See also: IRC log
<TomB> Previous: http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-swd-minutes.html
Tom:The telecom times over the next three weeks will be the same except for Europeans.
Links for the exact times in a given timezone are in the agenda
<Ralph> ("same" as in "same local time")
Tom:Things will be back to normal after three weeks from now (no change in the US, aside from Arizona).
Scribe duty -- Antoine for next week, Clay in reserve; Margherita for March 25
<marghe> ok for me
PROPOSED to accept minutes of the Feb 26 telecon:http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-swd-minutes.html
RESOLVED: to accept minutes of the Feb 26 telecon: http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-swd-minutes.html
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] [CONTINUES]
Tom:F2F Meeting: need to move this discussion to next week, with favored dates of 8-9 May in London
Tom: I would like to verify the schedule through the end of the year.
I noticed that the expected schedule on the deliverables page doesn't include the SKOS Primer. What's the expected schedule for that?
Is it in sync with the SKOS reference?
Ed: There are resolutions that depend on the SKOS reference, so it's tied to that.
Tom:Ed will update that ...
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]
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]
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 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: Alistair to make a proposal for Issue 40 (Concept Coordination) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action09] [CONTINUES]
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] [CONTINUES]
Tom: It would be good if we could include the RDFa Primer in the Deliverables Table.
<Ralph> RDFa Deliverables
<edsu> +q to ask about rdfa profile discussion
Ben: April 2008 updated primer?
Tom: What's the final status?
Ben: I'm currently editing it as a note. April 2008 is a very workable goal to get RDFa primer out as a note...
Tom: I would like to flag this...
Ralph: I'd like to keep this open until Syntax has reached rec status.
Ben: Modulo some tiny details that may come up during the end of last call, this is doable.
ACTION: Ben to clarify target date of publication of the primer as a note and update the deliverables page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-swd-minutes.html#action08]
<Ralph> 28-Feb RDFa TF Telecon record
ACTION: Ben to prepare draft implementation report for RDFa (with assistance from Michael) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14] [CONTINUES]
<Zakim> edsu, you wanted to ask about rdfa profile discussion
Ben: We are tracking the comments that come in from last call via tracker, and it's going ok.
Ed: I'd be interested to hear a summary of the issues to do with the profile ... I think Sean Palmer had some issues.
Ben: I sent a response to him. The core issue here is how you follow your nose from an HTML document with RDFa to the RDF specification.
<Ralph> RDFa test case #1 missing @profile? thread
Ben:We had agreed to use the profile attribute for this, and make it a best practice for RDFa to use it, but we have not made it a requirement -- when people don't have control over the head of a document. We understand that this is a compromise, the latest conclusion is that we're producing all but one test case with the profile attribute. It's the conflict between doing right by web archs and at the same time accounting for real world issues.
Ed:Is the use of the DOCTYPE usual?
<Ralph> Norm Walsh writes
<Ralph> Without the profile, this is *and must be* only a
<Ralph> vanilla XHTML document where the about and property attributes are
<Ralph> totally ignored.
Ben:If you do RDFa using XHTML 1.1 then you do need to use the profile.
Ed: That helps.
Tom: I'm wondering if the primer will articulate the nature of the compromise.
Ben: We've steered clear of this in the primer for the moment.
<Ralph> Ben: the compromise is partly to address users of blogging software and wiki software who can't modify the DOCTYPE or the @profile values on their pages
Tom: it seems important to capture this somewhere.
Ben: I'll think about where best to present this.
Ralph: This is an important architectural issue as well - the TAG may say that they
understand the usability argument, but the architectural issue of self-describing documents might override this.
It might be good for this WG to think about this and have a strong consensus about this.
Ben: We're looking at the self-describing document issue and planning to have a good answer to this.
<edsu> self-describing documents
Tom: Let's verify the schedule, March - December.
Diego: I'm hoping that by the end of this month we can have a new working draft.
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]
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/Deliverables#VocabularyMgt Vocab Managment deliverable
Elisa: I'm working on the comments sent thus far.
Tom: 15 March for internal review editors' draft OK?
Tom: I have a few comments I'll send.
Elisa: Please look for anything large and glaring that's been omitted.
Tom: The issue of domain registration problem is flagged in the current draft
... I can respond to this
... the issue is that domain names are only registered for a finite time
... if the owner dies or fails to renew the registration, the domain name can be lost to a spammer or an entirely unrelated enterprise