See also: IRC log
Guus: Next telecon 29th
... no telecon on 6th May
Ralph: at risk for 29th April.
Guus: Could produce telecon
schedule until Summer.
... hopefully done by then!
PROPOSE to accept minutes
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]
Guus: F2f 6-7 May in Washington.
Draft agenda + local arrangements.
... Advise hotel bookings asap.
Guus: Look at open issues.
... Report on status
Alistair: Recent discussion. Still view this as nice to have feature but not essential. Need well worked through proposal. If not, drop the feature.
Guus: My feeling is to postpone.
Alistair: yes, that's an
... quite late in the day. Unlikely to get something in a good state. Could be done as extensions
Guus: Don't want to spend lots of time on this.
Alistair: Co-ordination is key to LCSH. Ed and Clay should shout if it's really important
Ed: yes, important at LC. But having some time outside the meeting to discuss things would be ok.
Guus: Ed could become issue owner
and consider how critical it is. If it is, then prepare a
... Would this block SKOS usage of LC?
Ed: No. Going forward there is
interest in representing co-ordinated concepts. Either SKOS core
... extension would be fine. No strong feeling that it needs to be part of the core.
Guus: Suggestion is that it's not part of the core. But include reference to possible patterns in Primer/Reference
Ed: Could work with Antoine on this.
ACTION: Ed to investigate what text could be added to primer re. concept co-ordination [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/22-swd-minutes.html#action02]
Alistair: Guus was going to draft some text for the primer on this.
Antoine: Already done. Some discrepancy between Washington agenda and issue tracker.
Alistair: Confused between 37 and
... 37 is design patterns for extending SKOS. For 37, haven't done anything yet.
[General confusion about issue owners]
Alistair: Different issues. One
about general extensions. One about particular extension.
... resolution for 37 is simply providing examples.
...of how to do things.
Ralph: Guus's action on primer text on broadergeneric is associated wth this.
Antoine: Copied link to primer section. This section may now be wrong, but there is some text that can be adapted.
Guus: You are proposing that we resolve this with text in the primer?
<Ralph> ISSUE 37+56 [Guus 2008-03-11]
Alistair: This is more of a how to than core vocabulary.
Guus: Not a real technical issue. More about getting the right text into the primer
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/56 Issue 56
<Ralph> [issue-37 was discussed in -> http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#item02 18-March telecon]
Guus: Outstanding issue. Need to prepare discussion. Spent time on this in Amsterdam recently. Proposal will be ready for the f2f.
Alistair: On my TODO list. Need to go back over emails and review options.
Guus: Antoine is issue owner here.
Antoine: I own it, but am waiting for Alistair to send the mail.
Guus: What do we expect for f2f?
Antoine: Can prepare something once Alistair has reacted.
Alistair: Next thing on my list.
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/74 Issue 74
Alistair: Treating 71 and 74 as two sides of the same coin.
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/80 Issue 80
Guus: Textual issue for reference and primer.
Alistair: True, but questions
... for the most part, a question of nice explanatory text.
... which lives in the primer
Antoine: Would like to postpone
as this is dependent on Issue 56.
... Resolution of 56 may effect 80.
Guus: Don't want to postpone
discussion on too many issues in Washington.
... Would like to tackle remaining issues.
<Ralph> SKOS and imports [Sean 2008-04-16]
seanb: have some issues to discuss, would be useful
... I was talking to people in OWL WG about imports, how imports is used in reference and primer, they were uneasy with the examples
seanb: one question not clear to
me, what do you want to represent through use of owl imports,
what it means for vocab to import another
... OWL view, ontology is a collection of axioms, using OWL imports express that imported ontology, all reasoning should be done in context of imported axioms
... using owl imports across skos concept schemes does not respect semantics of owl import
... concern about misusing the vocabulary.
... number of ways to use imports, one is for named graph approach. If one concept scheme consists of multiple parts, you can indicate with imports that there is one namespace document that represents the whole concept scheme, that is proper use of imports...
... just expressing fact that you should include all the axioms.
Guus: Across concept schemes, you mean importing mapping relationships?
seanb: there is a simple example
in the reference, says [...] comment here, no relationship
between inscheme and owl:imports
...one thing you want to do, grab some RDF graphs, consider one graph to contain another graph. Using owl:imports because its only machinery for doing that. No way to say one rdf graph contain another.
... so question is, is it really the right thing to do, or the only thing that will get that behaviour?
... Or do we want to talk about OWL ontologies?
guus: Why is it not an ontology? An ontology is also just an RDF graph. I don't see the real problem.
seanb: One suggestion made,
should we set up a task force between this WG and OWL WG, check
in agreement on how this is working. That's a proposal they put
... concern over whether this is appropriate use of owl imports.
Alistair when we
wrote the current draft of the reference, the goal was not
necessarily to recommend using owl:imports but to leave the
... we could decide to close the door on owl:imports completely or continue to leave the door open
... at the moment it does look like we're recommending the use of owl:import
... we could backtrack on this
... but if we do want to leave the door open to owl:import, what would we need to say to keep everyone happy?
guus: forsee long discussion with
OWL WG on this.
... prefer to be on conservative side.
seanb: one suggestion is, we don't explicitly talk about owl imports in the SKOS reference. Or should we include that explicitly as an example of what one could do?
Guus: could we drop import from Reference?
Alistair: the problem
is more with the Primer than with Reference
... perhaps the better option is to drop owl:imports from Primer but leave mention with caveats in Reference
guus: less risky to put it in a note (primer) than recommendation (reference).
<Elisa> the latest thinking on imports in the OWL WG is currently posted to the OWL wiki at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Imports if that's helpful
guus: seems like need to take more preparation for f2f.
<Ralph> [putting material that requires caveats into a Primer feels wrong to me]
Guus: Would like to revisit Issue
26 at F2f and check that this is all ok.
... Current pattern that we have in reference is perceived as non-intuitive.
Guus: Want to make sure that we take the right decision.
Antoine: Quite optimisitc with
the latest proposal from Alistair
... could be ok
Guus: Worried if relationships between labels aren't core vocabulary.
Alistair: Should reopen this. In a good position to discuss options
Guus: Will review this.
... Would be good to discuss both Ref and Primer and look at main pieces of work to be done.
... Come up with planning.
... Current proposal assumes that there will be a Last Call document ready by 1st July. Seven weeks
...after f2f. Is this reasonable? Will be official in charter proposal
Alistair: Take decisions at F2f, month to prepare new draft and then two weeks for internal reviews.
Guus: SKOS XL already
... review whether it's an extension or core vocabulary.
Antoine: Question about agenda
and issues. Tom circulated list of issues last week. Different
...one that's on the agenda. Did I miss something?
Guus: What's missing?
Antoine: skos:subject issue for example.
Alistair: Indexing relationship;
notation; semantics of broader/narrower
... three things we haven't talked about. Also symbolic labels.
... four things that impact vocabluary.
Guus: Add these to open issue list
Tom: Will add them to the agenda.
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] [DONE]
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]
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 make a proposal for Issue 40 (Concept Coordination) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action09] [CONTINUES]
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]
Ralph: Main resolution is
response to a commenter to add fucntiona as well as
... Any of those there would prefer functional, but didn't feel they could produce it and be consistent
... in the time. Will defer until some later date.
... Key item for today. Ben asked for WG review of new Primer.
Guus: Two reviewers?
Ed: Diego and Ed did this before.
Guus: Diego, Ed will you do this?
<Ralph> RDFa Primer ready for Working Group review [Ben 2008-04-22]
ACTION: Ed to review RDFa Primer Editor's draft [http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/primer/20080422/] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/22-swd-minutes.html#action08]
ACTION: Diego to review RDFa Primer Editor's draft [http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/primer/20080422/] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/22-swd-minutes.html#action09]
Guus: Charter extension proposal. Revised version of LC for 1st July.
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]
Guus: Propose in the charter extension that the WG Note on recipes is published by June. Reasonable?
Diego: yes. Document is in good shape. Once examples are moved, ready to publish.
Ralph: Unlikely to be able to
finish wordnet action in that time.
... Doesn't need to hold up the publication. Comfortable with the date.
Guus: Can expect revised draft soon with all issues resolved/postponed.
Ralph: Shouldn't be surprised if we get substantial comments from TAG re. con-neg.
... Tom and Ed
... Can expect a new request to review.
ACTION: Ralph propose resolution to ISSUE-16 "Default behavior" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14] [CONTINUES]
<Tom> Tom did not review Recipes
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: Thanks for detailed
... Working forward to provide responses. A few things to discuss at F2F.
... get some responses to stuff we can do in advance.
Guus: Would like to see list of topics for F2F.
Elisa: Alistair had comments on
URI schemes, maintenance policies etc.
... need some input to ensure that we mention the right policies and say the right things.
Alistair: took private action to
look at what it says about SKOS there. Don't quite know what
we're going to do about SKOS.
...Last time, thought up a bunch of poilicies and rwrote them down. What we said would happen
... wasn't exactly what happened.
Elisa: Yes, so want some discussion about what we should and shouldn't say.
Ralph: Can't write this until we know what we're doin with SKOS
Elisa: Some smaller issues, other
larger ones that need discussion. At least laundry list of
... that need talking about.
... Will try and come up with list for next week.
Guus: Revised version of the document by F2F?
Elisa: Can solve lightweight issues and leave TO-DOS.
Elisa: Can put markers in
... one to two hours?
Guus: Second afternoon, 2:30
until the end of the meeting. 1.5-2 hours.
... Lots of work in June. Would like notes out by 1st June so that we can
... concentrate on other stuff. Requires some decisions to be made at f2f (e.g. deprecated vocabulary).
Elisa: Should be possible.
Tom: A Note means strong
consensus from the WG. I see issues that may not be addressed
in the time.
... e.g what is a vocabulary. Do we have time to do this as a note?
<Ralph> RE: [VM] Review of 16 March Editor's Draft [Alistair 2008-04-11]
Guus: Other Recommendations
define this so this isn't our worry.
... Different routes we could take. We could spend another year on this.
Ralph: If we don't have
consensus, then we shouldn't publish Note. Should be
... working draft if no consensus.
Guus; ok. Option to publish as Working Draft
Elisa: Fine. Will do what I can to address comments. Leave issues for f2f and then we go from there.