IRC log of swd on 2008-06-24

Timestamps are in UTC.

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