See also: IRC log
<TomB> Previous: http://www.w3.org/2008/04/22-swd-minutes.html
TomB: Live coverage of the F2F via IRC and telephone
edsu: Clay has checked out phones and that's working
Tomb: There will be 7 teleconferences before July in which to get the remaining work done
RESOLUTION: Minutes of the April 22 telecon: http://www.w3.org/2008/04/22-swd-minutes.html accepted
<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] [COMPLETED]
TomB: Would like to focus on getting the wiki
document complete this week
... would like to encourage issue owners to get their portions complete this week
... editors of primer and reference should edit the wiki to improve the clustering of topics
... so that it's clear what everyone needs to read before the f2f
TomB: Reads schedule as noted in the agenda
<scribe> 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] [CONTINUES]
TomB: edsu should directly edit the wiki and send a note to the list before Friday so that everyone can read the docs
<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]
Guus: thinks it's tied into the discussion of
whether this belongs in the discussion of whether this is included
... making the broader equivalent to rdf:type and broadergeneric equivalent to rdfs:subclass
aliman: the discussion of the datamodel may be
... we might not to get too deep into the design
Guus: will make sure this action is complete by
... This is on the f2f agenda as issue-56
TomB: Is part of the discussion whether this is
in the current ref or a future extension
... what is the correct discussion sequence?
Guus: let's discuss issue-56 before issue-37
aliman: there are a bunch of issue that are part of a scope discussion
<TomB> +1 like the idea of having scope discussion first
<edsu> +1 me too
aliman: can we do a quick discussion about which things are in scope before we continue to the discussion
guus, TomB: This sounds like a good idea
scribe: aliman to edit the agenda to put a scope discussion at the top
<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]
<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: beyond aliman's suggestion to put scoping
at the top, we don't have a clear discussion order
... in what order should we discuss?
... issues 69, 70, 41 are currently in a section called new issues
... There are an awful lot of issues. We should think through the order before starting the f2f
... editors of primer and reference should please update the order by Friday
... please check to see if the dependencies are still current as well
... There are about 25 issues, and each is a page, and the drafts for the ref, primer, xl proposal
... we need to make clear what everyone should print out to bring along
antoine: discuss semantics of particular
properties and editorial issues
... and make sure that issues don't get discussed twice
TomB: Yes, editorial issues should be at the
... we have a cluster of issues around the skos schema, 20005 working draft, modifying terms, that sort of thing
... we have things like issue-40 which is non-essential. Maybe we should put the non-essential things toward the end.
... We could probably edit the agenda based on the scoping discussion
... Everyone needs to read the reference, primer and XL, and print out each issue page
... There's a draft OWL schema and the 2005 skos working draft, but they don't necessarily need to print those out
aliman: seanb sent around a link to a proposed
formal schema for skos
... the schema includes lots of documentation, making the schema itself an OWL 2 ontology
... if anyone needs OWL DL schema they should take a look at it
<edsu> aliman: nice work on the validation of the html and owl at http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20080125-resources/
TomB: reads the schedule from the agenda
<aliman> thanks edsu, it was nice to discover an automated transform from the reference prose was possible :)
<edsu> aliman: speaking of rdfa eh? :)
<scribe> 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] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> 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] [CONTINUES]
<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]
benadida: There's a new version of the syntax
going out today, and this will be the last substantive change before CR
... Gave an RDFa tutorial at WWW that was very well-received
<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]
<scribe> ACTION: Jon will correct the PURL references in the recipes and update the files in W3 space [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/29-swd-minutes.html#action12]
TomB: Working draft by June 1, 2008
... Elisa will put together a list of issues for discussion at the f2f
... Will send a note to her to get that ready before Friday
... Anything else to add before the f2f?
Guus: A few things to discuss in the remaining
... stuck with the broadergeneric and broadertransitive specialization
... We make a distinction between broader and broadertransitive and maybe that makes our lives difficult
SeanB: Can you explain why this is a problem.
Guus: If you define broader as directly below
... then broadergeneric becomes a subproperty of broader
the scribe is having trouble keeping up with this conversation
<aliman> guus: say we have, a broader b, b broader c. broaderGeneric subproperty broader. broaderGeneric equivalentProperty subClassOf. ...
<aliman> seanb: say broader is not transitive, ...
thanks aliman :) oy
<aliman> guus: intended usage is broader means direct broader, that's why we have broaderTransitive
<aliman> antoine: but can have exception for broaderGeneric ...
<aliman> guus: no, get two meanings of broader.
<aliman> seanb: not sure I see as a problem.
aliman: there are a couple of issues we can
specify -- if you introduce broaderGeneric, how do you affect the semantics?
And is subclassof the best way to do it
... at a meeting in manchester, they're generating skos from owl, and rather than using the same vocabulary you use a transform
... if you make the links explicit, you deny choice
... Otherwise you allow transforms from one world to another
<aliman> seanb: skos:broader is intended to represent direct, but that's about usage not semantics. so if defined broaderGeneric, as transitive, don't contradict semantics, but do contradict our usage conventions.
<aliman> guus: yes, if have broaderTransitive and broader, gives impression that broader is direct link. Then if have broaderGeneric, it looks like rdfs:subClassOf.
<aliman> ... if we do this broaderGeneric, then in favour of dropping broaderTransitive, keeping broader ambiguous, and if people want direct broader term use a query facility, like people do in OWL.
<aliman> seanb: I'd have to do more work. I can't query for transitive closure, would have to do more work in application.
<aliman> guus: but have to do that anyway. if work in rdf do that anyway.
aliman: this discussion is one of the main reasons we should consider broaderGeneric for an extension module
Seanb: the problem then is that this affects the reference
Guus: could we continue this discussion for another 10 minutes after the meeting?
<TomB> Meeting adjourned