See also: IRC log, previous 2008-02-19
RESOLUTION: to accept minutes of the Feb 19 telecon
Guus: briefly discuss Face-to-face meeting, day
and a half, in Amsterdam?
... have we made update of charter schedule?
Ralph: we have not yet
... I assume we will ask for charter extension
Guus: charter expires on 1st of April?
Ralph: first or last? ... [checks] ... Our charter expires April 30
Guus: we could have a proposed recommendation for RDFa within the charter period
Guus: after the charter period i expect minimal work on RDFa
benadida: yes, i think that's a fair statement
Guus: is it realistic to assume by the end of april we will have an implementation report ready?
benadida: yes, we have 2 priorities: one is IR and the other is updating the rdfa Primer
Guus: the purpose of the recipes is to publish
as a Note
... diego, what is a realistic time for the recipes publication?
diego: in a few weeks we can have a new draft, i don't know what the schedule is for publishing a w3c note, we need 2 or 3 weeks to make changes in the current draft
Guus: realistic to shoot for 1st of May?
diego: new draft by the end of march
Ralph: note basically means we don't plan on publishing another version
diego: no problem to have a note by 1st of May then
Guus: vit: how about the vocabulary management document?
vit: we are requesting feedback on the
Vocabulary Management doc
... i cannot estimate how long it will take at this point
Elisa: we have a decent editors draft, which
just needs some polish
...waiting on input from a couple of people...
...i think we can publish by the second week of march for internal review
... beyond that i don't know what it takes to get to working draft status
Guus: usually publish a working draft first, and then go for note status -- which is the end point
<Ralph> [I see 7 @@TODOs in the 4-Feb Vocab Management editors' draft ]
Guus: if we can have a document for review in march, we can publish as working draft by end of march, and then take the month of april to get feedback on it, and then publish as note in the beginning of may
Elisa: i have asked for comments from Tom, Alistair and Ralph for specific comments and feedback, if I can get that I think we're at a point where it could be a working draft
Guus: having draft available for internal review shouldn't be later than middle of march
Elisa: anyone who wants to take a look now is more than welcome
Guus: would like to shoot for first of June as
last call for SKOS documents
... is that a reasonable schedule?
aliman: is it reasonable to think we could
publish another draft?
... i think first of june as last call for working draft, would leave us two
months, i think that's a good target
Guus: we can extend a bit, but not too much
... my proposal will be to ask for extension to do skos work to 1st of July,
and then normal schedule to rec
<aliman> sounds ok to me
Guus: will include bring rdfa from proposed rec to rec
Ralph: i can't judge how much the technical
work will be, but it sounds like a plausible proposal to me
... i'm comfortable asking for the extension
... focusing on last remaining big deliverable
<scribe> ACTION: Chairs to draft charter extension proposal for SKOS until July 1st [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-swd-minutes.html#action01]
<Ralph> Ben++ for updating RDFa issue tracker quickly :)
benadida: starting to get feedback, going to
keep track of comments in tracker, to make a nice review
... i really want to thank reviewers
Ralph: we should make a schedule for the Primer
benadida: yes
Guus: SKOS primer has been published
<Ralph> Announcment text for Request for Comments: SKOS Primer [Antoine 2008-02-21]
<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] [DONE]
Guus: how are we doing w/ comments to SKOS reference?
aliman: haven't had a chance to review comments in the last week, I have set up a wiki page to capture all the comments
<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: 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]
<aliman> comments on SKOS reference
aliman: i think the text on concept schemes and owl ontologies looks ok
Guus: i think we need to go on record
<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]
<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] [DONE]
-> ISSUE--54 closed, ISSUE-80 opened [Antoine 2008-02-22]
Guus: is it still open?
Ralph: closed now
Guus: issue 40, concept coordination?
aliman: will be working on that in the next couple of weeks
<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]
Guus: issues 71 and 74
aliman: we opened them last week, and Antoine has sent emails making proposals for each
-> on ISSUE-71 and ISSUE-74 [Alistair 2008-02-21]
Guus: why don't we mention skos:exactMatch?
aliman: there isn't a parallel
... if you look at OWL, it does not have any duplicate properties
... if we are going to have parallel vocabularies we should detail why we
need it
... i tried to restate Antoine's position, it seems like there are lots of
general statements, and that the proposal depends on people doing things a
particular way, there are more questions to answer for why we need the two
types of relationships
... in practice you have to manage your graphs, and their provenance
Guus: is there a logical semantic relationship between them?
aliman: like equivalent properties?
Guus: equivalent would be strange
aliman: we need to clarify usage conventions
Guus: asking if broaderMatch as a subproperty of broader might make sense
<Ralph> [I like Guus' proposal skos:broadMatch rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:broader]
marghe: i think broadMatch between concepts
that belong to different schemes is ok, to keep them separate
... there is a kind of semantic relation between the parallel vocabularies,
somehow they mean the same things
Guus: i'm going to make an add on proposal to Antoine's proposal
marghe: i'm not sure if they are subproperties
Guus: defining something as subPropertyOf does not exclude the case that the two properties have the same extension
marghe: if broaderMatch is a subproperty of broader it's a specialization, but i'm not sure we are specializing
Guus: seems like an issue that would be good for the list
aliman: if your email could include usage conventions i think that would help
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to add to Antoine's proposal for issue 71, a proposal for semantic relations between match relations and standard relations [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-swd-minutes.html#action02]
Guus: aliman how are we doing with your issue priorities list, do we need to take actions
aliman: we openened 71 and 74, it would be good
if we could open a couple more
... if we could open indexing relation issues, and notations that might be a
good thing to do at this stage
Guus: for me the thorniest issue is ISSUE-37, SkosSpecialization
<Ralph> issue 37; SkosSpecialization
aliman: the easy way out of that would be to consider that out of scope
<Ralph> [SKOS] Issues Review [Alistair 2008-02-21]
Guus: i propose we open ISSUE-37 and ISSUE-67
<Ralph> issue 67; StatingFormalDefinitions
Guus: i will be happy to be owner of 37, and alistair could you own 67?
aliman: could i propose we open indexingrelationship ?
Guus: needs someone to issue a proposal
<Ralph> issue 48; IndexingRelationship
Guus: if it doesn't do any particular harm, we
could leave it in, it's kind of a weird animal in the skos language, but i
don't think it does any harm
... happy to leave issue 48 in a raised state
... issue-48
... what about SKOS-OWL patterns?
<Ralph> issue 80; SKOS-OWL-Patterns
Guus: lets leave things for the moment, and
review next week
... would it be good to have a mtg in the beginning of may to talk about
remaining issues
... a day and a 1/2 to get things ready for last call draft
... May 8-9 (Thurs, Fri)
Ralph: i have conflict May 7-9
marghe: if it is may 5 i can also join
<Simone> I've conflict for 6 and 8 May
Ralph: i could join first 1/2 of each day remotely if the meeting is in Amsterdam
Guus: critical for document editors to be there
aliman: free for me at the moment
edsu: i am free
dlrubin: need to look at calendar
Guus: sean and antoine are not here ...
... will come back to this next week
Ralph: i could do the following week
Ralph: i think we've take care of resolution to issue-16, but wordnet implementation is waiting on a database decision at w3c
<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 http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20] [CONTINUES]
Elisa: cleaning up validator bugs
-> Editor's Draft 04 February 2008
Guus: meeting adjourned