See also: IRC log
Tom: Telecon next week, Guus to chair.
PROPOSED to accept minutes of the last telecon:
RESOLVED to accept the minutes
ACTION: Ed to investigate what text could be added to primer re. concept co-ordination [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/22-swd-minutes.html#action02] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Guus to write primer text re: broaderGeneric and equivalence w/r/t subclass [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action08] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Alistair to check the old namespace wrt dereferencing [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action03] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Antoine and Ed to add content to Primer about irreflexivity [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action06] [CONTINUES]
<Ralph> Antoine's proposed text
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] [DONE]
<Ralph> Sean's proposed text
<Ralph> Sean: I plan to discuss this with folks in the OWL WG who have offices near me
<Ralph> ... if we had rich annotations, that's what we would use for SKOS
<Ralph> ... it's not clear how much benefit we'd get from just labels and the documentation properties; hard to reason with these
<Ralph> ... hard to see much benefit from defining complex classes using the documentation properties
<Ralph> ... both Alistair and I think of these things as being annotations
<Ralph> ... I'll post this to the OWL WG in a week or so after collecting comments from SWD WG
<Ralph> ... the OWL WG is interested in our comments as they see SKOS as a use case for their annotation and punning work
ACTION: Sean to post comment to OWL WG re annotation requirements. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action06]
ACTION: Alistair to update the history page adding direct link to latest version of rdf triple [recorded in [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/17-swd-minutes.html#action01] [CONTINUES]
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] [CONTINUES]
Antoine: put notes about
requirements up on wiki.
... do we change the list of requirements?
... good starting points
Tom: reminder. Requirements to be
published as WG Note in December.
... The document as is is a record of our thinking. Should we edit it to
... reflect our requirements?
Antoine: Main thing to check whether we have met the resolutions
Ralph: Suggest we don't delete
requirements. If there are reqs that we've decided not
... to meet, should say that explicitly.
... Wouldn't bother adding requirements to document. Don't feel so
... strongly, but not necessary to put in there detail abut outher things that we ended
... up doing.
... Would mark anything additional as additional
... As Tom suggested, more of a historical record. How we resolved those
<TomB> +1 on Ralph's approach to Use Cases
Ralph: things listed as potential requirements.
<aliman> +1 on what ralph said, say explicitly if don't meet stated requirements, don't need to add requirements
Tom: Basically cleaning up, not necessarily adding things but making things neat.
Ralph: Have we gone through and identified everything?
TOm: Ongoing task to get Use case + requirement as WG Note.
Antoine: Would rather consider this action done.
Ralph: another action may be needed.
Antoine: Mostly Guus who wanted
this thin done. Spotting requirements for which
... we haven't done the jobs.
<Ralph> status of SKOS requirement [Antoine 2008-06-24]
TOm: Action is to get use cases
doc as a whole into shape. Then have two people read
... and provide views, then declare as note. Could continue action as it
... covers what needs to be done.
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] [CONTINUES]
Tom: Agenda shows two issues. Antoine raised ISSUE 41 which he thought was closed.
Antoine: Use of language tags in
examples in all documents. Can't remember original comment.
... time ago. Examples changed in primer to fit the comment. Idea was to check with original author?
... is this why issue is pending? Confident that the required changes were made.
Ralph: Issue tracker suggests that this was sorted and we just need to get in touch with the commentor
Alistair: Can't remember if email
... sure that commentor was happy.
PROPOSED to declare ISSUE 41 closed.
RESOLVED to close ISSUE 41.
Tom: Two remaining issues
Antoine: Ongoing. No time to
check this. Diego sent proposal for algorithm a while ago.
... has checked it. Could decide to postpone?
Tom: Would propose to postpone. If this is posted to list, then we could decide this next week.
Antoine; Even if Diego's algorithm is really cool (which there's little doubt about :-)
scribe: should it be in documents?
Diego: Based on how thesaurus
should be displayed. Don't have access to ISO
... standard, so work based on things that Alistair included in wiki page.
<Ralph> in February, Alistair wrote "ISSUE-84 ConstructionOfSystematicDisplaysFromGroupings) --
<Ralph> important, but arguably out of scope.
Diego: can't be considered a complete implementation
<Ralph> Issues Review [Alistair 2008-02-21]
Diego: if someone can help or
provide informaiton about systematic display, would be happy
... extend implementation. Don't thunk algorithm should be in documents. It's a toy/example.
Tom: We are agreeing that this is
out of scope for inclusion in specs. Independent of whether
... can work with Diego to publish in some form.
... Suggest that in the interest of closing issues, Antoine takes an action to propose postponement.
ACTION: Antoine to propose that we postpone ISSUE 84. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action10]
Tom: Issue 86.
Alistair: We just need a proposal
here which will be something along the lines of adding text to
... Cool URIS, semantic Web recipes etc.
Tom: Basically linking to
... Is this reference, primer or both?
Ralph: Makes sense to have it as
a reference issue. It's
... best practice for use of SKOS, so reference.
Tom: Add a sentence or two plus links in reference.
Ralph: Particularly if there are
any minimum required behaviours. E.g.
... you're conforming if you do the following.
Alistair: would be reluctant to
bring that into the reference. Additional level of
Ralph: Makes sense to give some advice.
Alistair: Happy to have no minimum requirements. But would like to encourage good practice.
<TomB> +1 Alistair
Ralph: Would like to see a
proposal on what the recommended behaviour would be,
... Are concepts different from other stuff?
ACTION: SKOS Reference Editors to propose a recommended minimum URI dereference behaviour [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action11]
Tom: Comment on change of
... Do we need to do anything?
... Has anyone pointed out this is a major versioning?
Antoine: Comment is slighlty different from the first one. While we might have a new version,
<Ralph> SKOS comment: change of namespace [Laurent LE MEUR 2008-06-17]
Antoine: we could have used the original as it wasn't really official.
<Ralph> Sean: could be argued either way; we decided to make the change
Tom: This posting puts the
emphasis on the status of the vocabulary. The answer really
involves explaining that this is
a major versining. Simply recording the justification that the previous version didn't have this status.
scribe: Would be useful to respond along those lines.
Antoine: Maybe a good rsponse
would be that akthough the previous version wasn't a
... it was "de facto"
Ralph: Refrain from using the
words "de facto", but this is roughly the reasons from the face
... Discussions from f2f were that changing existing vocabs would be a lot of work.
... Meeting record should shw that we considered pain for authors and developers.
... Should respond or it may turn into Last Call comment. Feel a bit
... bad that we didn't highlight this in the status of the document. In retrospect we might have
... written a sentence calling this to people's attention
Tom: This will come up, so lets
formualte a response now. Can someone take an action to
formulate a resposne
... on the list.
... Look at f2f washinton record to reconstruct this.
<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.
Sean: is it right to do this on the list?
Tom: Yes. Final response will go to the commentor.
Ralph: Draft the response in the fish bowl.
ACTION: Sean to draft response to comment about namespace. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action12]
ACTION: Ben to prepare draft implementation report for RDFa (with assistance from Michael) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14] [CONTINUES]
Tom: Anyone reporting re RDFa?
Ralph: Telecon last week dealing
with last minute LC comment which was resolved
... with editorial changes only. Substance of comment was uncertainty about the technical
... direction. Clarified language about use of doc type when DTD validation is considered important
... by the document author.
... Published CR. Now officially in CR. WOuld like to point out that
Ralph: pubrules now permit
XHTML+RDFa in documents.
... So anything up to CR can use RDFa. Important milestone.
... Have already met the CR. Two interoperable implementations.
... Hoping for more information about implementations. Only thing we really need to do is
... respond to comments.
ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes implementations] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20] [CONTINUES]
Ralph: Continues until infrastructure is available.
ACTION: Jon and Ralph to publish Recipes as Working Group Note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/10-swd-minutes.html#action03] [CONTINUES]
Ralph: Jon owes me some text.
Diego: Wondering about what Ralph
just said about RDFa in W3C documents. Does this apply to
... Should we add RDFa to our upcoming documents?
Ralph: Excellent question. Ian's
message to chairs says "all TR except for
... so could do this for Notes.
Tom: Essentially taking header information
Ralph: Basic DC metadata.
... Idea why Recommendations are excluded is because any document that's expected to be
... updated can use RDFa, but Recs are hard to change, so need to wait until RDFa is Rec.
Diego: W3C has database with RDF data?
Diego: is it a good idea to add metadata inside document?
Ralph: Diego -- make a list of interesting metadata that could be included
Diego: For instance links between
current and previous versions
... would be interesting. So could be added as RDFa
Tom: In terms of process, we're
proposing to adopt a uniform approach for all the new technical
... Recipes, new drafts etc.
... Welcome to Daniel Maycock of Boeing.
... What we should probably do is work out what the metadata will say,
... maybe using recipes as test case, then adopt that approach for others. Otherwise will
... end up with inconsistency. If we can get this right, then it's an example we can point to.
... Worth taking a moment to look specifically at content of the metadata. Can someone take an action to
... make a proposal.
Diego: Considering adding a page to the wiki about using RDFa on W3C TR.
Tom: Excellent idea. Even if it's
just a page that's simple, thought through, then
... we could even publish it as a Note.
Ralph: No need to go hog wild
(!!). DC is a no-brainer. Maybe also some other
... things, but good to see a list.
ACTION: Diego to propose minimum RDFa metadata set for WG deliverables. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action16]
No actions, Vit and Elisa not on the call.
<TomB> vit, would you like to report on Vocabulary Management?
<vit> no news from me
Ralph: Objective next week is to decide that we have a LC document?
<Ralph> Ralph: regrets from me for 8 July
Ralph: I will not be here for July 8th.
Tom: Not available for July 8,
15, 22. Need to think about how to schedule further
... How close to LC?
Alistair: What do we need to do?
Ralph: Anything about which we
expect substantive comments, if there's something
... that we're likely to change, would be good to document those
... explicitly in the LC draft, which would then allow us to fic them.
Alistair: Flag anythin that might change.
Ralph: Things that we anticipate there will be sufficient comment to make us change our position.
Alistair: e.g namespace. Don't want to chew up lots of time.
Tom: Should we also flag mapping
properties as at risk?
... Where would one flag this?
Ralph: Best place to do that
would be in the mapping properties section. "This section
... /part of section are features at risk"
Tom: Do we need to do this in announcement?
Ralph: Announcement would include
status. Don't have to enumerate, but should say if there are
... at risk features.
Tom: Who will write that announcment?
Ralph: Chairs and team contact
Alistair: Will need some input on
which sections or features should be marked. Please
... email list.
Tom: Two mentioned: namespace and mapping properties. Are there any others?
Ralph: Suspect that minutes of f2f will show anything controversial.
Ralph: Recent decisions more likely to be controversial as these issues have been around a while.
Alistair: Should we err on the side of caution?
Ralph: If we believe it's
controversial and new evidence could persuade us to change our
psoition, then yes.
... if it's controversial and we know we won't change our minds, then no.
Alistair: So w.r.t namespace, what new evidence would make us change our mind.
Ralph: If all the authors of
SKOS documents complained.
... this is primarily a deployment based decision.
Tom: Kind of hoping that won't
... inclined to avoid marking too many things as at risk. Looking at the Washington record would
... be useful
Ralph: e.g. resolution for mapping stated this explciitly.
ACTION: SKOS Reference Editors to specifically flag features at risk for Last Call. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action17]