12:53:52 RRSAgent has joined #swd 12:53:52 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-irc 12:54:01 rrsagent, please make record public 12:54:06 Zakim has joined #swd 12:54:11 zakim, this will be swd 12:54:11 ok, RalphS; I see SW_SWD()9:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes 12:54:41 Meeting: SWD F2F Day 2 12:54:47 Chair: Guus, Tom 12:55:04 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/WashingtonAgenda 12:55:13 seanb has joined #swd 12:55:34 -> http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html Day 1 record 13:03:52 SW_SWD()9:00AM has now started 13:03:58 +??P0 13:04:01 +[LC] 13:04:07 aliman has joined #swd 13:04:11 zakim, ??P0 is me 13:04:11 +seanb; got it 13:04:23 zakim, lc has Guus, Alistair, Clay, Antoine, Tom, Ralph 13:04:23 +Guus, Alistair, Clay, Antoine, Tom, Ralph; got it 13:05:40 +[CTIC] 13:05:40 zakim, Ed just arrived in mit531 13:05:40 sorry, RalphS, I do not recognize a party named 'mit531' 13:05:45 zakim, Ed just arrived in lc 13:05:45 +Ed; got it 13:05:52 zakim, [CTIC] is me 13:05:52 +berrueta; got it 13:06:20 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008May/0009.html conference room photos 13:06:24 zakim, mute me 13:06:24 berrueta should now be muted 13:06:30 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008May/0010.html flipchart images 13:08:46 aliman has joined #swd 13:10:40 Antoine has joined #swd 13:12:43 Clay has joined #swd 13:13:31 zakim, Jon just arrived in lc 13:13:31 +Jon; got it 13:17:11 scribenick: Clay 13:17:27 I'm logging. I don't understand 'please draft minuites', RalphS. Try /msg RRSAgent help 13:17:30 I'm logging. I don't understand 'please draft minuutes', RalphS. Try /msg RRSAgent help 13:17:32 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS 13:18:37 cred has joined #swd 13:18:37 JonP has joined #swd 13:18:59 scribenick: cred 13:19:51 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS 13:19:57 scribenick: Clay 13:20:40 Guus: is notation the standard terminology? 13:20:56 ... do we need explicit vocabulary for expressing relations? 13:21:02 aliman: yes 13:22:03 zakim, list attendees 13:22:03 As of this point the attendees have been seanb, Guus, Alistair, Clay, Antoine, Tom, Ralph, Ed, berrueta, Jon 13:22:16 Guus: question to Sean, about user-defined datatypes in OWL 1 13:22:22 Regrets: Quentin 13:22:27 TomB has joined #swd 13:22:57 Guus: you couldn't define URI and that what best practice was about 13:23:13 ... alternative was whether to use/misuse language tag 13:23:50 Guus: is it common to use artificial language codes in this way? 13:24:08 Clay: ISO639-2 has ZXX code meaning "no linguistic content" 13:24:20 -seanb 13:24:38 here's Jakob's paper: http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/0801.3908 13:24:53 +??P0 13:25:02 Guus: problem indicating if the notation using language 13:25:04 zakim, ??P0 is me 13:25:04 +seanb; got it 13:25:27 aliman: rfc 4646 private label "x-notation" is what Jakob proposed 13:25:36 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0211.html Jakob's proposal 13:26:40 -> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4646.txt RFC 4646 Tags for Identifying Languages 13:26:43 -> http://memory.loc.gov:8081/exist/rest/db/registry/concepts/vocabulary/iso639/part2/alb.xml 13:27:37 (view source and look at @xml:lang attrs 13:27:45 Guus has joined #swd 13:28:08 Guus: if "x-" is reserved for private use and tools expect this then it might be okay 13:28:37 See section 2.2.7 Private Use Subtags 13:28:39 Guus: that satisfies all my concerns, b/c one can use "x-iconclass", etc. 13:30:57 Alistair: see Section 4.5. Considerations for Private Use Subtags 13:31:07 ... may disallow this proposed use 13:31:36 Antoine: it's more for displaying this information 13:31:43 ... "[Private use subtags[ SHOULD NOT be used where alternatives exist and SHOULD NOT be used in content or protocols intended for general use." 13:31:55 Guus: write it up and see if anyone has a problem with it. 13:34:11 aliman: explains the exposure of notations 13:34:16 ralph: this could be a URI 13:35:50 13:35:50 alb 13:35:50 Albanian 13:35:50 albanais 13:35:50 13:36:39 Clay: politial issue -- objections to using either the English or the Latin label as the prefLable 13:38:02 13:38:02 13:38:02 13:38:02 info:lc/vocabulary/iso639/part2 13:38:02 false 13:38:03 13:38:05 13:38:07 13:38:09 info:lc/vocabulary/iso639/part2/bibliography 13:38:11 13:38:13 13:38:21 Clay: don't beat me up about the info: URIs 13:38:58 Ralph: so how do we know where a give notation is coming from? can we use "x-notation-???" 13:41:34 Ralph: are notations always used in conjunction with lexical labels? 13:42:12 aliman: notion of a label is unique to skos, beforehand that was a caption and a notation 13:42:54 Ralph: there's no restrictions on what can go into a literal 13:43:25 Are plain literals always going to be sufficient to capture the notation identifiers? 13:43:33 ... now this is acting as a special sort of label, and with multiple classification schemes, it means this is a type of label coming from classification schemes 13:46:01 Do we need additional infrastructure in SKOS in order to deal with notations, or is it sufficient to allow the applications to handle it? 13:47:12 Ralph: Jakob's proposal is to fold the model of "type=notation" and "system=dewey" etc into a literal in lexical labels 13:47:56 Ralph: what is the justification for this for putting this in labels? 13:48:08 aliman: this keeps us in plain SKOS without XL 13:49:02 Antoine: what is nice about this proposal is that we don't expect users to know where the code is coming from, such as dewey. 13:49:13 Ralph: do i search using a dewey code, etc. 13:49:35 Antoine: they serve both as labels and identifiers as well 13:51:17 Ralph: would it be the case that there is a skos:Concept of "History of European Civilization", and then has a notation of dewey 3xxx 13:52:09 ... why isn't the notation part of the properties of the skos:Concept instead of being in the label 13:52:34 aliman: my first proposal was to have a skos:notation property with a typed literal 13:53:20 aliman: there was a property called "external id" 13:53:43 Clay: I used skos:notation earlier and it made perfect sense to me 13:53:58 ... it was @@ who wanted a mechanism for putting the code within the prefLabel 13:54:27 Tom: DCMI has a URI for "the set of 3-letter codes listed in ISO 639-3" intended to be used as a datatype 13:54:49 s/@@/SIL/ 13:55:53 Clay: there was a need for using codes in prefLabel that were not from a natural language, for political reasons 13:56:13 Guus: there seems to be a need for representing a notation as a label, and that we'd like to have a notation tied to the actual skos:Concept 13:58:01 Ralph: there could be a duplication of data between the label and the skos:notation propery 13:58:07 s/propery/property/ 13:59:07 edsu: Jakob was bundling everything into the literal 14:00:23 Guus: suggests that we reintroduce skos:notation, and that if you want to use a notation as a prefLabel, that 'x-notation' is the preferred way to do this 14:01:38 aliman: the original skos:notation should coin a URI for the notation system, but didn't say what is should dereference to, and it was a typed literal 14:01:54 Tom: that's what OCLC does, a syntax encoding scheme 14:02:20 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2006Feb/0035.html Alistair's original proposal for skos:notation 14:02:23 -berrueta 14:02:44 aliman: looking up the original email re: skos:notation 14:03:41 PROPOSE: introduce skos:notation a rdf:Property whose value is a typed literal. The datatype of the literal specifies a syntax encoding scheme and the value of the literal is the classification code from that encoding scheme 14:07:10 Tom: showing syntax encoding scheme for dcterms:language 14:07:44 :book dcterms:language "alb"^^x-notation 14:08:16 s/x-notation/dcterm:iso639-3 14:08:46 Tom: we also have something for dewey 14:09:19 aliman: you need a uri for every dewey concept, the dewey concept scheme, and the dewey notation system 14:10:47 Guus: I think this works 14:10:58 ... nice hook 14:13:32 Ralph: i think we could support the use of "fr-x-notation", "de-x-notation" , etc. 14:15:23 Guus: recommend in case there is a collison of multiple notations in different languages then we could use multiple notations 14:16:36 ... such as "fr-x-notation" example that Ralph just suggested 14:17:48 ... to Ralph: I don't expect tools will be able to do much with the lexical label w/the x-notation suggestion 14:19:31 Ralph: discussing if the notation as label matches on the notation property, and a tool could offer more functionality for learning about the classification 14:20:58 aliman: don't always have to use a prefLabel 14:21:26 Ralph: deduce prefLabel from notation? 14:21:32 aliman: not necessarily 14:22:26 ... if a notation exists, a tool would render that, and labels would appear beneath 14:24:11 Ralph: skos:notation would be richer and could generate a label from the notation value 14:24:27 ... one of prefLabel or notation is required 14:24:57 Clay: was asked if a skos:notation is used, then could it be possible to use altLabels without a prefLabel 14:25:12 Ralph: prefLabel is not required 14:25:18 Guus: this is a primer issue 14:25:26 ... how you use it, that is 14:25:46 aliman: there's no requirement because of the open world assumption 14:26:27 ...it's advisable to use a prefLabel, but not required 14:27:00 Ralph: i think it's fine to say some concepts won't have prefLabels 14:27:06 aliman: i do too 14:28:03 Tom's model sketch from 15 minutes ago... http://tinyurl.com/6kahut 14:28:33 PROPOSE: introduce skos:notation a rdf:Property whose value is a typed literal. The datatype of the literal specifies a syntax encoding scheme and the value of the literal is the classification code from that encoding scheme. 14:29:27 PROPOSE: introduce skos:notation a rdf:Property whose value is a typed literal. The datatype of the literal specifies a syntax encoding scheme and the value of the literal is the classification code from that encoding scheme. As prefLabel is optional, SKOS tools may want to display notations as labels. 14:37:47 RESOLVED: to introduce skos:notation a rdf:Property whose value is a typed literal. The datatype of the literal specifies a syntax encoding scheme and the value of the literal is the classification code from that encoding scheme. As prefLabel is optional, SKOS tools may want to display notations as labels. 14:39:14 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/79 issue-79 14:39:26 SGorse has joined #swd 14:39:56 ACTION: Clay will respond to Jakob about the resolution for notations and x-notation 14:40:01 rrsagent, please draft minuts 14:40:01 I'm logging. I don't understand 'please draft minuts', RalphS. Try /msg RRSAgent help 14:40:02 rrsagent, please draft minutes 14:40:02 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS 14:41:07 i/Guus: is notation/Topic: Notations 14:41:09 rrsagent, please draft minutes 14:41:09 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS 14:41:25 Topic: Reference Semantic Relation Specialisations 14:41:36 scribenick: Clay 14:41:41 Topic: Reference Semantic Relation Specialisations 14:42:08 SGorse has left #swd 14:42:20 Guus: this has to do with broaderTransitive, broaderPartitive, etc 14:42:45 ...the specialization of broader 14:43:11 thanks that's much better! 14:44:56 Guus: if we want to include these speicialization as subproperties of broader, it won't work. 14:45:49 ... would prefer not to include any pre-defined specializations 14:46:08 Sean: only concern is that if we don't include anything we might get ad-hoc implementaitons 14:46:26 Guus: I suggest writing text for the primer showing what a local specialization would look like 14:46:43 ...broaderTransitive w: subproperty of broader, etc. 14:47:33 -> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/thes/1.0/guide/20040504/#3.9 SWAD-Europ SKOS Core specification of broaderGeneric, etc. 14:47:50 Guus: how many of these specializations are used in the thesaurus community 14:47:57 aliman: seemingly sparingly 14:48:59 Sean: if we do what Guus suggests (i.e., nothing), the solution with the least ramifications... 14:49:07 Guus: postpone issue? 14:49:50 Tom: is this in scope? what kind of community follow-up will there be in the w3c context, or in other communities? 14:50:04 -> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-spec-20051102/#deprecatedTitle 2005 SKOS WD deprecation of broaderGeneric 14:51:08 Ralph: the SW Interest Groups, incubator groups, etc. formalizing an extension could come from a report from these sorts of groups. 14:53:48 Tom: what happens if someone starts a SKOS discussion outside the context of W3C? 14:54:02 Ralph: we don't own the discussion but encourage them to work through us 14:54:25 ... the locus of attention is not just through W3C 14:56:03 Tom: from August-December, should we draft something to determine what the options are regarding specialization? 14:57:42 ... there probably should be a website with pointers to these efforts beyond the life of the core SKOS work 15:01:43 aliman: this community might be more comfortable with the notion of a registry 15:05:36 Antoine has joined #swd 15:07:00 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/56 issue-56 15:07:32 PROPOSED: To postpone Reference Semantic Relation Specialisations (ISSUE-56) becuase we do not yet have sufficient information on how to embed the specializations in the current SKOS model 15:08:24 s/the specializations/these specializations/ 15:08:33 +1 15:09:21 RESOLVED: To postpone Reference Semantic Relation Specialisations (ISSUE-56) becuase we do not yet have sufficient information on how to embed these specializations in the current SKOS model 15:09:57 rrsagent, please draft minutes 15:09:57 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS 15:15:10 -seanb 15:18:33 Tom: names for the lineage of SKOS? 15:18:43 Alistair: I'm calling the SWAD version "SKOS alpha" 15:18:51 Tom: SKOS 2005 for the SWBPD WD 15:19:29 ... and SKOS 2008 and "Recommended SKOS" 15:22:34 s/SWAD/SWAD-EU/ 15:26:58 +??P2 15:27:06 zakim, ??P2 is me 15:27:06 +seanb; got it 15:30:39 Topic: Use of OWL Imports (ISSUE-119) 15:31:00 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/119 issue 119 15:31:12 Sean: in reference or primer 15:31:17 ...? 15:31:19 Tom: primer 15:31:29 scribenick: Clay 15:33:07 Sean: triples in the actual issue means that all triples are pulled in 15:33:16 +berrueta 15:33:18 zakim, mute me 15:33:18 berrueta should now be muted 15:33:24 ... in the reference there is the use of owl:imports 15:33:44 ... use a mechanism to show provenance...external mechanism perhaps? 15:34:12 Guus: dictated by owl:import semantics 15:34:31 ... it becomes an editorial issue, how do reflect these statements in the documents? 15:34:55 Antoine: be sure you are aware of the existence in the primer already 15:36:24 Guus: the answer in the issue is that ONT2 pulls in all of ONT1 15:37:00 Tom: we decided yesterday that skos imports are out of scope 15:38:21 -> http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#owlimports day 1 OWL Imports discussion 15:38:30 PROPOSED: That SKOS does not have its own specific import mechanism and that documents will have appropriate text on how to use existing owl:import mechanisms (ISSUE-119) 15:38:53 +1 15:39:06 RESOLVED: That SKOS does not have its own specific import mechanism and that documents will have appropriate text on how to use existing owl:import mechanisms (ISSUE-119) 15:39:31 rrsagent, please draft minutes 15:39:31 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS 15:42:01 scribenick: Clay 15:42:14 Topic: Coordination (ISSUE-40) 15:43:02 aliman: is our goal to have a resolution for the issue 15:43:15 Sean: did we decide yesterday that this was out of scope? 15:44:47 Guus: we don't have sufficient time to do this 15:47:26 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/40 issue 40 ConceptCoordination 15:48:52 PROPOSED: to postpone issue 40, due to lack of time, lack of implementation experience with tentative solutions, and unclear interaction between SKOS and OWL. 15:49:23 +1 15:49:31 +1 15:49:36 RESOLVED: to postpone issue 40, due to lack of time, lack of implementation experience with tentative solutions, and unclear interaction between SKOS and OWL. 15:49:58 rrsagent, please draft minutes 15:49:58 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS 15:50:52 -seanb 15:51:22 seanb: will do 16:02:37 -[LC] 16:04:39 -berrueta 16:04:41 SW_SWD()9:00AM has ended 16:04:45 Attendees were seanb, Guus, Alistair, Clay, Antoine, Tom, Ralph, Ed, berrueta, Jon 16:40:16 SW_SWD()9:00AM has now started 16:40:23 +??P12 16:40:31 zakim, ??p12 is me 16:40:31 +seanb; got it 16:47:24 +[LC] 16:49:01 Antoine has joined #swd 16:49:15 Clay has joined #swd 16:49:30 Feature: subject indexing 16:49:37 scribenick:Antoine 16:50:12 Guus: I'd like to propose that indexing is more in the scope of other vocabularies 16:50:34 ... like Dublin Core, I propose to drop it from the vocabulary 16:51:20 s/Feature/Topic/ 16:51:21 ... Alistair can live with it 16:51:32 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/Indexing Indexing properties in SKOS 16:51:48 Antoine: favors keeping it in 16:52:43 Guus: there are vocabularies that (will) propose such links 16:53:13 Alistair: the only reason for having skos:subject was the variability of skos:subject 16:53:45 ... the question is for the skos:primarySubject 16:53:53 ... the main subject of the document 16:54:30 Ralph: it seems even less in the scope of SKOS 16:54:49 Alistair: my only concern is that people can start using SKOS now 16:55:14 Tom: about primarySubjectOf 16:55:25 Alistair: we don't really need it 16:56:30 Guus: PROPOSE to drop the SKOS indexing properties because 16:56:57 ... 1) it's the role of SKOS to publish vocabularies and not to indicate how they should be used in annotations 16:57:35 2) there appear to be enough support from existing metadata vocabularies 16:58:11 ... to handle links between resources and SKOS concepts 16:58:46 s/appear/appears 16:59:14 Ralph: "drop" or "not include"? 16:59:21 Alistair: technically, "not include" 16:59:49 s/in annotations/for indexing purposes 17:00:16 berrueta has joined #swd 17:01:08 RESOLVED: to drop the SKOS indexing properties because 17:01:49 1) it's the role of SKOS to publish vocabularies and not to indicate how they should be used for indexing purposes 2) there appear to be enough support from existing metadata vocabularies to handle links between resources and SKOS concepts 17:02:21 s/drop/not include 17:02:30 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS 17:03:19 Guus (opeining the raised issues) 17:03:28 s/opeining/opening 17:03:38 Guus: there are 10 left that need to be open 17:05:55 Topic: Open Issues 17:06:08 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/26 issue 26 17:06:16 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/27 issue 27 17:06:19 Guus: ISSUE 26/27 we had resolutions yesterday 17:06:54 -> http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html yesterday's minutes 17:08:00 -> http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#item03 on labels 17:10:14 Guus: both 26 and 27 are handled by the three resolutions there 17:11:48 Guus: Sean, would you be happy with re-publishing Reference in two weeks? 17:11:51 Sean: OK 17:11:57 Yes, that's fine. 17:12:28 -seanb 17:14:30 Guus (closing ISSUE-77) 17:15:11 Guus (closing ISSUE-79) 17:16:53 Guus (closing ISSUE-65) 17:17:08 Ralph (closing ISSUE-71 and ISSUE-74) 17:19:43 Guus (closing ISSUE-117) 17:22:33 Guus: about issue on compatibility with DC 17:23:08 http://dublincore.org/documents/abstract-model/ 17:23:44 Guus: we still have not decided for exactMatch properties 17:24:22 http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-rdf/ 17:24:33 seanb has left #swd 17:25:23 -> http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-rdf/#sect-4 4. Representing DCAM constructs using the RDF Model 17:25:30 Alistair: DC seems to use vocabulary encoding scheme in a way compatible with the use of SKOS concept scheme 17:26:40 Alistair: the DCAM pattern appears to be the same as the SKOS pattern 17:26:53 ... dcam:memberOf looks like skos:inScheme 17:27:40 Ralph: how feasible would it be to write some test cases? 17:28:32 -> http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-rdf/ Expressing Dublin Core in RDF, see e.g. example in section 4.3 for how DCAM notion of vocabulary encoding scheme maps to SKOS notion of concept scheme 17:29:26 Antoine has joined #swd 17:29:41 scribenick: Antoine 17:30:18 Alistair: there is a wiki page for test suite 17:30:36 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/TestSuite SKOS test suite 17:30:39 ... with mapping stuff for the moment 17:31:22 Tom: the notion of member of a vocabulary encoding scheme is not at the same level as a concept being a member of concept scheme 17:32:24 Alistair: looking at the DCAM document... 17:33:09 Alistair: in 4.3, if ex:ExampleSubjects was a skos:Concept, the right thing will happen 17:33:25 Tom: but that would be redundant 17:33:32 ... to declare that it's a member of 17:35:31 Alistair: it does not hurt, though 17:36:44 Tom: PROPOSE the use of concept scheme URI in DC metadata as a vocabulary scheme URI does not raise compatibility issues 17:37:05 s/Tom/Alistair 17:37:22 RESOLVED: the use of concept scheme URI in DC metadata as a vocabulary scheme URI does not raise compatibility issues 17:37:25 rrsagent, please draft minutes 17:37:25 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS 17:38:54 Guus: what about issues 52 and 53? 17:39:01 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/52 issue 52 17:39:09 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/53 issue 53 17:39:36 Guus: about compatibility with ISO standards 17:40:05 s/issue 52/issue 52 Compatibility with ISO 2788 17:40:19 s/issue 53/issue 53 Compatibility with ISO 5964 17:40:44 Alistair: ISO 2788 is about monolingual thesauri, ISO 5964 for multilingual vocabularies 17:40:45 Alistair: ISO 2788 is about monolingual thesauri, ISO 5964 for multilingual vocabularies 17:40:50 Alistair: ISO 2788 is about monolingual thesauri, ISO 5964 for multilingual vocabularies 17:41:20 Antoine has joined #swd 17:41:25 scribenick: Antoine 17:41:27 Alistair: ISO 2788 is about monolingual thesauri, ISO 5964 for multilingual vocabularies 17:41:40 Guus: we could have tables in one of the documents 17:43:21 Alistair: easy for ISO 2788, more difficult for ISO 5964 17:43:58 Guus: ISO 11179 17:44:02 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/51 issue 51 Compatibility with ISO 11179 17:44:27 Tom: it has 6 parts, the third is about vocabularies 17:44:41 ... it defines principle for hierarchies and registries 17:45:49 Ralph: problem with the 'compatibility' notion 17:46:02 ... easy to do with DC, less with ISO 11179 17:46:32 Ralph: DC has an RDF encoding, 11179 doesn't 17:46:35 Alistair: [XXX] has an ISO11179 implementation 17:46:57 ... with generation of SKOS from the ISO 11179 data 17:46:59 s/XXX/Steve Harris at Oxford Com Lab/ 17:47:23 Ralph: one sense of "compatibility" is "Can I write a single RDF document instance that uses properties (and classes) from both vocabularies?" 17:48:36 Jon: there is a consensus that government agencies should comply with ISO 11179 17:48:43 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO/IEC_11179 17:49:30 Clay: it's hard to compare the two 17:49:45 Jon: we're talking about _compatibility_, not _conformance_ 17:49:50 Guus: did anyone raised the issue? 17:56:17 Elisa has joined #swd 17:57:02 Antoine has joined #swd 17:57:05 PROPOSE to close ISSUE-52 by adding a table to the Primer with correspondences between ISO-2788 and SKOS constructs 17:57:17 zakim, LC has Antoine, Guus, Alistair, Clay, Jon, Tom, Ed, Ralph 17:57:17 +Antoine, Guus, Alistair, Clay, Jon, Tom, Ed, Ralph; got it 17:58:01 scribenick: Antoine 17:59:53 Antoine has joined #swd 17:59:57 RESOLVED to close ISSUE-52 by adding a table to the Primer with correspondences between ISO-2788 and SKOS constructs 18:00:06 s/RESOLVED/RESOLVED:/ 18:00:11 scribenick: Antoine 18:00:13 me rrsagent, please draft minutes 18:00:25 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS 18:00:40 Guus: about ISSUE-53 18:01:43 Alistair: it's about how to construct a multilingual vocabularies 18:01:57 ... and while building it, linking these terms from different languages 18:02:23 +Elisa_Kendall 18:02:55 Guus: I'd propose that with the representation of language-specific information 18:03:58 ... SKOS relies on the existing XML facilities for language tagging 18:04:12 Antoine: ISO 5964 describes the process for defining labels in multiple languages and linking them 18:04:31 Antoine: links between terms from different languages in 5964 can be represented 18:04:50 ... in SKOS by the fact that a same concept has labels in different languages 18:06:04 Ralph: PROPOSE to close ISSU-53 by saying that we see no incompatibility between SKOS and ISO5964 18:06:15 s/ISSU/ISSUE 18:07:16 RESOLVED :to close ISSUE-53 by saying that we see no incompatibility between SKOS and ISO5964 18:07:24 s/ :/: 18:08:51 Antoine has joined #swd 18:09:06 RESOLVED: to close ISSUE-51 by saying that we see no incompatibility between SKOS and ISO11179 18:09:26 Symbol labels 18:09:46 Guus: we have no resolution from the scoping discussion 18:10:13 For Clay, XML notes example at http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/XMLNotes 18:10:32 Ralph: there was a message last night mentioning interest for symbols 18:11:35 Guus: we can keep them 18:11:57 Alistair: we could have a subproperty of skos:note 18:12:01 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0150.html Margherita's comments 18:12:56 Antoine: I'd prefer to leave them out 18:15:46 Antoine has joined #swd 18:15:50 Tom: why would symbolic labels be in scope if we declared that XML code in notes was out of scope 18:15:55 ... ? 18:16:19 Ralph: we shouldn't try to close issue 76 without Margherita 18:16:25 Property naming 18:16:56 ISSUE-82 18:17:15 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/82 issue 82 Property Names 18:17:19 Guus: raised after comments on the mailing list 18:18:24 ... I also find it very difficult 18:18:36 ... the simplest solution is to make an absolutely clear note 18:19:56 ... the other is to change the names of the properties 18:20:29 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/DraftPrimer 18:21:19 Antoine: see the 5 May "minor edit" 18:22:51 Section 2.3.1 18:23:52 Ralph: rather than "the label of the ... property" I'd say "the name of the property" 18:25:23 Guus: PROPOSED to resolve ISSUE-82 by adding editorial changes to the documents highlighting the intended interpretation of broader and narrower 18:25:29 +1 18:26:09 RESOLVED: to close ISSUE-82 by adding editorial changes to the documents highlighting the intended interpretation of broader and narrower 18:27:02 Tom: we could drop -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/81 issue 81 18:28:24 Guus: maybe we could not include an unspecified label relationship property 18:29:45 Antoine has joined #swd 18:30:41 Alistair: the space of decision is tight. The only property is labelRelated 18:30:42 Alistair: the only property that caused issue 81 is labelRelated, which we've dropped. So issue 81 is moot. 18:38:30 PROPOSED: ISSUE-81 is resolved because the property in question "labelRelated", has been dropped. 18:38:54 Regrets+ Vit 18:39:13 Regrets+ Margherita 18:41:45 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008May/att-0013/IMG_2943.jpg group photo 18:42:13 left to right: Ralph, Clay, Jon, Alistair, Guus, Tom, Ed, Antoine 18:46:08 zakim, Guus has left lc 18:46:08 -Guus; got it 18:49:10 Clay has joined #swd 18:51:39 Topic: Vocabulary Management 18:51:53 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008May/0023.html "collected notes from reviewers on March 16th Editor's draft" [Elisa 2008-05-07] 18:52:32 scribenick: aliman 18:52:43 tomb: i pasted resolution to ISSUE-81 into IRC 18:53:00 PROPOSED: ISSUE-81 is resolved because the property in question "labelRelated", has been dropped. 18:53:13 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/Vocab/principles-20080316 VM 16 March Editor's Draft 18:53:17 RESOLVED: ISSUE-81 is resolved because the property in question "labelRelated", has been dropped. 18:53:45 elisa: helpful comments, general consensus that if fixed specific things, general agreement to move document forward 18:54:30 ... in terms of structure of doc, a few comments on things to make it clearer, visually outlining/emphasising things e.g. list of topics. Couple of places, organising sections better & labelling sections with headings. i will do that. 18:55:14 ... one comment, mark van assem, needed section to say intended audience/readership. I haven't seen this in many notes from W3C, appreciated guidance on who right audience is. 18:55:32 ... People who author RDF/OWL schemas, people doing vocab management. 18:55:53 ... Tension between the two. What are we addressing? Concept systems? OWL ontologies? What are we talking about? 18:56:42 ... Could use some assistance from this group on that. One area where, comments in general, unclear what we're talking about, schemas? vocabularies? biggest issue generally in feedback. 18:57:23 ... My sense of feedback was, tension between what a vocabulary is, relationship to concept systems, rdf graphs, owl ontologies. Having a section that teases that out, clear about what we're describing in the document, helpful to broad audience. 18:57:33 ... That's the major issue to be addressed. 18:58:13 ... Other comments on specific sections, e.g. describing URI schemes in section 2.1. I may need assistance on. Section 2.2, thanks Diego for comments on annotation properties. Tools for generating human-readable documentation. 18:58:31 ... A few more comments on section in readable documentation. 18:59:16 ... In section 2.3, some feedback on maintenance policies for SKOS. I think, this section is one where I need some input, based on what we've decided. What do you want to highlight? Reference from one of SKOS documents to this, to help connect the two. 18:59:41 ... Then there were a few minor comments on research topics, tightening it up. 18:59:56 ... That was majority of issues. Biggest one is, what's a vocabulary, graph, ontology etc.? 19:00:32 ... That's the biggest issue, need help, Alistair made a good start in email he said. Might be a good idea to have a whole section in the document on this. 19:01:28 tomb: does seem to be a lot to do. In march, planned to publish on may1. in april, changed to publish on june 1 as a WD. but to publish as WD, need to have response to all of points raised, many can discuss now, identify which need further work. 19:02:05 ... would need a draft. Moving the note beyond 1 june doesn't seem like a good idea. Feels like there's a lot that needs to be done. 19:02:22 ... When could you get a revised draft to WG? 19:03:17 elisa: started on it last week, hoped to get it done this weekend, not possible. I have started addressing them, haven't sent any out yet. Lions share of small issues not hard. Things I need help with, definitions, ontology, graph etc. So much confusion out there. 19:03:24 ... Even in the semantic wbe community. 19:03:39 ralph: Do you think there is a distinction we need to clarify for the purposes of this doc? 19:04:05 elisa: could say we're talking about pulishing schemas and their documentation. Not talking about concept systems or vocabularies. So if refocus, less to discuss. 19:04:45 ... I think document right now, tries to do both. Maybe because of my misunderstanding of goal. If can corral it, state something up front, or eliminate by talking about schemas, maybe make document more readable. 19:05:35 tomb: I propose we have a discussion first about the meaning of "vocabulary". As I noted in my comments, there's the draft we started with, still reflects ambivalence/ambiguity about what a vocabulary is which was present in early wiki draft. 19:05:45 ... whether RDF vocabulary is a set of resources or a set of URIs ... 19:06:01 ... Alistair points to RDF semantics and the way that clearly says a vocabulary is a set of URIs, ... 19:06:41 ... but on the other hand, alistair also points out, notion of OWL ontology is different from notion of vocabulary. In OWL semantics, closer to notion of RDF graph than "vocabulary". 19:07:20 .. I'd like to discuss, if we say an RDF vocabulary is a set of URIs, then sets of assertions around those URIs are out of scope? E.g. domain and range etc. Are they part of a vocabulary? Or is it just set of URIs? 19:07:51 ... Or are we dealing with technical definition of a vocabulary, or information notion of vocabulary as set of resources denoted by URIs. 19:08:52 ralph: let me try my formulation. I hoped we could convey advice on how to manage things like SKOS. How to manage evolution of a specification of some set of things. I mixed together vocabulary, ontology, RDF namespace for purposes of managing whatever those things describe. 19:09:28 ... If it would answer you're concerns to rename as "namespace management", telling people how to manage evolution of definitions of terms in the namespace, dated versions to old properties etc. 19:10:28 ... that DC has dealt with, SKOS, OWL, FOAF stability vocabulary. For me, answer to the question is, if choosing either choice, e.g. domain and range constraints are not in "RDF vocabulary" ... all properties of a property are what need to be managed. 19:10:48 ... We're talking about managing *the definition of SKOS* and the documents at the SKOS namespace. 19:11:06 Tomb: "namespace" is an overloaded term. 19:11:36 Ralph: It's not just the URIs that define the resources. Also other properties of resources. Elisa, do you have any clever terms from OMG? 19:12:27 elisa: they're confused. Maybe we could say up front, what we mean is, collection of things in some specifications, e.g. SKOS and all documentation a specification, then we're talking about managing a specification on the Web. 19:13:28 ... Exactly what ralph said, conflated notions of OWL ontology, RDF vocabulary, concept system, publishing something which is specification of something at some place ... 19:13:38 ... talking about managing evolution of those things. 19:14:25 ralph: so if we say our audience is, people who have to evolve contents of a namespace document, if that's our audience, then is it confusing to that audience to conflate schema ... 19:14:29 tomb: schema is a bad word 19:14:52 elisa: schema is a subset of that specification. OWL ontologists, everything explicit in the ontology. 19:15:03 ... I would argue it's the whole specification. 19:16:43 Alistair: I think we _can_ talk about managing "RDF vocabularies" 19:17:00 ... I raised the issue because the document seemed to define "RDF vocabulary" in 2 different ways 19:17:08 Elisa: I'm happy to drop those definitions 19:17:25 Alistair: defining and managing a Web vocabulary includes all the related documents 19:17:37 [from before] ralph: I wouldn't want to include in scope all documentation practices, out of scope. 19:18:23 ralph: hung up on, what exactly is RDF vocabulary. Found in RDF model and concepts, it had definition of RDF vocabulary. Authors didn't mean to exclude property of a property. 19:19:08 Alistair: when you're managing a vocabulary, you're managing a set of URIs and a set of properties about those URIs 19:19:25 ... you're not managing at a syntax level 19:19:27 s/not// 19:19:44 ... you're not managing a _class_; you're managing a _definition_ of a class 19:20:10 ... in a model-theoretic world there's what you say and the interpretation of what you say 19:20:19 ... be explicit that we're managing _documentation_ 19:20:38 Elisa: I can take a crack at writing a new paragraph describing this 19:21:19 Alistair: you can't version a _class_ but you can version a _definition of a class_ 19:21:24 ... you can't version the world :) 19:21:36 Tom: that fits with DCMI usage 19:21:45 ... we have successive snapshots of a description of a term 19:21:55 ... the term and each snapshot have their own URIs 19:22:37 elisa: I can't try to write short paragraph in the introduction. 19:22:54 ralph: I think that will help, get to meat of what this practices is trying to describe, i.e. definitions 19:23:05 elisa: examples of multiple definitions of same terms? 19:23:05 s/definitions/managing definitions/ 19:23:13 tomb: i have an action to write a paragraph on that. 19:23:18 elisa: would fit nicely 19:23:18 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS 19:23:58 tomb: I wondering now about stuff in note which doesn't fit so well. Taking things out which are orthogonal. 19:24:04 s/multiple managing/multiple 19:24:22 s/i.e. definitions/i.e. managing definitions/ 19:24:24 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS 19:24:32 ... So e.g. in my comments on introduction 4th para ... this emphasis on repositories and portals, example of a repository ... 19:24:41 elisa: might go away, if you don't think useful 19:25:19 tomb: for reviews, respond point by point, take out or leave in, so then reviewers can check new version against comments. 19:25:45 Antoine has joined #swd 19:25:46 ... we need one more iteration, have a new version of the entire draft that we can read and discuss in light of response to reviews. 19:26:11 elisa: I will do that. The philosophical issue in reviews slowed me down, didn't know how to address that. 19:27:00 tomb: going down my comments, section 2.1 para 7, not clear what example of URI schemes, what the point was there. Because we have principle of URI opacity. Examples seem to say, one can construct URIs so embeds informaiton in strings ... 19:27:29 ... assisting users in finding things, seemed to imply good practice to embed information in URIs. (A) did I read that right, and (B) do we want to recommend? 19:28:07 elisa: OMG do this. OASIS does this. So we can either take that out, not in keeping with notion of opacity, or leave it in and describe tradeoffs. 19:28:46 ralph: tension here, because value of this document will be to say, some stuff jon's doing with his registry, snapshots of sets of things which make sense, give snapshots a name with dates, have cognitive value to people. 19:29:04 .. so say, here's a reasonable practice for naming things, but URIs are supposed to be opaque. So not sure. 19:30:00 tomb: But either describe example in more detail, or drop. As it is, not clear what example is actually saying. Is this document about recommending something explicitly? 19:30:20 tomb: as it is, example doesn't provide enough information to understand what OMG is actually doing. 19:30:32 elisa: I can provide example, if want to keep it in and expand. 19:31:48 ralph: I'd either drop entirely, or expand into something like a cookbook. I perceive call for cookbook-type things. E.g. owner of the foobar vocabulary, if I do X Y Z nobody at W3C will have a problem. Current example has too many links. 19:31:58 elisa: I will expand to include examples at OMG, how it's working. 19:32:48 ralph: Before you do the work, in this para you say OMG has adopted practices, on the other side of complication. Specifications are sufficiently large and detailed that simple mechanisms aren't working. Rather restrict to simple cases. 19:33:03 elisa: I'll have a look at it. 19:33:32 tomb: My preference to drop it. Expanding it ideally would involve including simpler examples as well, e.g. datestemping in constyructing URI strings. 19:34:23 ... we should be careful not to expand scope of what we have, try to narrow scope. We need to get out the door in a very short time. That would expand to whole set of issue which we don't have time for. 19:34:27 elisa: ok 19:35:20 tomb: Some detail about tools which could go. Maintenance policies, there was section about articulating policies, section 2.3 last para. 19:36:30 ... policies for vocabularies, but list covers vocabularies and other stuff, things are more than just vocabularies. Not that many published policies, including SKOS. There was a published policy in SKOS 2005, but effectively that's been superseded by decisions taken here. Not clear to me that we have requirement and resources to formulate a policy per se. 19:37:36 ... Although that would be desirable to do, but do we have now with tight human resources and focus on Recommendation documents in place before the summer, what that would mean to assign actions to write up maintenance policy for SKOS. 19:37:41 Alistair: the thing that changed for SKOS was that it entered W3C Recommendation Track 19:37:50 ... which means that decisions are made within the W3C process 19:38:06 ... before that, we had this idea that SKOS was totally community-driven 19:38:54 ralph: Yeah, but W3C process ... Dan Brickley for FOAF had vocabulary for how well baked each vocabulary term is. W3C doesn't say anything about whether you SHOULD/MUST/MAY do fine-grained indication of maintenance. 19:39:23 ... If we got to point 2 years ago, would like to say something about e.g. whether like FOAF vocabulary subset or not. But at this point, can't do more than cite example of what's been done. 19:40:13 ... Alistair in 2005 SKOS had done similar sort of stability things, if you're point is we should drop aspiriations to deal with stability vocabulary in this note, we don't have time for that. 19:40:51 Alistair: the SKOS stability terms don't really make sense now in the way SKOS is being managed 19:41:01 ... FOAF is managed on a shorter timescale 19:42:25 ralph: think of this the other way around, original SKOS example, FOAF example, DC example, important to say something to community about how much consensus around a term. Maybe encourage W3C to think about their process. Need to roll with evolution of definitions, maybe community knows something which W3C doesn't. 19:42:57 s/which W3C doesn't/which W3C Process doesn't yet formalize 19:43:46 elisa: In terms of document, maybe put into two classes, vocabs like FOAF or DC with ongoing revision policy. Other class of things go through more formal review process within some kind of standards-based structure, e.g. W3C has REC-track, OMG structure for documents final then formal, then process in ISO WD, CD, FCD ... more informal community approach, more formal standards approach ...... 19:43:48 ...maybe that is enough? 19:45:15 tomb: There is a formal process with DCMI terms. Once they're published, DCMI policy is, we can deprecate URI but URIs are forever. The audience for this, we want to encourage people who develop vocabulary, if examples from standards processes, it points out of sync with general ideas to publish formal schema, identify versions ... these headings ... 19:46:26 ... how they're formulated, aimed at audience to lower the barrier and encourage to create vocabularies. Focus on large complex ontologies and research topics, preference to completely cut. Doesn't fit with the message as I understand it of the note, to invite people to look at some example that they might reasonably follow. 19:47:16 ralph: You said something there, it's the case that standards orgs like OMG & W3C have formality that is above and beyond what we think the community ... we would like to encourage more community-develop vocabularies ... formal processes forced on us is not what we'd expect. 19:47:31 ... The more we talk about formal processes, the more we scare off... 19:48:10 Tomb: selling semantic web in library world, perception that semweb is research, it's way out there and modeling things, we just want something that works, i'm exagerrating this. 19:48:54 ... So I feel uncomfortable if group comes out with note that underlines researchy formal complex aspects, as opposed to lower barrier basic principles "use URIs" etc. 19:49:28 TomB++ 19:49:39 ... problem for semweb activity generally. As semweb deployment WG, we need to push on message which emphasises general principles as opposed to complexities, and doesn't emphasise how complex things can get, especially when look at advanced research issues. 19:51:20 elisa: Fine with me, my users in UML world would prefer that. My user community tends to be people wanting to share with each other, don't need all the baggage. So can happily refocus. If you have examples like FOAF that I can point to, that have been successful in broad community. FinnOnto community of folks doing what we descibre, community effort to retain cultural hertiage, ontologies... 19:51:21 ...for art & literature. 19:52:00 -> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=finonto&btnG=Google+Search FinONTO citatios 19:52:11 s/tatios/tations/ 19:52:15 ... they're using SKOS. Only example I know of, national example, maybe audience we're targeting this for. I'm happy to lighten up and direct efforts to doing the simple things. 19:52:44 ralph: Jon do you have support for notions of stabillity of definitions? 19:53:35 jon: we assume definitions aren't going to be stable, so we've defined timeslices, so put stability in hands of consumers, editor's are then free to morph a vocabulary over time. Given users a mechanism to lock it down and trust over time. 19:53:47 ralph: is there explicity mechanisms to say this definition is in flux 19:54:05 jon: we have number of statuses we can assign from approved published to unstable at property level 19:54:12 ralph: analogous to SKOS and FOAF 19:54:27 jon: took our stability definition from those? 19:54:34 s/?/./ 19:54:59 jon: we include stability mechanism at every level, can define at whole vocab level, or single property or concept, and can change over time. 19:55:27 tomb: write some sentences on this 19:55:44 ... point out SKOS vocabulary falls under the maintenance procedures as defined by W3C process. 19:56:26 ralph: well but, in context of 2.3, (articulate maintenance policies) ... 2005 SKOS had fine grained stability descriptors a la FOAF & metadata registry .. would'nt want to lose that. 19:56:44 ... that was in past when SKOS was community exercise. Now SKOS in standards process, have not retained. 19:56:53 tomb: interesting point, good place to capture it. 19:57:09 ... can anyone take an action to write a paragraph about that? 19:57:16 ralph: IRC has it? 19:57:52 ... I'm arguing against somet.hing I said earllier, maybe time to do a bit of case study exposition, but don't have time to do a vocabulary of stability. 19:58:44 Alistair: what SKOS 2005 was an ideal 19:58:57 ... what we actually did in practice was less that this ideal 19:59:29 ... so the articulated SKOS 2005 maintenance policies may not be as useful as a working example 19:59:47 elisa: Can still point to it as ideal, in practice less idea? 19:59:56 ralph: propose we don't admit to that. 20:00:02 elisa: It could be a short paragraph. 20:00:29 ralph: didn't prove the model is broken 20:00:55 ... similar in FOAF. 20:01:39 ... interesting to see what happens with Jon's model, more open, people construct vocabularies by retrieving definitions from repository, so separation between benign dictators and users retrieving stability. 20:02:27 elisa: I have some direction, can poke people to send paragraphs. Can look to lighten up research side, emphasise practical approaches. Try to point to practical things you send me. Eliminate scary parts. 20:02:33 -[LC] 20:02:58 tomb: suggest revised timetable, first to respond to comments as ... 20:04:11 +[LC] 20:04:28 elisa: tomb talking about timetable? 20:06:14 tomb: revised timetable, suggest step 1 to respond to comments yes no maybe, there are a few issues e.g. wordsmitihing scopign statement (what we mean by a vocabulary) (also mark van assem, if use "vocabulary", many people associated that with controlled vocabularies) -- so handling scoping on mailing list would be good, if can do that in next 2 weeks, revised version by may 20, time to... 20:06:15 ...iterate on mailing list, aim for publication decision on june 3 or june 10. 20:06:54 elisa: ok. I will get my responses out this week. perhaps get draft up towards end of next week. Following week is semantic technologies conference. 20:07:03 tomb: anyone have any further questions? 20:07:31 ralph: any other big things? 20:08:12 elisa: philosophilca discussion no so nasty. hadn't identified tension between practical light weight folks as opposed to heavy weight side. Occurs to me Jim hendler wrote article on this tension a while ago. Aside from that, most specifics ok. 20:09:08 tomb: propose short break, then hack away at skos issues. 20:16:09 Topic: SKOS Issues 20:16:40 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/37 issue 37 SKOS Specialization 20:16:59 scribenick: edsu 20:18:26 PROPOSED: Section 4.8 of the SKOS Primer resolves ISSUE-37 20:18:55 RESOLVED: Section 4.8 of the SKOS Primer resolves ISSUE-37 20:19:25 Topic: ISSUE-45 NaryLinksBetweenDescriptorsAndNonDescriptors 20:19:44 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS 20:19:48 antoine: i think it should have the same fate as the coordination issue, since i believe the solution for one is the solution for the other 20:20:22 ... and we postponed ISSUE-40 20:21:01 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/45 issue 45 N-Ary Links between descriptors and non-descriptors 20:21:28 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/40 issue 40 20:22:13 PROPOSED: to postpone issue 45, due to lack of time, lack of implementation experience with tentative solutions, and unclear interaction between SKOS and OWL. 20:22:56 Antoine has joined #swd 20:23:21 RESOLVED: to postpone issue 45, due to lack of time, lack of implementation experience with tentative solutions, and unclear interaction between SKOS and OWL. 20:24:39 aliman: we are clear on the relation of SKOS and OWL 20:24:51 Alistair: we are clear that SKOS is an OWL Full ontology 20:25:22 ... what is yet unknown is what all the reasonable patterns are for using SKOS and OWL together, and becuase of our lack of knowledge, we don't know what the consequences of solutions for coordination are 20:25:44 s/coordination are/coordination are on those patterns 20:26:04 Topic: ISSUE-46 Indexing and NonIndexing concepts 20:26:10 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/46 issue 46 20:26:31 Antoine: i think we can drop this one 20:26:48 ... i was involved in the raising of this issue 20:27:17 ... the fact that skos:subject is removed makes it unclear if it's ok to put this in 20:27:26 aliman: yeah it seems to be out of scope 20:27:33 Alistair: since we've said that indexing is out of scope then this also seems out of scope 20:28:33 PROPOSE: Close issue 46 as we have decided that the indexing vocabulary is not part of SKOS 20:29:09 RESOLVED: Close issue 46 as we have decided that the indexing vocabulary is not part of SKOS 20:29:11 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS 20:29:42 TomB: going through these issues has a pretty clear overlap with finalizing the use case document as a note 20:30:20 ... we should give an action to the editors of the use cases to report back on the consequences of the decisions for the final set of proposed and candidate requirements 20:30:39 Antoine: we should say which requirements are not met, i think that would do the trick 20:31:15 TomB: is there anything that needs to be revised? 20:31:39 Antoine: there is the issue of what to do with all the use cases ... is it ok to keep them on the wiki? 20:31:54 JonP: we've got use cases that came into the list and aren't documented 20:32:04 aliman: it's a nice repository of use cases 20:32:19 TomB: would be nice but we need to be careful about dividing our attention 20:32:31 RalphS: would it be ok to just point to the wiki from the Note? 20:32:44 Antoine: is it ok for w3c? 20:33:03 RalphS: sure, I'd treat it as a record of the design rationale for the Note 20:33:38 ... for community relations reasons its worth putting the effort of editing the information in the wiki -- but we have better ways to spend our time right now 20:33:56 JonP: need to put up what we've decided not to do 20:34:24 s/rationale for the Note/rationale for the Recommendation 20:34:25 ACTION: Editors of the Use Cases to clean up the lists of requirements in light of resolutions 20:34:49 Topic: Issue-47 MappingProvenanceInformation 20:34:50 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/47 issue 47 20:35:09 aliman: antoine, you have a proposal for this? 20:35:44 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0063.html 20:36:45 Antoine: proposing to create a mapping scheme that would be an RDF named graph, and provenance would be retrieved using the named graph 20:36:56 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0017.html 20:37:21 aliman: this proposal has 2 solutions 1) mapping scheme 2) use n-ary relations 20:37:31 ... was your proposal to go for the first of these? 20:37:34 Antoine: yes 20:38:38 Elisa: still there? 20:38:41 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0078.html proposed text to close issue 47 20:39:24 RalphS: we don't know what "standard RDF containment mechanisms" are 20:39:43 ... I don't like us including vocabulary like Named Graphs in a REC 20:39:53 Antoine, aliman: we've done that already 20:40:02 TomB: maybe we have to stay till 5:15 :) 20:40:22 aliman: one thing we can say is that it's a general rdf problem, and it's not our problem 20:40:41 ... we could point to possible options, such as the use of named graphs, sparql queries as a suggestion 20:41:05 RalphS: in the current working draft we use it in the appendix about patterns, and in a sideways reference to concept schemes and named graphs 20:41:22 ... we're making no statements about something that does not exist yet 20:41:43 ... but this resolution is a step beyond to suggest someone use this even though it doesn't exist yet 20:41:48 aliman: what does sparql lack? 20:42:04 RalphS: sparql support is in query results right? 20:42:20 aliman: sparql is a recommendation as of january 20:42:32 ... and it has 8.2.2 specifying named graphs 20:42:55 Sparql has some limited support for mapping, but doesn't support nesting very well 20:43:27 -> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#namedGraphs 8.2.2 Specifying Named Graphs 20:43:47 RalphS: sparql is a query language that allows the query to be restricted to a particular set of triples 20:44:18 ... antoine's proposed resolution is consistent with this 20:44:53 zakim, mute elisa 20:44:53 Elisa_Kendall should now be muted 20:44:55 ... the problem i have is that in the context of sparql they can put in this source URI in a way that I don't think we have the luxury to do 20:45:01 zakim, unmute elisa 20:45:01 Elisa_Kendall should no longer be muted 20:45:07 -[LC] 20:45:41 +[LC] 20:46:36 aliman: can't we resolve this by saying it's out of scope for us, and we'll point to examples of other ways of doing this 20:47:02 RalphS: i'd be happy to point at what sparql does, but i'd be nervous about doing something that looks like a specification for something 20:47:24 Antoine: i would be ok with that as long as it's the same as the semantic relations solution 20:47:51 RalphS: maybe i'd be happy with a subset of Antoine's text 20:48:20 ... is just the final sentence sufficient? 20:48:37 Ralph: how about just the final sentence "Similar to what..." in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0078.html ? 20:49:19 aliman: can't we just resolve quickly and then work with this text? 20:49:40 RalphS: i'm ok with that 20:50:01 PROPOSED: Provenance of mappings is not handled by the introduction of specific SKOS vocabulary. In the SKOS reference documents (Reference and maybe Primer), SKOS users are instead pointed at other RDF containment mechanisms. 20:50:43 RalphS: as long as we don't point at stuff that doesn't exist 20:51:19 ... The URI of the information source can be used in a query ... that part is not hypothetical 20:51:38 PROPOSED: Provenance of mappings is not handled by the introduction of specific SKOS vocabulary. In the SKOS reference documents (Reference and maybe Primer), SKOS users are instead pointed at other RDF containment mechanisms (E.g. the URI of a mapping information resource can be used as the name of a graph in a SPARQL query). 20:52:09 RalphS: the thing I'm trying to protect us against, is that in timbl's quoted graphs, the literal graph is not asserted 20:52:55 ... if we use the term named graphs, then some future spec might not do what we need 20:53:04 PROPOSED: Provenance of mappings is not handled by the introduction of specific SKOS vocabulary. In the SKOS reference documents (Reference and maybe Primer), SKOS users are instead pointed at other RDF containment mechanisms (E.g. the URI of a mapping information source can be used in a SPARQL query). 20:53:30 +1 20:53:41 RESOLVED: Provenance of mappings is not handled by the introduction of specific SKOS vocabulary. In the SKOS reference documents (Reference and maybe Primer), SKOS users are instead pointed at other RDF containment mechanisms (E.g. the URI of a mapping information source can be used in a SPARQL query). 20:53:54 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS 20:53:59 RESOLVED: Provenance of mappings is not handled by the introduction of specific SKOS vocabulary. In the SKOS reference documents (Reference and maybe Primer), SKOS users are instead pointed at other RDF containment mechanisms (E.g. the URI of a mapping information source can be used in a SPARQL query). 20:54:41 Topic: ISSUE-49 LexicalMappingLinks 20:54:57 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/49 LexicalMappingLinks 20:55:23 PROPOSED: the XL appendix provides a framework for asserting lexical mapping links 20:55:40 RESOLVED: the XL appendix provides a framework for asserting lexical mapping links 20:55:42 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS 20:56:29 Topic: ISSUE-64 TextualDescriptionsForConcepts 20:56:38 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/64 issue 64 20:56:55 aliman: the primer has place holders for talking about these patterns 20:57:02 Antoine: yes but they are empty 20:57:19 JonP: do we continue to allow these design patterns, yes. 20:57:27 aliman: i don't see any reason not to 20:57:32 RalphS: let the community experiment 20:57:50 TomB: we left the range of description unspecified I believe 20:58:04 JonP: part of this issue is how should we formally specify it 20:58:14 s/experiment/experiment. What was the DCMI experience in this sort of thing? 20:58:22 aliman: the SKOS reference has done this, so maybe we could use that 20:58:49 aliman: some people will want to keep things simple, and some people will want to use a bit of structure 20:59:14 Antoine: i like not closing the door to it 20:59:40 RalphS: you didn't think there were huge interoperability problems that arose? is it similar situation? 20:59:50 aliman: i think it is similar 21:00:10 ... there isn't much that's not flat in dublin core data 21:00:23 antoine: the problem is how to decide whether these different patterns are optional or not 21:00:38 ... i would feel uncofortable making skos tool developers to deal with all three patterns 21:00:47 RalphS: this is the question 21:01:15 aliman: communities of practice could emerge, and there are application profiles we could talk about 21:01:50 RalphS: i'm still comfortable with community experiments, some tools may encourage the adoption of a particular pattern 21:02:01 aliman: i imagine the literal pattern will predominate 21:02:45 TomB: we assumed in DC that there are some properties like description that have been so widely deployed, even when they can't be constrained, they'll just need to be special cases, we don't know what else to do with that ... 21:03:02 ... in other cases we tried to make a clear decision between literal no-literal 21:03:19 RalphS: is it ok with you Antoine that whatever happens, happens? 21:04:04 Antoine: maybe? 21:04:57 aliman: pracitces may differ for different properties, so making a sweeping statement at a high level, because people might create different refinements with different characteristics 21:05:12 RalphS: it could be advice to the user that don't assume that the tools support each of these patterns 21:05:30 ... it feels like an area where we are accomadating experimentation 21:05:41 aliman, Antoine, Tomb: yes 21:06:10 aliman: can we just let it happen and not say anything? 21:06:19 ... hard to say without specific examples/tools 21:06:35 (ralph packing up laptop) 21:07:17 PROPOSED: SKOS will explicitly allow all 3 patterns for documentation properties 21:07:58 RESOLVED: SKOS will explicitly allow all 3 patterns for documentation properties 21:08:40 TomB: should we print out remaining Issues and take them to dinner? 21:08:45 .. laughter .. 21:09:37 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 21:09:37 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html aliman 21:09:42 lets run down the list and say easy|medium|hard 21:10:05 ISSUE-72 ExactMatchTransitive 21:10:19 aliman: 72, 73, 75 medium to high 21:10:31 76, easy 21:10:34 78, easy 21:11:15 ISSUE-80 21:11:23 aliman: could be the subject of an interesting long note 21:11:33 ... reluctant to squeeze in to the Primer 21:11:56 ISSUE-83 21:12:03 aliman: probably easy 21:12:26 ISSUE-84 21:12:50 aliman: the issue is to review the statement in the Primer 21:13:07 ... if we are it's easy, if we're not it's hard 21:13:17 Antoine: diego sent something 21:14:18 TomB: so hopefully easy 21:14:22 ISSUE-86 21:14:24 aliman: medium 21:14:59 ... this issue was triggered by the section of the primer that talks about extending concept schemes 21:15:23 ... an application would need to know it can get a URI 21:15:40 ... what do we expect to happen when a URI for a concept is resolved 21:16:01 ... medium well 21:16:47 Elisa: i don't think it's overly hard, medium sounded ok 21:18:15 TomB: i think we are adjourning ... thanks Elisa 21:18:48 Elisa: looking forward to catching up with you next week 21:18:50 -Elisa_Kendall 21:19:08 meeting adjourned 21:19:17 zakim, please draft minutes 21:19:17 I don't understand 'please draft minutes', edsu 21:19:50 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 21:19:50 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html edsu 21:21:03 cred has left #swd 21:26:24 -[LC] 21:26:26 SW_SWD()9:00AM has ended 21:26:27 Attendees were seanb, Antoine, Guus, Alistair, Clay, Jon, Tom, Ed, Ralph, Elisa_Kendall, [LC]