IRC log of swd on 2008-07-01

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:00:23 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #swd
15:00:23 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/07/01-swd-irc
15:00:29 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #swd
15:00:33 [Ralph]
zakim, this will be swd
15:00:33 [Zakim]
ok, Ralph, I see SW_SWD()11:00AM already started
15:00:38 [Ralph]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:00:38 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P15
15:00:45 [Ralph]
Meeting: SemWeb Deployment WG
15:00:52 [Zakim]
+Elisa_Kendall
15:00:57 [Ralph]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/0108.html
15:01:06 [seanb]
seanb has joined #swd
15:01:18 [Zakim]
+Jon_Phipps
15:01:29 [Ralph]
Previous: 2008-06-24 http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html
15:01:36 [JonP]
zakim, Jon_Phipps is me
15:01:36 [Zakim]
+JonP; got it
15:01:38 [Zakim]
+Ralph
15:01:53 [aliman]
aliman has joined #swd
15:01:56 [Ralph]
Chair: Guus
15:02:05 [ed]
ed has joined #swd
15:02:16 [Ralph]
zakim, ??p15 is DLRubin
15:02:16 [Zakim]
+DLRubin; got it
15:03:05 [Ralph]
Scribe: Jon
15:03:12 [Zakim]
+abel
15:03:17 [berrueta]
zakim, abel is me
15:03:17 [Zakim]
+berrueta; got it
15:03:25 [Zakim]
+[LC]
15:03:30 [ed]
zakim, LC is me
15:03:31 [Zakim]
+ed; got it
15:03:37 [Zakim]
+??P34
15:03:44 [Ralph]
zakim, ??p34 is Aliman
15:03:44 [Zakim]
+Aliman; got it
15:03:51 [Zakim]
+[VrijeUni]
15:03:56 [Ralph]
zakim, vrije is Guus
15:03:56 [Zakim]
sorry, Ralph, I do not recognize a party named 'vrije'
15:04:01 [Ralph]
zakim, vrijeuni is Guus
15:04:01 [Zakim]
+Guus; got it
15:04:17 [Zakim]
+??P37
15:04:25 [Ralph]
Regrets: Simone
15:04:27 [seanb]
zakim, ??P37 is me
15:04:27 [Zakim]
+seanb; got it
15:04:29 [Antoine]
Antoine has joined #swd
15:04:35 [Zakim]
+[LC]
15:04:52 [Ralph]
zakim, lc is Clay
15:04:52 [Zakim]
+Clay; got it
15:05:03 [Guus]
Guus has joined #swd
15:05:09 [Zakim]
+Daniel_Maycock
15:05:26 [Zakim]
+Antoine_Isaac
15:05:38 [Guus]
zakim, who is here?
15:05:38 [Zakim]
On the phone I see DLRubin, Elisa_Kendall, JonP, Ralph, berrueta, ed, Aliman, Guus, seanb, Clay, Daniel_Maycock, Antoine_Isaac
15:05:41 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Guus, Antoine, ed, aliman, seanb, Zakim, RRSAgent, JonP, dlrubin, Elisa, Ralph, berrueta
15:05:49 [Ralph]
Regrets+ Tom
15:06:03 [monarcho]
monarcho has joined #swd
15:06:09 [JonP]
Topic: ADMIN
15:06:45 [JonP]
Guus: This is the last scheduled telecon
15:07:34 [JonP]
PROPOSED to accept minutes of the last telecon: http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html
15:07:45 [danimov]
danimov has joined #swd
15:07:59 [JonP]
RESOLVED: to accept minutes of the last telecon
15:08:28 [JonP]
Topic: RDFa
15:08:55 [JonP]
Ralph: Nothing we particularly need to talk about
15:09:05 [Ralph]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/0100.html meeting record: 2008-06-26 RDFa telecon
15:09:11 [JonP]
Ralph: On schedule for August proposed rec
15:09:28 [JonP]
Guss: We need to schedule a meeting for about that time.
15:09:34 [JonP]
Topic: Recipes
15:09:37 [Ralph]
scribenick: ralph
15:09:50 [Ralph]
Guus: what's the progress on getting the Note published?
15:10:04 [Ralph]
Jon: I have updated the Status paragraph but didn't get a chance to send the notification
15:10:10 [Ralph]
... Ralph should look at it
15:10:22 [Ralph]
... Diego found some additional errors in the example document, which I'll fix right after the meeting
15:10:41 [berrueta]
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/AddingRDFaToTR
15:10:41 [Ralph]
ACTION: Jon and Ralph to publish Recipes as Working Group Note [recorded
15:10:41 [Ralph]
in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/10-swd-minutes.html#action03]
15:10:44 [Ralph]
-- continues
15:10:51 [Ralph]
[DONE] ACTION: Diego to propose minimum RDFa metadata set for WG deliverables.
15:10:51 [Ralph]
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action16]
15:11:19 [Ralph]
s|deliverables.|deliverables. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action16]|
15:11:42 [Ralph]
Diego: see -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/0104.html "adding metadata with RDFa to W3C TR" [Diego 2008-06-29]
15:11:53 [Ralph]
ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes
15:11:53 [Ralph]
implementations] [recorded in
15:11:53 [Ralph]
http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]
15:11:59 [Ralph]
action-2
15:12:00 [Zakim]
+Ben_Adida
15:12:07 [Ralph]
ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes implementations] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]
15:12:11 [Ralph]
scribenick: jon
15:12:18 [Ralph]
Topic: Vocabulary Management
15:13:01 [Ralph]
s|Note [recorded|Note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/10-swd-minutes.html#action03]|
15:13:09 [Ralph]
rrsagent, please make record public
15:13:14 [Ralph]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
15:13:14 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/07/01-swd-minutes.html Ralph
15:13:24 [JonP]
Guus: realistic timescale?
15:13:46 [JonP]
Elisa: almost done, just need to validate
15:14:10 [JonP]
...should have by next week
15:14:35 [JonP]
Guus: we may start reviewing between telecons, but will have to see how that workds out
15:14:50 [JonP]
Elisa: several people have found the doc to be valuable
15:15:09 [JonP]
... we were going to include some recommendation about the SKOS namespaces
15:15:24 [JonP]
.. but will figure that out once we've started reviewing
15:15:31 [JonP]
Topic: SKOS
15:15:56 [JonP]
Guus: Antoine sent email on ISSUE-84
15:16:12 [Ralph]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jul/0001.html "Proposal to postpone ISSUE-84 ConstructionOfSystematicDisplaysFromGroupings" [Antoine 2008-07-01]
15:16:59 [JonP]
Antoine: considering that issue-84 is too complex to deal with in the time available
15:17:28 [JonP]
...issue-84 is borderline wrt SKOS application and I propose to postpone
15:17:36 [Ralph]
i/Guus: This/scribenick: jonp
15:17:54 [Ralph]
i/Topic: Vocab/scribenick: jonp
15:17:57 [Ralph]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
15:17:57 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/07/01-swd-minutes.html Ralph
15:18:22 [JonP]
PROPSED: postpone ISSUE-84, reason given in message 0001 of July 2008
15:18:31 [Ralph]
+1
15:18:47 [JonP]
s/PROPSED/PROPOSED
15:19:04 [JonP]
RESOLVED: postpone ISSUE-84, reason given in message 0001 of July 2008
15:19:27 [JonP]
Ralph: I'll update the issue list right now, no action needed
15:19:42 [JonP]
Guus: looking at ISSUE-86
15:20:27 [JonP]
SeanB: action on me and Alistair to compose some text, Alistair has seen
15:21:01 [JonP]
...suggestion is to follow practices from CoolUris and include in Appendix
15:21:46 [JonP]
...proposed resolution is to make no requirements but recommend authors should follow the recipes and CoolUris
15:23:26 [JonP]
Guus: ISSUE-73, ISSUE-74, ISSUE-75
15:23:42 [JonP]
Alistair: just sent a mail suggestion some positions for each
15:24:01 [JonP]
...for issue-72, we make no statement
15:24:26 [JonP]
...for issue-75 suggest that we don't assert any property chains for exact match
15:24:47 [Ralph]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/0097.html exactMatch issues: ISSUE-72 ISSUE-73 ISSUE-75 [Alistair 2008-06-24]
15:25:08 [Zakim]
-berrueta
15:25:54 [JonP]
...issue-73, when we say related, we're saying there's an associative relationship, and from that perspective it's worth stating that they're disjoint
15:26:07 [aliman]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/0097.html -> suggestions for exactMatch issues
15:26:21 [JonP]
Antoine: from the pint that we've already asserted semantics for matching properties
15:26:36 [JonP]
...I was afraid that Alistair's position was a step backward
15:27:55 [JonP]
...I don't have a strong objection but am uncomfortable
15:28:00 [Ralph]
-> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-skos-reference-20080609/#L4138 current specification of skos:exactMatch
15:28:22 [JonP]
...I support exactMatch disjoiint with related but not broadertransitive
15:29:07 [JonP]
Alisttair: i could live with not saying that exactmatch is not disjoint with aby other property, but that users should check
15:29:27 [JonP]
edsu: no opinion about this
15:29:45 [JonP]
Alistair: one of the difficulaties is that we don't have any obvious use cases
15:30:02 [JonP]
Guus: that means we should follow the least commitment strategy
15:30:24 [JonP]
Alistair: that means that we should say nothing formally on any of these issues
15:30:43 [JonP]
Antoine: would really like to make exactmatch transitive
15:31:03 [JonP]
Daniel: What are the arguments against saying transitive
15:31:27 [Ralph]
We currently say "[skos:exactMatch] s typically used to indicate that two concepts are sufficiently similar that they can be used interchangeably in an information retrieval application."
15:31:46 [JonP]
Alistair: making no statement allows people to draw their own conclusions
15:32:01 [Ralph]
s/ s / is /
15:32:14 [JonP]
...if we _sya_ that its transistive then we specify that you're drawing conclusions across mappings
15:32:33 [JonP]
Daniel: it would seem that you would wnat that to be transitive
15:33:02 [JonP]
Alistair: I've never looked at the data, so that was my reluctance
15:33:14 [Zakim]
+ +49.893.860.aaaa
15:33:21 [Antoine]
q+
15:33:44 [JonP]
Daniel: is there was another semantics for exactMatch then we should have another property
15:34:02 [JonP]
Ralph: I agree
15:34:34 [JonP]
edsu: but of course this may map across a number of concepts
15:34:46 [JonP]
...if it's transitive then there's bound to be drift
15:35:21 [JonP]
Daniel: exactMatch has a specific semantics that would seem to require transitivity
15:37:06 [JonP]
SeanB: if you make the explicit statement that they're transitive, then you have the possibility of rendering errors
15:37:23 [JonP]
...given the "sufficiently similar" wording
15:37:26 [Ralph]
Alistair: exactMatch is more for a specific application to use rather than a general statement
15:37:47 [JonP]
Daniel: then we need a different property
15:37:59 [JonP]
...exactmatch implies exact
15:38:26 [JonP]
Ralph: why don't we have a different property "similarMatch"
15:38:39 [JonP]
Alistair: I can see both points of view
15:39:05 [JonP]
Guus: I can see daniels point that it needs to be transitive
15:39:30 [JonP]
SeanB: but "sufficiently similar" isn't exact enough
15:39:54 [JonP]
Alistair: there may be assertions across mappings that requires careful checking of data
15:40:13 [JonP]
Daniel: exactmatch need to be exact
15:40:23 [JonP]
Alistair: but this isn't an exact world
15:40:44 [JonP]
Alistair: these shouldn't ever be used in concept schemes
15:40:54 [JonP]
Ralph why not similarMatch
15:41:10 [JonP]
Daniel: How about nearlyExactMatch
15:41:13 [Ralph]
@@: "closeMatch"
15:41:15 [JonP]
Ralph: clesmatch
15:41:28 [Antoine]
+1 with not changing the name
15:41:35 [Ralph]
zakim, aaaa is Tom
15:41:35 [Zakim]
+Tom; got it
15:41:39 [Ralph]
s/@@/Tom
15:41:53 [JonP]
Guus: unless we have strong reasons I'd rather not change the name
15:41:57 [Ralph]
s/Ralph: clesm/Tom: closeM
15:42:13 [JonP]
many variations bandied about
15:42:42 [JonP]
Ralph: ok with exactMatch as long as there's an addition that exact == close to
15:43:08 [JonP]
Guus: this is why we're not using owl:sameAs
15:43:34 [JonP]
Alistair: this is an issue of quality of exactness of match
15:45:08 [JonP]
Guus: propose to not change the name but add wording
15:45:42 [Ralph]
PROPOSE: keep the name "exactMatch" but add a sentence saying that "exact" in this context means "sufficiently similar to" and not "identical to".
15:45:45 [JonP]
Alistair: transitivity is just one entailment
15:46:09 [Ralph]
PROPOSE: keep the name "exactMatch" but add a sentence saying that "exact" in this context means "sufficiently similar to" and not "identical to" and this relation is not transitive.
15:46:58 [JonP]
SeanB: seems like there's an inconsistency when you say woolily similar, but then say it's transitive, then you introduce the opportunity to compound errors
15:47:14 [JonP]
Guus: reluctant to change the name becuase it's already been deployed
15:47:25 [ed]
Ralph++
15:47:59 [JonP]
Guus: who would be in favor of "closeMatch"?
15:48:23 [JonP]
Alistair: these things should be so similar that you can swap em
15:48:41 [Ralph]
I prefer "closeMatch" but would not object to keeping the name with the fuller explanation
15:48:43 [JonP]
SeanB: do you have to qulaify the map
15:49:34 [JonP]
Guus: change the wording of exactmatch to say that it is sufficiently close and not transitive
15:50:10 [JonP]
Ralph: why would you feel that a transitive exact is better than owl:sameAs
15:50:24 [seanb]
++1 for what Antoine is saying
15:50:31 [aliman]
++1
15:50:43 [JonP]
Antoine: owl:sameAs comes with additional formal semantics that don't apply here
15:51:11 [JonP]
SeanB: what we're trying to reperesent here is application behavior, and very different from sameAs
15:51:33 [JonP]
Guus: straw poll
15:51:39 [Ralph]
I don't feel a need for _both_ transitive exactMatch and also closeMatch
15:52:12 [JonP]
...exactMatch is transitive
15:52:14 [Ralph]
-1 to both transitive exactMatch and close
15:52:32 [seanb]
This appeals to me as a solution, but I'm not a system developer :-)
15:52:43 [JonP]
...introduce closeMatch as subproperty of exactMatch that is not transitive
15:52:53 [JonP]
Ralph: not sure if there's a use case
15:53:02 [Ralph]
s/case/case to have both
15:53:09 [JonP]
Guus: typically exactmatch would be 1 to 1
15:53:46 [JonP]
Alistair: we have no use cases for mapping across vocabularies
15:54:13 [JonP]
...not sure if it's a lack of use case or lack of data
15:54:30 [JonP]
Alistair: I can live without exactMatch
15:54:42 [JonP]
Daniel: why can't we have both
15:54:54 [JonP]
...wouldn't this represent a good compromise
15:55:18 [JonP]
Alistair: if we keep both then closeMatch can't be a subproperty
15:56:24 [aliman]
i was wrong, exactmatch could be a sub-prop of closeMatch
15:56:28 [JonP]
Alistair agrees with SeanB that this isn't necessarily so
15:56:42 [Ralph]
I can live with both transitive exactMatch and closeMatch
15:56:58 [JonP]
Daniel: I can live with the last proposal of 2 properties, whether one is a subuproperty or not
15:57:24 [JonP]
all agree with 2 properties
15:59:10 [JonP]
PROPSED: ISSUE-72 is resolved by 1) adding to the skos data model a property "closeMatch" which is not transitive. 2) add to skos data model that exactMatch is not transitive
15:59:36 [JonP]
s/not tranisitve/transitive
15:59:56 [JonP]
s/not transitive/transitive
16:00:10 [aliman]
PROPOSED: ISSUE-72 is resolved by 1) adding to the skos data model a property "closeMatch" which is not transitive. 2) add to skos data model that exactMatch is transitive
16:00:26 [Ralph]
+1
16:00:43 [JonP]
seconded Daniel
16:00:52 [JonP]
RESOLVED: ISSUE-72 is resolved by 1) adding to the skos data model a property "closeMatch" which is not transitive. 2) add to skos data model that exactMatch is transitive
16:01:08 [JonP]
Guus: reference editors please add wording for this
16:01:26 [JonP]
...leave it to them to figure out subproperty relationship
16:01:36 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/07/01-swd-minutes.html Ralph
16:01:41 [JonP]
...but first want to have it right in the reference
16:02:07 [JonP]
ACTION: Alistair and Sean to propose text to implement the resolution of issue-72
16:02:33 [Zakim]
-Elisa_Kendall
16:02:37 [Zakim]
-Daniel_Maycock
16:02:44 [JonP]
Guus: issue-73...
16:02:59 [Ralph]
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/73 ISSUE-73 ExactMatchDisjoints
16:03:01 [Zakim]
-DLRubin
16:03:04 [Zakim]
-Ben_Adida
16:03:15 [JonP]
Alistair: think this changes now and we can take a stronger position
16:03:54 [dlrubin]
dlrubin has left #swd
16:04:27 [JonP]
PROPOSED: issue-73 is resolved by skos:exactMatch is disjoint with skos:broaderTransitive and skos:related
16:05:53 [JonP]
Alistair seconds
16:06:08 [JonP]
RESOLVED: issue-73 is resolved by skos:exactMatch is disjoint with skos:broaderTransitive and skos:related
16:06:27 [JonP]
Guus: last issue, issue-75
16:06:43 [JonP]
...property chain actions
16:07:06 [Ralph]
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/75 ExactMatchInclusions
16:07:45 [JonP]
SeanB: my inclination is to not do this, but culd go either way
16:08:02 [JonP]
Guus: don't see any need to define this here
16:08:22 [JonP]
...I'm happy with the proposal that for the moment there are no property chain actions
16:08:32 [JonP]
Antoine: I could support this
16:09:17 [JonP]
Guus: Close this issue by asserting that there are no property chain actions until there is evidence to support such actions
16:09:32 [aliman]
s/actions/axioms/
16:09:35 [JonP]
...would be useful to include the rationale
16:10:35 [JonP]
PROPOSED: Close Issue-75 by asserting that there are no property chain axions until there is evidence to support them
16:10:53 [Ralph]
s/axions/axioms/
16:12:06 [Ralph]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-75 by asserting that there are no property chain axioms as there is no evidence yet to support them
16:12:40 [JonP]
Antoine seconds
16:12:47 [JonP]
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-75 by asserting that there are no property chain axioms as there is no evidence yet to support them
16:13:34 [Ralph]
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/86 ISSUE-86
16:13:41 [seanb]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jul/0004.html
16:13:45 [JonP]
SeanB: We haven't yet closed ISSUE-86
16:14:24 [JonP]
sean reads text of email
16:15:32 [JonP]
Ralph: "makes no requirement" is not as strong as "strongly suggests"
16:16:09 [JonP]
seanb: happy to strongly suggest
16:16:10 [Ralph]
Ralph: I'd prefer "does not require but strongly recommends"
16:17:13 [ed]
Ralph++
16:18:21 [Ralph]
PROPOSE: Close ISSUE-86 with and Appendix saying "URIs are used to identity resources of type skos:Concept and skos:ConceptScheme. The SKOS Reference does not require specific behaviour when dereferencing those URIs. It is, however, strongly recommended that publishers of vocabularies follow the guidelines for Best Practice Recipes [REF] and Cool URIS [REF]."
16:19:40 [JonP]
Daniel seconds
16:19:59 [JonP]
s/Daniel/sean
16:20:06 [JonP]
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-86 with and Appendix saying "URIs are used to identity resources of type skos:Concept and skos:ConceptScheme. The SKOS Reference does not require specific behaviour when dereferencing those URIs. It is, however, strongly recommended that publishers of vocabularies follow the guidelines for Best Practice Recipes [REF] and Cool URIS [REF]."
16:20:34 [JonP]
Guus: planning of telecon: 22July and another a week later
16:21:03 [JonP]
...22 July for SKOS candidate recommendation, the other for RDFa
16:21:21 [seanb]
I am definitely not here on the 22nd July
16:21:22 [JonP]
seanb: not available 22 July
16:21:31 [Zakim]
-Antoine_Isaac
16:21:43 [JonP]
Alistair: one more week would be better
16:22:07 [Ralph]
[I'm at risk during August]
16:23:08 [JonP]
Guus: like to have reviewers no, version available for review bu August
16:23:23 [JonP]
...happy to review reference
16:24:06 [JonP]
Guus: chairs will look at this and be intouch
16:24:27 [Zakim]
-Clay
16:24:29 [JonP]
...editors please start implementing the changes
16:24:37 [Zakim]
-ed
16:24:39 [Zakim]
-seanb
16:24:41 [Zakim]
-Aliman
16:24:41 [JonP]
ADJOURNED
16:24:43 [Zakim]
-Guus
16:24:47 [Zakim]
-Tom
16:24:49 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/07/01-swd-minutes.html Ralph
16:25:33 [Zakim]
-Ralph
16:25:36 [Zakim]
-JonP
16:25:39 [Zakim]
SW_SWD()11:00AM has ended
16:25:40 [Zakim]
Attendees were Elisa_Kendall, JonP, Ralph, DLRubin, berrueta, ed, Aliman, Guus, seanb, Clay, Daniel_Maycock, Antoine_Isaac, Ben_Adida, +49.893.860.aaaa, Tom
16:27:48 [seanb]
seanb has left #swd
17:23:48 [berrueta]
berrueta has joined #swd
17:24:54 [berrueta]
berrueta has left #swd
17:28:28 [Ralph]
zakim, bye
17:28:28 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #swd
17:28:30 [Ralph]
rrsagent, bye
17:28:30 [RRSAgent]
I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/01-swd-actions.rdf :
17:28:30 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Jon and Ralph to publish Recipes as Working Group Note [recorded [1]
17:28:30 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/01-swd-irc#T15-10-41-1
17:28:30 [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] [3]
17:28:30 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/01-swd-irc#T15-12-07
17:28:30 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Alistair and Sean to propose text to implement the resolution of issue-72 [4]
17:28:30 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/01-swd-irc#T16-02-07