See also: IRC log
<TomB> Previous: http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-swd-minutes.html
<scribe> Scribenick: Clay
<scribe> Scribe: Clay
<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] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to set up a poll for a meeting 6-8 May with different possible venues Amsterdam, Boston, London or Washington [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-swd-minutes.html#action02] [DONE]
[scribe:] Guus completed the poll during the meeting, and posted this link to access it: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/39408/FTF-May-2008-poll/.
Tom: Glitch in March 11 minutes re: pending actions not appearing in agenda or meeting minutes
... re: action on Guus re: ISSUE-71
<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] [DONE]
scribe: action on Alistair to clarify which aspects of extension should be in scope
... not recorded as closed
<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/2007/12/11-swd-minutes.html#action06] [DONE]
RESOLUTION: Minutes from March 11 accepted. Next meeting 25 March 2008 *1500* UTC.
<scribe:> 25 March 2008 *1500* UTC-> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=03&day=25&year=2008&hour=15&min=00&sec=0&p1=0.
<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: 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 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]
Alistair: re: SKOS-XL
... suggesting that it doesn't have to be in-scope for the current document, can be done afterward
Tom: feedback from ISO 16642 group that would like to see this folded into the SKOS reference
... comments from Japanese colleague who needs support for Yomi transcription (alt. forms of a label in transcribed form)
Alistair: possibly leave it for ISO 16642
... re Yomi: leave it to labelRelations?
... the relationship between this class of labels and rdf plain literals, does what we model in this extension fit these other folks?
Antoine: could we move back label relationship with respect to SKOS-XL?
... if some people prefer to use XL, it gives freedom of choice
Alistair: they're not either/or, mutually exclusive
... what's in the extension builds on the existing label relationship
<edsu> SKOS-XL -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/SKOS-XL
Clay: using xl:prefLabel and skos:prefLabel in conjunction was a nice option
... and skos:LabelRelation
<scribe> ACTION: Antoine will review Alistair's proposals w/r/t the relationship between the existing solution and the extensioin [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action06]
Tom: important to decide if it's in scope or not. Antoine was suggesting it should be in scope.
Ralph: purpose of Antoine's action is to decide whether Alistair's proposal should be considered for the CR draft
Antoine: it's more about possibly moving back the existing label relationship to accoomodate the functionality of the extension
Tom: Antoine, you're suggesting that they both be seen as extensions?
Alistair: XL was designed to possibly live in the same space as the existing solution
... if they live in the same reference the local names would have to change
Tom: designed not to live in the same namespace?
Alistair: if they do live in the same namespace you'd use different local names
Tom: Open SKOS issues
... re: Alistair and ISSUE-40
<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]
Tom: re: ISSUE-37 for Guus
Alistair: thought that Guus would discuss with Sean
Guus: would be useful to discuss
Sean: make skos:broaderGeneric rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subClassOf .
Guus: if you look at the broader definition it's not clear
... need more dicussion
Alistair: if you have broaderGeneric as a subPropertyOf subClassOf
... through broaderGeneric
... requires more thought
Sean: no theoretical reason for having super as transitive
Guus: proposal was to write some primer text on it and should be fine
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to write primer text re: broaderGeneric and equivalence with respect to subClassOf [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action08]
<Zakim> aliman, you wanted to mention meta-modeling issue
Alistair: when you write the part of the primer, consider how it fits with ConceptSchemes and OWL ontologies
Tom: re: ISSUE-67 (StatingFormalDefinitions)
... supports the proposed resolution
... propose to accept issue 67
RESOLUTION: StatingFormalDefinitions ISSUE-67 accepted
<Ralph> [[PROPOSED: To state formal aspects of the SKOS data model in the main body of the SKOS Reference as sentences of prose following the style of prose used in the RDF Schema specification <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-schema-20040210/>. An OWL ontology will also be given as an appendix to the SKOS Reference, however the prose in the main body of the SKOS Reference will take precedence. -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Mar/0027.html.]]
Tom: issue-71 and ISSUE-74
...re: ParallelMappingVocabulary and MappingPropertyConventions
<Ralph> [issue 74 is in Alistair's top 10, 71 is there as related to 74]
Alistair: iGuus and broaderMatch as subproperty of broader
<Ralph> issue 74 MappingPropertyConventions
Guus: nothing happened afterward
<Ralph> issue 71 ParallelMappingVocabulary
Alistair: if we can fix this it gets a big piece of work out of the way for the reference
... Guus' proposal is a middle ground and is interesting
<scribe> ACTION: Alistair to review Antoine and Guus' emails to move ISSUE-71 and -74 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action09]
<Guus> I created the ftf poll:
<Ralph> issue 80 SKOS-OWL-Patterns
Tom: re: ISSUE-80...do we need an action associated?
Ed: Guus sent a chunk of HTML to be included in primer?
Antoine: issue is more recent
Tom: forwards without an action (re: SKOS-OWL-Patterns (Alistair))
Guus: I'll try to have this for discussion before next telecon
... will come back to this after my action
Ben: Ralph, status on primer?
<Ralph> RDFa Primer updated
Ben: will have several implementations ready before going to candidate rec
<Ralph> ACTION: Ralph and Ben to publish web version of the new RDFa Primer [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-swd-minutes.html#action06] [DONE]
Ben: I had an action to update the schedule, but haven't had a chance to look
... had a request to extend deadline to do some XSLT work
<Ralph> 13-March RDFa telecon record
<scribe> 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]
Ben: date of April 21 for review of primer for WG
... if it works on our end it's a date we can match
<scribe> ACTION: Ben to clarify target date of publication of primer as note and update deliverables page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-swd-minutes.html#action08] [DONE]
Diego: re: Cool URIs
... I raised three comments , third was a mistake
... I agree with sprit of first two and his view is better than ours but more complex to implement in Apache
... we need to decide if we want to change our current recipes or keep as is
Ralph: i haven't discussed this with Tim
... I think it might be a mistake to complicate the recipes
Ed: my only suggestion was to explicitly state that this was for Apache and .htaccess and mod_rewrite
Tom: perhaps sounds like a good solution as well
... if the authors wish to keep the technical scope the same as it is now, that is good
Jon: inclined to agree with Ralph to not make the doc more complex
... scope of this doc was for relative simplicity
<scribe> ACTION: recipes editors to clarify and write some sentences for the title that spells out the points Ed made for .htaccess and Apache [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action13]
<scribe> ACTION: Diego, Jon and Ralph to coordinate Recipes examples for w3c site [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-swd-minutes.html#action09] [CONTINUES]
<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]
Tom: Elisa has posted a doc for review
Tom: need reviewers for completion 2 weeks from now
Diego: I volunteer.
Tom: will review, but would like antoher reviewer
Guus: Mark van Assem from Wordnet to review possibly?
Tom: that's fine
<Guus> ACTION: Guus to ask Mark van Assem to review VM Editor's Draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action17]
Tom: please respond to Guus' poll about dates
<Ralph> [ah, thanks, Guus; I mis-heard "Mark van Assem" -- thought you'd mentioned a different Mark]
Tom: meeting adjourned.