14:49:42 RRSAgent has joined #swd 14:49:42 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/06/03-swd-irc 14:49:49 rrsagent, bookmark 14:49:49 See http://www.w3.org/2008/06/03-swd-irc#T14-49-49 14:49:59 zakim, this will be swd 14:49:59 ok, TomB; I see SW_SWD()11:00AM scheduled to start in 11 minutes 14:50:07 Meeting: SWD AG 14:50:11 Chair: Tom 14:50:47 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/0001.html 14:52:01 Regrets: Margherita, Sean, Diego, Antoine, Guus, MichaelH, Vit, Simone 14:52:33 Previous: http://www.w3.org/2008/05/27-swd-minutes.html 14:52:50 rrsagent, please make record public 14:59:15 SW_SWD()11:00AM has now started 14:59:15 edsu has joined #swd 14:59:16 +MrLuserSkype 14:59:37 :) 15:00:09 zakim, MrLuserSkype is me 15:00:09 +TomB; got it 15:00:26 Elisa has joined #swd 15:01:00 +Ralph 15:01:01 -Ralph 15:01:01 +Ralph 15:01:52 +Elisa_Kendall 15:03:36 +[LC] 15:03:41 Scribe: Elisa 15:03:42 zakim, lc is Ed 15:03:43 +Ed; got it 15:04:30 aliman has joined #swd 15:06:01 +??P55 15:06:12 zakim, ??p55 is Alistair 15:06:12 +Alistair; got it 15:07:33 +1 15:08:01 http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/Reference/Planning 15:08:06 Considering pushing this week's agenda to next week due to low turnout 15:08:11 Topic: SKOS Reference publication? 15:08:42 Alistair: all of the content is there 15:09:14 Alistair: we need roughly 1/2 day to make a few minor changes, add schema files, and that's it 15:10:11 Alistair: there are a couple of issues in the schema files that Sean sent, inconsistencies, that may have been due to transforms or tools 15:10:34 Alistair: when I was using triplet before, I got some weird behavior that I wasn't able to pin down 15:10:53 s/triplet/tripler/ 15:11:02 Alistair: the problems were minor, so I just need another 1/2 day to get the files together and send them to Ralph 15:11:26 Tom: let's do that on the list then ... we did decide last week that the changes had been incorporated 15:11:42 benadida has joined #swd 15:11:48 Tom: whether we need to wait until next week or can do that earlier, let's wait until the files are posted and then take a decision online 15:12:02 Hi all, unfortunately I can only join via IRC today. 15:12:04 Ralph: do we have a resolution to publish? 15:12:45 JonP has joined #swd 15:12:45 Tom: yes, if you look at the 5-27 minutes, at the end of the SKOS section, the discussion was to publish the draft without formal review 15:12:49 Ralph: yes 15:13:15 Tom: I would propose that that also means that we could take the decision online and wouldn't need to wait for the next telecon 15:13:24 Ralph: I concur with that 15:13:49 Tom: we could close issue 83, but I think the call is too small, so I don't see any other items on which we could make significant progress this wee 15:14:07 I suggest that we resolve to use this agenda as the starting point for next weeks call 15:14:31 Tom: unless anyone has issues on which we think we could make progress with such a small call 15:14:56 Ralph: what I'm wondering - do you know where Jon is making updates where stuff is fixed? 15:15:11 Ed: He seems to be pushing them through CVS 15:15:18 I am 15:15:40 Ralph: I'm not seeing all of the changes 15:15:53 Jon, is there an updated .html document? 15:16:24 Ralph: because some of the changes you had suggested consistently used the same domain name ... 15:16:35 Ed: alot of the things I was pointing out had to do with the files 15:16:51 Ed: I did have a question about ... he was using mydomain in one of the examples 15:16:55 Jon, e.g. 'yourdomain' vs 'example.com' 15:17:02 q+ on skos to ask about URI dereference behaviour 15:17:05 Ralph: that was one of the questions I wanted to raise 15:17:08 There haven't been any updates to the html since we posted the last draft 15:17:14 (W3C pubrules prefers either w3.org or example.com) 15:17:17 ...trying to get on the call 15:17:33 Tom: I wanted to talk about some of the things that might continue after the working group ... 15:17:37 q+ to ask about URI dereference behaviour for skos concepts, schemes etc. 15:17:57 Tom: as a question to Ralph, what are the opportunities, resources available to ... 15:18:09 +Jon_Phipps 15:18:28 zakim, Jon_phipps is me 15:18:31 +JonP; got it 15:18:37 Tom: as far as use of wikis is concerned, support for mailing lists, what are the options 15:19:01 Ralph: if the working group wants to ask for or Sponsor a skos interest list, I don't have a feeling either way 15:19:18 whether that's valuable or not ... we can certainly host those lists and the wiki as well 15:19:41 if we can, snapshot the state of the working group, not necessarily freeze it, but make the point the working 15:19:51 group reached clear for a couple of years from now 15:20:11 I would prefer generally that we establish a separate set of skos wiki pages 15:20:16 Alistair: that would be nice 15:20:30 Tom: maybe the current wiki pages could be frozen 15:20:51 Ralph: the esw wiki will at some point be migrated over to ... 15:21:15 to Ralph, so the current difference in wiki platforms will eventually go away 15:21:23 single digit number of months 15:21:52 Tom: back to recipes ... 15:22:26 Ralph: I did write an email shortly before the telecon -- it's useful for us to be careful about consistency 15:22:40 Ralph: that's why I asked if the updates you're making are visible somewhere 15:22:54 Ralph: if the served example files are being updated somewhere 15:23:13 Jon: it's enough of a pain to update everything that I'm staying with the last date where I can 15:23:29 I think I only changed one small thing in that document and that was a date 15:23:58 I haven't changed the example.org changes until you can do a review of the document 15:24:48 Ralph: I guess I'd like, if you would create a 2008-06-xx.html document, the dates can be inconsistent 15:25:15 Jon: I haven't actually changed anything in the document since the draft that I put up, almost all of the changes I can think of are in 15:25:29 Ralph: so the only thing you can think of is the yourhost ... 15:25:59 Jon: what's the process at this point? does this need to go thru any additional review? 15:26:24 Ralph: if Ed and I say that this is ok, then the working group should be ok with it 15:27:04 Jon: if I make the change and put up the document, it's ok to reference the 2008-04 examples, without having to change all of the dates 15:27:14 Ralph: yes 15:27:25 (for an updated editor's draft) 15:27:28 Jon: I just have to make the one change to the document and repost it. 15:28:14 ack aliman 15:28:14 aliman, you wanted to ask about URI dereference behaviour for skos concepts, schemes etc. 15:28:41 Alistair: I was just looking ahead at the skos issues, there is one on the URI dereference behavior, and I was wondering 15:28:55 if anyone had any ideas about how to resolve this relatively painlessly 15:29:10 Alistair: perhaps we can resolve this to a recipes example 15:29:26 Ralph: I definitely thought we would go in the direction of working to a recipe 15:29:44 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/86 issue-86; SkosURIDereferenceBehaviour 15:29:58 Alistair: 6 is the extended configuration for dereferencing to a concept 15:30:16 Ralph: I don't necessarily think we should resolve to that one ... 15:30:28 Ed: you can imagine someone opting for a simpler one 15:30:39 s/that one/recipe 6 in particular/ 15:30:44 LCSH 15:30:50 Alistair: what do you do for LCSH? 15:31:29 Alistair: they have a way of working around doing 303s but still being able to dereference each URI 15:32:05 http://lcsh.info/123456#concept 15:32:49 Ralph: how much trouble would I be causing to ask for a write-up for this ... 15:33:26 Ed: it was originally done using one of the recipes, but this simplified the server side code ... I would be happy to write it up, but it would probably need some time to put it together 15:33:45 ... wherer http://lcsh.info/123456 is directly negotiable 15:34:54 Alistair: from what I understand, I think its ok, but you do have to be a little bit careful, as there is a primary URI, but the risk is that if you serve html content, and if that had an anchor in it for your concept ... 15:35:04 you could end up with a conflict ... 15:35:41 Ed: I've been trying to make sure that the html references do have an anchor with concept, so maybe this is an issue 15:36:02 http://lcsh.info/sh85118553#concept 15:36:08 Ralph: when I do an http get on an URI which is a subject heading, it's something that has (see example) 15:36:28 if I do an http get on that, the server may not respond with a 200, as the subject heading is not a document 15:36:53 Alistair: I'm not sure that's true, because you can't do an http get on that directly, you need to do that on the primary URI 15:38:04 Ralph: this is exactly the point you made about the difference between the html and rdf version, and in this particular design, the server can't say 303 for a concept, because it doesn't know you asked for a concept 15:39:08 Ralph: it creates additional confusion if the html document has anchors called concept and the rdf has ids called concept ... 15:40:11 this means that the TAG will think that the LCSH approach is broken ... 15:40:56 Ed: I definitely understand the issue of having the hash URI that has two different representations, I guess I was encouraging Jon to promulgate this error ... :) 15:41:43 Alistair: if there was not an anchor in the html, I thought this could be considered a new recipe, ... as long as there wasn't a direct contradiction to web architecture 15:42:37 Ralph: that's the difference between recipes 1 and 3 ... the crucial difference is that recipe 1 doesn't have any html and recipe 3 introduces html and a 303 15:42:46 Ed: that's originally what I did ... 15:43:07 Ralph: I'm afraid that doesn't work ... appreciating Alistair's attempt to massage it 15:43:08 http://www.openarchives.org/ore/0.9/primer.html#HTTP 15:43:37 Alistair: the argument was really fine, all of the recipes are more cautious with respect to 303s 15:43:40 http://www.openarchives.org/ore/0.9/primer.html#Aggregation 15:44:05 Ralph: it creates dragons for revisions to the vocabulary - you have to be sure not to introduce any anchors 15:44:40 -> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-cooluris-20080331/ Cool URIs for the Semantic Web 15:44:40 Ed: in the Cool URIs document, there was feedback from the TAG ... there was something in that document that shifted in its tone at some point 15:45:15 Alistair: the feedback I had from TimBL had to do with generic resources, from what I understand, Tim was saying do a 303, and then content negotiate from that point 15:45:30 if you have a generic resource then you can bookmark it 15:46:00 I thought back through what we have done ... you can't go back through and retrofit that to a document, you would have to publish a new document 15:46:04 http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/~sauermann/2006/11/cooluris/ 15:46:31 Ed: this looks like it was the old document, but if you look at figure 4, it doesn't look like what we're doing now. 15:47:19 Ed: look at figure 4, so it's in section 4.1, the hash URI section 15:47:32 Ralph: the dfki version is old 15:47:40 Alistair: that's interesting 15:48:13 The Content-Location header should be set to indicate if the hash URI refers to a part of the HTML document or RDF document. 15:48:14 then you would be able to fix it by making sure that the content location header is correct 15:48:47 Ed: I'm open to changing it if we have a recommendation .. I'm willing to change it appropriately, and that's the reason I put this experimental version out 15:48:55 maintenance over time is definitely a big issue 15:49:19 Alistair: there's quite a bit of difference between the Cool URIs document and the recipes we're putting out 15:49:33 Ed: I think that was introduced in the stuff that Diego noticed 15:49:47 Alistair: we've only got a recipe for the first part of 4.1 and 4.3 ... 15:50:00 Ed: but you started this a long time before this came out 15:50:26 Ralph: we might need to say something about this other document with additional cases 15:50:47 Alistair: but the recipes document would get considerably more complicated 15:51:00 Ralph: we should at least acknowledge the one more useful pattern ... 15:51:28 Ed: the recipes document does point to Cool URIs. this has come up before, the potential for RDFa to deliver vocabularies 15:51:46 Cool URIs or "simple implementation": http://www.openarchives.org/ore/0.9/primer.html#HTTP 15:51:59 If you did use RDFa to do that, you probably wouldn't be able to deliver an RDF/XML graph at the same URI 15:52:02 q+ to mention OAI ORE example 15:52:19 ack TomB 15:52:19 TomB, you wanted to mention OAI ORE example 15:52:20 Ralph: it will be awhile before we can recommend best practices around this 15:52:58 Tom: I just wanted to quickly point out that ... if you click on the link to the OAI ORE example, it looks like they have two ways of implementing 15:53:37 using the Cool URIs or using a resource aggregation ... but that's intended to resolve to the information resource, not to use the 303 redirect 15:54:11 I mention this because OAI ORE on the one hand, LCSH on the other ... these are two implementations people will look at for best practices 15:54:25 it would be good to make sure that the right precedences are set for these and documented 15:54:54 Tom: could you take an action, Ed, to write a note to the list ... its worth trying to nail it down and try to get the 15:54:59 reasoning nailed down 15:55:20 Action: Ed to write up the rationale behind the dereferencing behavior for LCSH 15:55:32 Ed: and Alistair can respond 15:55:54 Tom: I think that's going to be one of the implementation examples for SKOS, so we need to make sure everything is in place 15:56:00 for doing the right thing for the recipes 15:56:06 aliman++ 15:56:12 # for bringing that issue up 15:56:15 zakim, list attendees 15:56:15 As of this point the attendees have been TomB, Ralph, Elisa_Kendall, Ed, Alistair, JonP 15:56:16 Tom: meeting adjourned 15:56:23 rrsagent, please draft minutes 15:56:23 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/03-swd-minutes.html Ralph 15:58:29 -Elisa_Kendall 15:58:30 -Ed 15:58:30 -Ralph 15:58:32 -JonP 15:58:32 -Alistair 15:58:44 edsu has left #swd 15:59:02 TomB has joined #swd 15:59:05 [Ralph will copy the ACTIONs from last meeting to this record] 15:59:18 Ralph, did we do please list attendees? 15:59:26 yes 15:59:26 -TomB 15:59:28 SW_SWD()11:00AM has ended 15:59:30 Attendees were TomB, Ralph, Elisa_Kendall, Ed, Alistair, JonP 16:00:03 zakim, bye 16:00:04 Zakim has left #swd 16:00:06 rrsagent, bye 16:00:06 I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/03-swd-actions.rdf : 16:00:06 ACTION: Ed to write up the rationale behind the dereferencing behavior for LCSH [1] 16:00:06 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/03-swd-irc#T15-55-20