See also: IRC log
<TomB> Previous: http://www.w3.org/2008/04/08-swd-minutes.html
<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]
tomb: ed & clay go on and add instructions related to f2f
<Ralph> Washington F2F agenda
clay: writing up a page about logistics
ready by tomorrow
add it to wiki and post to list
wifi should be working
tomb: update list of F2F
participants if needed
... edit wiki or drop a line
<scribe> ACTION: Guus and Tom draft an agenda for the May f2f [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/08-swd-minutes.html#action02] [DONE]
<Ralph> SKOS Reference editors' update [Alistair 2008-04-14]
antoine: concerns related to semantics of OWL imports
<Ralph> SKOS-XL & label relations [Alistair 2008-04-14]
antoine: implementation of
imports may vary in OWL
... OWL spec is not clear in this respect
... we can say that we recommend OWL imports
<Ralph> primer on relationship between Concept Schemes and OWL Ontologies [Alistair 2008-04-14]
<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] [DONE]
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to write primer text re: broaderGeneric and equivalence w/r/t subclass [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action08] [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]
-> http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action06
antoine: relations between label
objects unclear... alistair proposed reification n-ary
relation
... solution: get all the possible patterns for this into the
document
... don't make a preferred choice
<scribe> ACTION: Antoine will review Alistair's proposals w/r/t the relationship between the existing solution and the extension [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action06] [CONTINUES]
open skos issues
<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 review Antoine and Guus' emails to move ISSUE-71 and -74 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action09] [CONTINUES]
tomb: agenda for the f2f -
document editors should propose a way how to make use of the
f2f time
... look at the wiki and possibly change the agenda/topics
<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] [CONTINUES]
ben: small changes, but new
editor's draft still needed
... mark working on that
feedback would be welcome after the implementation and draft will be ready
ben: get a draft out before
the next meeting
... depends on the TF approving this
... primer draft looking pretty good, positive comments
received
... this week incorporating small changes to the syntax
... primer draft by the next week
guus: w.r.t. charter extension proposal - what should we plan?
ben: let's be pesimistic
... would go to CR in june
guus: depends on the implementation report
ben: no need to be pesimistic about that
<TomB> CR is just for implementation - for demonstrating that your spec can be implemented by two independent developers
guus: the main conversation happens when you go from last call to CR
<TomB> Guus: in OWL, from Last Call to CR - consider issues raised
guus: in case of objections, can be a difficult discussion
ben: once the editor's draft is
ready, we'll re-notify the previously contacted places
... in pesimistic case CR end of june
... period can be short
... the implementations are already there
guus: so that will be in the charter extension proposal then
<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]
Guus: we have 4 reviews
... all 4 agree it's worthwhile to publish. Editor's should
respond to comments and indicate changes to the document
... if changes are major, may be a good idea to discuss with
reviewers first
Vit: one of the major points
raised in the reviews concerns the Research Topics
section
... I proposed options to Elisa; we could either remove it or
shorten it to two or three sentences
... cite some references in case readers are interested
... Tom seems to prefer to drop it
... Ralph thought it interesting to keep
... shortening may be the right compromise
Ralph: I'd be happy with shortening the Research Topics section to a couple of sentences
Tom: one point I raised was a
connection between this document and our discussion on the
policies regarding the SKOS vocabulary
... issues with changes to the namespace and deprecated
terms
... if we're going to discuss this in Washington then whatever
consensus we reach in Washington should be recorded in this VM
notes
ralph: pretty much the same point as tom
Ralph: I absolutely agree that
this VM Note is the place to document our design rationale for
the SKOS namespace changes
... will Vit and Elisa do that?
Vit: I agree it should go in this document
guus: suggestion for agenda next
week
... distribute the preparation tasks for various SKOS issues
for the f2f
... ask all the issue owners
tomb: just walk through the issues and make sure they'll be covered
guus: all the issues should have
the proposal ready in two weeks from now
... 29 april would be ok
tomb: next week we'll walk through all the issues
guus: distribute all the related material on time
tomb: every open issues?
guus: at least top ten...
guus: let's make an action for that for the next week
tomb: meeting adjourned