14:59:52 RRSAgent has joined #swd 14:59:52 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-irc 14:59:58 Zakim has joined #swd 15:00:01 zakim, this will be swd 15:00:02 ok, Ralph, I see SW_SWD()11:00AM already started 15:00:02 berrueta_ has joined #swd 15:00:08 zakim, who's on the phone? 15:00:08 On the phone I see Tom_Baker 15:00:32 +Ralph 15:00:39 +Margherita_Sini 15:00:39 rrsagent, please make record public 15:00:45 Meeting: SemWeb Deployment WG 15:01:04 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/0086.html 15:01:11 seanb has joined #swd 15:01:22 -> http://www.w3.org/2008/06/17-swd-minutes.html previous 2008-06-17 15:01:34 Regrets: Quentin, Simone, Jon, Ed, Guus, Vit 15:01:42 Chair: Tom 15:02:20 +??P19 15:02:28 zakim, ??P19 is me 15:02:28 +seanb; got it 15:02:49 scribe: SeanB 15:03:21 aliman has joined #swd 15:04:04 +??P36 15:04:19 zakim, ??p36 is AliMan 15:04:19 +AliMan; got it 15:04:27 Antoine has joined #swd 15:04:59 zakim, mute me 15:04:59 AliMan should now be muted 15:05:35 +Antoine_Isaac 15:06:16 Topic: Admin 15:06:27 Tom: Telecon next week, Guus to chair. 15:06:35 PROPOSED to accept minutes of the last telecon: 15:06:36 http://www.w3.org/2008/06/17-swd-minutes.html 15:06:41 RESOLVED to accept the minutes 15:06:50 Topic: SKOS 15:06:59 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] 15:07:05 zakim, unmute me 15:07:05 AliMan should no longer be muted 15:07:05 --continues 15:07:14 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] 15:07:17 --continues 15:07:26 ACTION: Alistair to check the old namespace wrt dereferencing [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action03] 15:07:29 --continues 15:07:35 ACTION: Antoine and Ed to add content to Primer about irreflexivity [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action06] 15:07:51 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/0094.html Antoine's proposed text 15:08:02 --continues 15:08:11 ACTION: Sean to write a proposal to indicate to OWL WG our requirements for annotation properties [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action07] 15:08:17 --done 15:08:31 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/0089.html Sean's proposed text 15:09:10 Sean: I plan to discuss this with folks in the OWL WG who have offices near me 15:09:19 ... if we had rich annotations, that's what we would use for SKOS 15:09:35 ... it's not clear how much benefit we'd get from just labels and the documentation properties; hard to reason with these 15:09:58 ... hard to see much benefit from defining complex classes using the documentation properties 15:10:08 ... both Alistair and I think of these things as being annotations 15:10:41 ... I'll post this to the OWL WG in a week or so after collecting comments from SWD WG 15:10:57 ... the OWL WG is interested in our comments as they see SKOS as a use case for their annotation and punning work 15:11:39 +[CTIC] 15:11:45 zakim, [CTIC] is me 15:11:45 +berrueta; got it 15:12:01 ACTION: Sean to post comment to OWL WG re annotation requirements. 15:12:11 ACTION: Alistar to update the history page adding direct link to latest version of rdf triple [recorded in 15:12:11 http://www.w3.org/2008/06/17-swd-minutes.html#action01] 15:12:14 --continues 15:12:31 ACTION: Editors of the Use Cases to clean up the lists of requirements in light of resolutions [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html#action02] 15:13:01 Antoine: put notes about requirements up on wiki. 15:13:09 ...do we change the list of requirements? 15:13:17 ... good starting points 15:13:34 Tom: reminder. Requirements to be published as WG Note in December. 15:13:48 ...The document as is is a record of our thinking. Should we edit it to 15:13:57 ...reflect our requirements? 15:14:09 Antoine: Main thing to check whether we have met the resolutions 15:14:23 Ralph: Suggest we don't delete requirements. If there are reqs that we've decided not 15:14:31 ... to meet, should say that explicitly. 15:14:45 ... Wouldn't bother adding requirements to document. Don't feel so 15:15:02 ...stornlgy, but not necessary to put in there detail abut outher things that we ended 15:15:04 ... up doing. 15:15:15 s/stornlgy/strongly/ 15:15:19 ...Would mark anything additional as additional 15:15:41 ...As Tom suggested, more of a historical record. How we resolved those 15:15:46 +1 on Ralph's approach to Use Cases 15:15:49 ...things listed as potential requirements. 15:15:52 +1 on what ralph said, say explicitly if don't meet stated requirements, don't need to add requirements 15:15:54 berrueta_ has joined #swd 15:16:22 Tom: Basically cleaning up, not necessarily adding things but making things neat. 15:16:39 Ralph: Have we gone through and identified everything> 15:16:59 TOm: Ongoing task to get Use case + requirement as WG Note. 15:17:28 Antoine: Would rather consider this action done. 15:17:36 Ralph: another action may be needed. 15:17:53 Antoine: Mostly Guus who wanted this thin done. Spotting requirements for which 15:17:59 ...we haven't done the jobs. 15:18:31 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/0093.html "status of SKOS requirement" [Antoine 2008-06-24] 15:18:33 TOm: Action is to get use cases doc as a whole into shape. Then have two people read through 15:18:51 ...and provide views, then declare as note. Could continue action as it 15:18:57 ...covers what needs to be done. 15:19:32 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html Ralph 15:19:35 --continues 15:19:55 ACTION: Guus to mail his position on issues 72, 73 and 75 to the list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/13-swd-minutes.html#action25] 15:20:00 --continues 15:20:15 vit has joined #SWD 15:20:24 http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/41 15:20:31 Tom: Agenda shows two issues. Antoine raised ISSUE 41 which he thought was closed. 15:20:57 Antoine: Use of language tags in examples in all documents. Can't remember original comment. Long 15:21:19 ...time ago. Examples changed in primer to fit the comment. Idea was to check with original author? 15:21:37 ...is this why issue is pending? Confident that the required changes were made. 15:22:03 Ralph: Issue tracker suggests that this was sorted and we just need to get in touch with the commentor 15:22:15 Alistair: Can't remember if email was sent. 15:22:34 ...sure that commentor was happy. 15:22:45 PROPOSED to declare ISSUE 41 closed. 15:23:10 RESOLVED to close ISSUE 41. 15:23:45 Tom: Two remaining issues 15:23:48 ... 84. 15:23:57 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/84 ISSUE 84; ConstructionOfSystematicDisplaysFromGroupings 15:24:10 Antoine: Ongoing. No time to check this. Diego sent proposal for algorithm a while ago. Noone 15:24:22 ... has checked it. Could decide to postpone? 15:25:01 Tom: Would propose to postpone. If this is posted to list, then we could decide this next week. 15:25:29 Antoine; Even if Diego's algorithm is really cool (which there's little doubt about :-) 15:25:36 ...should it be in documents? 15:25:49 Diego: Based on how thesaurus should be displayed. Don't have access to ISO 15:26:14 ...standard, so work based on things that Alistair included in wiki page. 15:26:21 in February, Alistair wrote "ISSUE-84 ConstructionOfSystematicDisplaysFromGroupings) -- 15:26:21 important, but arguably out of scope. 15:26:23 " 15:26:30 ...can't be considered a complete implementation 15:26:42 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0096.html "Issues Review" [Alistair 2008-02-21] 15:26:46 ...if someone can help or provide informaiton about systematic display, would be happy to 15:27:05 ...extend implementation. Don't thunk algorithm should be in documents. It's a toy/example. 15:27:20 Tom: We are agreeing that this is out of scope for inclusion in specs. Independent of whether we 15:27:35 ...can work with Diego to publish in some form. 15:28:01 ...Suggest that in the interest of closing issues, Antoine takes an action to propose postponement. 15:28:26 ACTION: Antoine to propose that we postpone ISSUE 84. 15:28:39 Tom: Issue 86. 15:29:01 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/86 ISSUE 86; SkosURIDereferenceBehaviour 15:29:09 Alistair: We just need a proposal here which will be something along the lines of adding text to primer/reference following 15:29:20 ...Cool URIS, semantic Web recipes etc. 15:29:27 Tom: Basically linking to external resoruces. 15:29:38 ...Is this reference, primer or both? 15:29:50 Ralph: Makes sense to have it as a reference issue. It's 15:29:59 ...best practice for use of SKOS, so reference. 15:30:14 Tom: Add a sentence or two plus links in reference. 15:30:35 Ralph: Particularly if there are any minimum required behaviours. E.g. 15:30:43 ...you're conforming if you do the following. 15:30:59 Alsitair: would be reluctant to bring that into the reference. Additional level of 15:31:02 ...conformance. 15:31:25 s/Alsitair/Alistair/ 15:31:26 Ralph: Makes sense to give some advice. 15:31:43 Alistair: Happy to have no minimum requirements. But would like to encourage good practice. 15:31:53 +1 Alistair 15:32:16 Ralph: Would like to see a proposal on what the recommended behaviour would be, 15:33:03 Ralph: Are concepts different from other stuff? 15:33:07 ACTION on SKOS Reference editors to propose a recommended minimum URI dereference behaviour 15:33:17 ACTION: SKOS Reference editors to propose a recommended minimum URI dereference behaviour 15:33:40 Tom: Comment on change of namespace. 15:33:45 ...Do we need to do anything? 15:34:03 ...Has anyone pointed out this is a major versioning? 15:35:06 Antoine: Comment is slighlty different from the first one. While we might have a new version, 15:35:16 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/0064.html "SKOS comment: change of namespace" [Laurent LE MEUR 2008-06-17] 15:35:20 ... we could have used the original as it wasn't really official. 15:35:50 Sean: could be argued either way; we decided to make the change 15:36:32 Tom: This posting puts the emphasis on the status of the vocabulary. The answer really involves explaining that this is 15:36:33 ... 15:36:54 a major versining. Simply recording the justification that the previous version didn't have this status. 15:37:03 ...Would be useful to respond along those lines. 15:37:22 Antoine: Maybe a good rsponse would be that akthough the previous version wasn't a standard, 15:37:28 ...it was "de facto" 15:37:49 Ralph: Refrain from using the words "de facto", but this is roughly the reasons from the face to face. 15:38:14 ...Discussions from f2f were that changing existing vocabs would be a lot of work. 15:38:26 ack Ralph 15:38:35 ...Meeting record should shw that we considered pain for authors and developers. 15:38:51 Ralph: Should respond or it may turn into Last Call comment. Feel a bit 15:39:08 ...bad that we didn't highlight this in the status of the document. In retrospect we might have 15:39:17 ...written a sentence calling this to people's attention 15:39:41 Tom: This will come up, so lets formualte a response now. Can someone take an action to formulate a resposne 15:39:44 ...on the list. 15:39:57 ...Look at f2f washinton record to reconstruct this. 15:40:20 -> http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#skosnamespace SKOS Namespace discussion of 2008-05-06 15:40:21 Ralph, I feel bad about that too, I can't believe I didn't think to add a note on this to the "changes" section of the reference. 15:40:53 Sean: is it right to do this on the lsit? 15:41:16 Tom: Yes. Final response will go to the commentor. 15:41:23 Ralph: Draft the response in the fish bowl. 15:41:43 ACTION: Sean to draft response to comment about namespace. 15:41:55 Topic: RDFa 15:42:01 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] 15:42:07 --continues 15:42:17 Tom: Anyone reporting re RDFa? 15:42:34 Ralph: Telecon last week dealin with last minute LC comment which was resolved 15:42:53 ...with editorial changes only. Substance of comment was uncertainty about the technical 15:43:10 ...direction. Clarified language about use of doc type when DTD validation is considered important 15:43:18 ...by the document author. 15:43:34 ...Published CR. Now officially in CR. WOuld like to point out that 15:43:37 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2008AprJun/0113.html "Pubrules update: XHTML+RDFa permitted as DTD in non-Recs" 15:43:59 ... pubrules now permit XHTML+RDFa in documents. 15:44:23 ...So anything up to CR can use RDFa. Important milestone. 15:45:04 ...Have already met the CR. Two interoperable implementations. 15:45:30 ...Hoping for more information about implementations. Only thing we really need to do is 15:45:34 ...respond to comments. 15:45:50 Topic: Recipes 15:46:06 ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes implementations] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20] 15:46:09 --continues 15:46:26 Ralph: Continues until infrastructure is available. 15:46:36 -Antoine_Isaac 15:46:55 ACTION: Jon and Ralph to publish Recipes as Working Group Note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/10-swd-minutes.html#action03] 15:46:57 --continues 15:47:06 Ralph: Jon owes me some text. 15:47:24 Diego: Wondering about what Ralph just said about RDFa in W3C documents. Does this apply to notes? 15:47:38 ...Should we add RDFa to our upcoming documents? 15:48:03 Ralph: Excellent question. Ian's message to chairs says "all TR except for Recommendations". 15:48:08 ..so could do this for Notes. 15:48:34 Tom: Essentially taking header information 15:48:42 Ralph: Basic DC metadata. 15:49:03 ...Idea why Recommendations are excluded is because any document that's expected to be 15:49:26 ...updated can use RDFa, but Recs are hard to change, so need to wait until RDFa is Rec. 15:49:42 Diego: W3C has database with RDF data? 15:49:48 Ralph: yes 15:50:01 Diego: is it a good idea to add metadata inside document? 15:50:17 + +1.425.266.aaaa 15:50:34 Ralph: Diego -- make a list of interesting metadata that could be included 15:50:45 zakim, aaaa is Daniel 15:50:45 +Daniel; got it 15:50:51 Diego: For instance links between current and previous versions 15:50:59 ...would be intersting. So could be added as RDFa 15:51:23 Tom: In terms of process, we're proposing to adopt a uniform approach for all the new technical documents. 15:51:23 zakim, Daniel is Daniel_Maycock 15:51:23 +Daniel_Maycock; got it 15:51:41 ...Recipes, new drafts etc. 15:51:57 ...Welcome to Daniel Maycock of Boeing. 15:52:19 ...What we should probably do is work out what the metadata will say, 15:52:20 dmaycock has joined #swd 15:52:31 ...maybe using recipes as test case, then adopt that approach for others. Otherwise will 15:52:48 ...end up with inconsistency. If we can get this right, then it's an example we can point to. 15:53:05 ...Worth taking a moment to look specifically at content of the metadata. Can someone take an action to 15:53:10 ...make a proposal. 15:53:27 Diego: Considering adding a page to the wiki about using RDFa on W3C TR. 15:53:50 Tom: Excellent idea. Even if it's just a page that's simple, thought through, then 15:53:57 ...we could even publish it as a Note. 15:54:20 Ralph: No need to go hog wild (!!). DC is a no-brainer. Maybe also some other 15:54:28 ...things, but good to see a list. 15:55:00 ACTION: Diego to propose minimum RDFa metadata set for WG deliverables. 15:55:20 Topic: Vocabulary Management 15:55:31 No actions, Vit and Elisa not on the call. 15:55:44 vit, would you like to report on Vocabulary Management? 15:55:57 zakim, mute me 15:55:57 AliMan should now be muted 15:55:58 no news from me 15:56:29 zakim, unmute me 15:56:29 AliMan should no longer be muted 15:56:35 Ralph: Objective next week is to decide that we have a LC document? 15:56:46 Ralph: regrets from me for 8 July 15:56:49 ...I will not be here for July 8th. 15:57:09 Tom: Not available for July 8, 15, 22. Need to think about how to schedule further calls. 15:57:25 ...How close to LC? 15:57:37 Alistair: What do we need to do? 15:57:56 Ralph: Anything about which we expect substantive comments, if there's something 15:58:07 ...that we're likely to change, would be good to document those 15:58:19 ...explicitly in the LC draft, which would then allow us to fic them. 15:58:32 Alistair: Flag anythin that might change. 15:58:48 Ralph: THings that we anticipate there will be sufficient comment to make us change our position. 15:59:06 Alistair: e.g namespace. Don't want to chew up lots of time. 15:59:20 Tom: Should we also flag mapping properties as at risk? 15:59:29 ...Where would one flag this? 15:59:48 Ralph: Best place to do that would be in the mapping properties section. "This section 15:59:58 .../part of section are features at risk" 16:00:08 Tom: Do we need to do this in announcement? 16:00:28 Ralph: Announcement would include status. Don't have to enumerate, but should say if there are some 16:00:31 ...at risk features. 16:00:39 Tom: Who will write that announcment? 16:00:46 Ralph: Chairs and team contact 16:01:25 Alistair: Will need some input on which sections or features should be marked. Please 16:01:29 ... email list. 16:01:46 Tom: Two mentioned: namespace and mapping properties. Are there any others? 16:02:07 Ralph: Suspect that minutes of f2f will show anything controversial. 16:02:13 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/71 ISSUE 71 ParallelMappingVocabulary 16:02:45 Ralph: Recent decisions more likely to be controversial as these issues have been around a while. 16:03:06 Alistair: Should we err on the side of caution? 16:03:32 Ralph: If we believe it's controversial and new evidence could persuade us to change our psoition, then yes. 16:03:44 ...if it's controversial and we know we won't change our minds, then no. 16:04:17 Alistair: So w.r.t namespace, what new evidence would make us change our mind. 16:04:38 Ralph: If /all/ the authors of SKOS documents complained. 16:04:47 ...this is primarily a deployment based decision. 16:05:07 Tom: Kind of hoping that won't happen :-) 16:05:35 ... inclined to avoid marking too many things as at risk. Looking at the Washington record would 16:05:40 ...be useful 16:05:52 Ralph: e.g. resolution for mapping stated this explciitly. 16:06:14 ACTION: Editors of SKOS reference to specifically flag features at risk for Last Call. 16:06:31 meeting adjourned 16:06:38 -berrueta 16:06:39 -Daniel_Maycock 16:06:40 -Margherita_Sini 16:06:41 -AliMan 16:06:41 rrsagent, please draft minutes 16:06:41 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html seanb 16:06:45 marghe has left #swd 16:06:50 zakim, who is on the call? 16:06:50 On the phone I see Tom_Baker, Ralph, seanb 16:07:41 -Tom_Baker 16:07:43 -Ralph 16:07:59 -seanb 16:08:02 SW_SWD()11:00AM has ended 16:08:03 Attendees were Tom_Baker, Ralph, Margherita_Sini, seanb, AliMan, Antoine_Isaac, berrueta, +1.425.266.aaaa, Daniel_Maycock 16:08:03 zakim, list attendees 16:08:03 sorry, seanb, I don't know what conference this is 16:08:19 TomB has joined #swd 17:22:24 zakim, bye 17:22:24 Zakim has left #swd 17:22:28 rrsagent, bye 17:22:28 I see 17 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-actions.rdf : 17:22:28 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] [1] 17:22:28 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-irc#T15-06-59 17:22:28 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] [2] 17:22:28 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-irc#T15-07-14 17:22:28 ACTION: Alistair to check the old namespace wrt dereferencing [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action03] [3] 17:22:28 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-irc#T15-07-26 17:22:28 ACTION: Antoine and Ed to add content to Primer about irreflexivity [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action06] [4] 17:22:28 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-irc#T15-07-35 17:22:28 ACTION: Sean to write a proposal to indicate to OWL WG our requirements for annotation properties [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action07] [5] 17:22:28 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-irc#T15-08-11 17:22:28 ACTION: Sean to post comment to OWL WG re annotation requirements. [6] 17:22:28 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-irc#T15-12-01 17:22:28 ACTION: Alistar to update the history page adding direct link to latest version of rdf triple [recorded in [7] 17:22:28 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-irc#T15-12-11 17:22:28 ACTION: Editors of the Use Cases to clean up the lists of requirements in light of resolutions [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html#action02] [8] 17:22:28 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-irc#T15-12-31 17:22:28 ACTION: Guus to mail his position on issues 72, 73 and 75 to the list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/13-swd-minutes.html#action25] [9] 17:22:28 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-irc#T15-19-55 17:22:28 ACTION: Antoine to propose that we postpone ISSUE 84. [10] 17:22:28 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-irc#T15-28-26 17:22:28 ACTION: SKOS Reference editors to propose a recommended minimum URI dereference behaviour [11] 17:22:28 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-irc#T15-33-17 17:22:28 ACTION: Sean to draft response to comment about namespace. [12] 17:22:28 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-irc#T15-41-43 17:22:28 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] [13] 17:22:28 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-irc#T15-42-01 17:22:28 ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes implementations] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20] [14] 17:22:28 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-irc#T15-46-06 17:22:28 ACTION: Jon and Ralph to publish Recipes as Working Group Note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/10-swd-minutes.html#action03] [15] 17:22:28 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-irc#T15-46-55 17:22:28 ACTION: Diego to propose minimum RDFa metadata set for WG deliverables. [16] 17:22:28 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-irc#T15-55-00 17:22:28 ACTION: Editors of SKOS reference to specifically flag features at risk for Last Call. [17] 17:22:28 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-irc#T16-06-14