping vocbaulary (skos:broadMatch, skos:narrowMatch, skos:relatedMatch). Issue 74 is about conventions for using mapping properties.... 16:54:24 ...If adopt parallel mapping vocabulary, there is a question of whether mapping properties are for linking concepts from different concept schemes, and paradigmatic for linking within concept schemes, as said in SKOS reference now. Question is, do we keep this stance as a recommendation. 16:55:28 ... my point, also in skos primer, my position is we can actually use mapping relation within a concept scheme, and paradigmatic relations between concept schemes, because there is a fundamental difference between motiviation. paradigmatic relations have strong motivation level, while mapping relations more fuzzy, not supposed to be endorsed by creators. discussion about this skos list a... 16:55:30 ...while ago. 16:56:14 tomb: I see you propose a resolution, we're close to top of hour. don't have time to close this. would you like to put this resolution to close 74, move forward to next telcon? discussion on list. 16:56:50 antoine: would be nice if people on list could react, i'm quite convinced by current position, supported by positions expressed on skos list. would like to hear about wg disagreeing with this. alistair has views different from mine. 16:56:59 tomb: move forward, discuss on list. 16:57:57 sean: can I make a quick request. finding it difficult to follow arguments, in some messages discuss both issues. would it be possible to state resolutions you propose in separate emails, want to be clear about what you're proposing. in 0062, resolution to two issues, a little confusing. possible to have resolution to each issue in separate message? 16:58:26 antoine: really wanted potential resolution to be put in context, but can separate them. wanted to link possible resolution. 16:58:58 tomb: let's take this forward, try to resolve next week, antoine you could consider breaking out two individual messages, otherwise we'll need to separate them out during the call when we try to resolve them 16:59:10 ... issue 47, antoine you have proposed solution. can you suggest a way forward? 16:59:31 ... you're proposal is issue 71 is closed... 16:59:48 ... sorry i'm getting confused, issue 47 can you suggest a way forward? 17:00:40 antoine: yes, there are two solutions on table, proposed to close issue by adopting one, to represent provenance of mappings as provenance of concept schemes as we've decided as per issue on concept scheme provenance. propose to adopt similar for porvenance of mappings. it's in the mail. problem is, it also requires decsion on 71 and 74. 17:01:10 tomb: there is would be helpful to have clear proposed resolution. you have two solutions. let's decide first on 71, then move forward with this [47]. 17:01:53 ... alistair you also had in your mail comments on some of the other issues we haven't covered today. if in general if we could split out proposed solutions to separate threads, then could put onto agenda several days before the call, give people a chance to prepare. 17:02:07 TOPIC: RECIPES 17:02:31 New WD published: 17:02:32 http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-swbp-vocab-pub-20080123/ 17:02:34 http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/Vocab/principles-20080204 17:02:36 ACTION: Ralph propose resolution to ISSUE-16 "Default behavior" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14] 17:02:37 --continues 17:02:39 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] 17:02:40 --continues 17:02:48 TOPIC: VOCABULARY MANAGEMENT - see http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/Deliverables#VocabularyMgt 17:02:59 2008-02-05. New Editor's draft posted at: 17:03:01 http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/Vocab/principles-20080204 17:03:02 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] 17:03:04 --done 17:03:20 tomb: elisa, how should we proceed? 17:03:45 sorry need to go to another meeting 17:03:51 -Quentin 17:04:07 elisa: ralph alerted me to errors in the doc. sent emails to yourself and alistair, some other folks too, so i'm waiting on input and clean up what i have. hoping get some feedback in next couple of weeks, then post one more editor's draft and then ask for reviews. 17:04:56 antoine: about these skos issues, i have a small item for moving forward, can we open 71 and 74. they are still raised. 17:05:59 tomb: let's open issues, put on agenda for next week 17:06:04 antoine: i can take 71 17:06:12 alistair: fine with me (i'll take 74) 17:06:26 tomb: we are adjourned 17:06:26 -Clay 17:06:27 -msporny 17:06:27 -Ed 17:06:29 -Elisa_Kendall 17:06:30 -Sean 17:06:31 -Diego 17:06:32 -Ralph 17:06:36 rrsagent, please draft minutes 17:06:36 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/02/19-swd-minutes.html aliman 17:07:14 zakim, who is on irc? 17:07:14 I don't understand your question, aliman. 17:07:25 zakim, please list attendees 17:07:25 As of this point the attendees have been Ralph, Ed, Tom, +0122427aaaa, msporny, Clay, Quentin, Diego, +0186528aabb, Alistair, Mark_Birbeck, Elisa_Kendall, Antoine_Isaac, Sean 17:07:25 zakim, please list attendees 17:07:28 As of this point the attendees have been Ralph, Ed, Tom, +0122427aaaa, msporny, Clay, Quentin, Diego, +0186528aabb, Alistair, Mark_Birbeck, Elisa_Kendall, Antoine_Isaac, Sean 17:07:40 rrsagent, please draft minutes 17:07:40 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/02/19-swd-minutes.html aliman 17:08:25 seanb has left #swd 17:08:49 -Antoine_Isaac 17:09:01 -Alistair 17:09:02 -Tom 17:09:05 edsu has left #swd 17:10:54 SW_SWD()11:00AM has ended 17:10:55 Attendees were Ralph, Ed, Tom, +0122427aaaa, msporny, Clay, Quentin, Diego, +0186528aabb, Alistair, Mark_Birbeck, Elisa_Kendall, Antoine_Isaac, Sean 17:11:41 zakim, bye 17:11:41 Zakim has left #swd 17:12:50 markbirbeck has joined #swd 17:17:11 Antoine has left #swd