See also: IRC log, previous 2008-02-12
RESOLUTION: to accept minutes of the Feb 12 telecon
tomb: remind everyone, we're trying to find a date 4-7 may for f2f, possibly amsterdam
<scribe> ACTION: Chairs to put schedule review on agenda [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action24] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> 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] [DONE]
<scribe> 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] [DONE]
ralph: tf sees no reason to go beyond 6 weeks
Manu: didn't we say 4 weeks?
<TomB> [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0073.html proposed 4 weeks]
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.
... TF felt 4 weeks sufficient.
tomb: looking at message from manu, earlier today, says roughly march 18 if publish today. proposal to have last call finish 4 april?
ralph: need to decide ready for last call
... TF says 4 weeks sufficient, and won't be published today.
<scribe> 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] [DONE]
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.
... this is the proposal?
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).
tomb: comment from ed & diego, then someone review diffs between version we're being asked to approve today, and version approved by xhtml2 wg.
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...
... reference implementation. use of test cases is really nice, happy with that. rest of the comments were nit-picks, typos etc.
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.
ed: i would like to see it go forward too.
tomb: nature of diffs?
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 do we reset the triples list to...
... 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 processing model.
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?
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.
<Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to note remaining open RDFa issues
<Ralph> RDFa open issues
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).
mark: we ignored xml:lang before, even for plain literals, because it's not part of XHTML. we can only use lang.
ralph: current editor's draft refers to xml:lang
mark: you're right
tomb: how serious are remaining open issues
mark: one aspect not done by RDF/XML either, secondly minor question of whether attribute is processed, which can easily be resolved.
<Ralph> issue 7
ralph: issue 7, bunch of issues mostly
editorial, dealt with all of those.
... can mark 7 closed.
<Ralph> issue 8
ralph: issue 8 has to do with lists, we've
decided to defer special processing for lists and containers. (postponed)
... 11 & 43 about primer, those don't affect us right now. issue 63? about canonicalisation of XML literals, just closed.
tomb: any other issues, before we take a decision on last call?
ralph: handling of xml:lang affect ed or diego's comments?
ed: not mine
diego: no for me too
tomb: question about tag's draft finding self-describing web?
ralph: part of my query to tag about 4 april review deadline ok, informal response says ok.
tomb: so ralph good enough to go with? not an obstacle?
ralph: TAG draft finding is not an obstacle to Last Call for RDFa
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.
manu: that URL responds to diego and ivan's latest
tomb: diffs between version of 17th and 18th?
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.
manu: 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
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.
... 18th feb version is approved in TF, what we've been talking about in this telcon.
Ed: I'll second the proposal.
tomb: any objections?
RESOLUTION: that RDFa syntax editors' draft 18 Feb 2008 be published as last call working draft.
<scribe> ACTION: ralph to publish rdfa syntax as last call WD [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/19-swd-minutes.html#action05]
ralph: are we resolved 4 april as end of last
... (longer than 4 weeks) ... any reason to do it sooned?
tomb: today is 19 ...
ralph: could be published by friday 22, so 4 weeks from then is friday march 21
ed: what is normal last call period?
ralph: 4-6 weeks
... 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
manu: can set at 4 and extend to 6? in email i sent this morning, there are no other w3c groups that have reviewed ...
ralph: both tag and wai are interested, not dependendant but interested.
tomb: deadline april 4?
ralph: i think tf was interested in more time to respond to any questions raised during last call.
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.
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.
ralph: mark, could you characterise nature of substantive changes that affect implementations between this editor's draft and previous WD.
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.
tomb: xhtml2 wg opinion on length of review?
mark: didn't discuss
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.
PROPOSED: to have 4 week period for last call for rdfa syntax with option to extend
tomb: any objections?
RESOLUTION: to have 4 week period for last call for rdfa syntax (ending march 21) with option to extend
<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] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> 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] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> 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] [CONTINUES]
ralph: in progress
<scribe> ACTION: Alistair to make a proposal for Issue 40 (Concept Coordination) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action09] [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/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action09] [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: 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]
tomb: deprecated properties, issue to decide
what to do covered in sean;s action
... moving on to open SKOS issues ...
<scribe> 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] [DONE]
tomb: I pasted link to top 10 (actually top 13
or so), need to focus on getting these issues resolved over next few
... taking first one on list, issue 54 ...
<scribe> 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] [DONE]
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.
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.
aliman: sounds good to me
tomb: any objections?
RESOLUTION: Section 3 of the SKOS reference http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-skos-reference-20080125/#L1289 is adopted as a partial solution to ISSUE-54. ISSUE-54 is CLOSEd. ISSUE-80 is now OPENed.
<scribe> ACTION: antoine to close ISSUE 54 in tracker with links to resolution [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/19-swd-minutes.html#action15]
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.
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....
... 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.
... 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...
... while ago.
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.
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.
tomb: move forward, discuss on list.
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?
antoine: really wanted potential resolution to be put in context, but can separate them. wanted to link possible resolution.
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
... issue 47, antoine you have proposed solution. can you suggest a way forward?
... you're proposal is issue 71 is closed...
... sorry i'm getting confused, issue 47 can you suggest a way forward?
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 provenance of mappings. it's in the mail. problem is, it also requires decsion on 71 and 74.
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 .
... 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.
<scribe> New WD published:
<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 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20] [CONTINUES]
2008-02-05. New Editor's draft posted at:
<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] [DONE]
tomb: elisa, how should we proceed?
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.
antoine: about these skos issues, i have a small item for moving forward, can we open 71 and 74. they are still raised.
tomb: let's open issues, put on agenda for next week
antoine: i can take 71
alistair: fine with me (i'll take 74)
tomb: we are adjourned