See also: IRC log
<Tom> Previous: http://www.w3.org/2008/07/01-swd-minutes.html
Jeremy: introduces himself.
... representing TopQuadrant. Participation mainly for CR.
Guus: long telecon last
time.
... some things being revisited on the list. Also
possibly
... actions that are long gone.
Guus: propose to accept
minutes
... no objections.
... next telecon 5th Aug. Guus regrets
... Two objectives in mind for these telecons. To get to LC for
SKOS and PR for RDFa
Guus: Action items.
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]
Guus: My action re primer text. Is this still required?
Antoine: Can't quite recall.
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] [DONE]
Alistair: Sent email some four weeks ago.
<Antoine> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/0094.html
ACTION: Antoine and Ed to add content to Primer about irreflexivity [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action06] [DONE]
<aliman> email on old skos namespace dereference
ACTION: Alistar to update the history page adding direct link to latest version of rdf triple [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/17-swd-minutes.html#action01] [CONTINUES]
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] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Sean to draft response to comment about namespace. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action12] [DONE]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/0105.html
<scribe> ACTION: Sean to post comment to OWL WG re annotation requirements. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action06] [CONTINUES]
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] [DONE]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jul/0004.html
ACTION: Guus to mail his position on issues 72, 73 and 75 to the list [DROPPED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/29-swd-minutes.html#action10]
ACTION: Alistair and Sean to propose text to implement the resolution of issue-72 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/01-swd-minutes.html#action05] [DONE]
<aliman> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/master.html
Guus: Which issues to we need to
discuss here. Namespace and broader/transitive
... would like to see if we need more discussion there.
Also
... talk about LC schedule. When will drafts be available and
reviewers.
... Discussion of namespace issue.
... Is there reason to review our decision?
Alistair: Sent an email last
week.
... Trying to think what pros and cons of each approach
are.
... ->
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jul/0034.html
... A move to a new namespace has little upside and a lot of
downside.
... stick to old has advantages. All the existing stuff can be
claimed as implementations of
... SKOS. Also tools that are there already. A new namespace
means we have to wait for implementation
... plus there will be a period of time while people migrate,
which could take years.
... Realistically means tool developrs have to maintain
multiple implemetations.
... Bottom line is that there is little gain from a new
namespace and a cost involved.
... Assumed that the LC would use the new namespace, but marked
as "at risk".
... Would appreciate comments.
Guus: I see objections, but no need to reopen the issue.
Alistair: Under what circumstances would we need to reopen the issue?
Guus: if we reopen, we can't go
to LC.
... saw one comment that the change in semantics requires a new
namespace (Simon Spero)
Alistair: unsure whether to take this comment. There may be some misunderstanding of transitive.
Guus: Happy to mark it as "at risk".
Alistair: Ok
Antoine: Would like to discuss
ISSUE 83. Semantics of concept scheme containment
... some problems with the implementation. Alistair proposes a
new property to capture the
... semantics.
Guus: This seems rather drastic at this point.
<Antoine> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jul/0036.html
<Antoine> -> start of the thread
Alistair: I think this is less drastic.
<aliman> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008May/0068.html
<aliman> ex:cs skos:hasTopConcept ex:c.
Alistair: Email above contains resolution to the issues. Email merely states an entailment.
<aliman> entails the graph:
<aliman> ex:c skos:inScheme ex:cs
Alistair: want to follow this
entailment, but resolution doesn't state how we go about making
this happen.
... Spent some time thinking and what we're trying to say is
that skos:hasTopConcept has an inverse which is a
... subproperty of skos:inScheme
... Most obvious way to express this is to name the inverse and
then state it explicitly.
... if we don't name it then it requires an anonymous property.
This
... could be a potential problem. Would appreciate input from
Jeremy.
Jeremy: OWL2 may be about to
allow anonymous properties. One issue is that it pushes
... you out of OWL DL. Can't use the anonymous property in a
triple (not as predicate).
... so in terms of describing the relationships, there's
nothing particularly wrong, but implementations
... may find it difficult. Procedurally, putting in an
anonymous property may cause trouble,
... but a new property might also cause problems.
Guus: But other things are not stated in the data model.
Alistair: There are two
constraints expressed as prose, but there is no way to do that
in
... RDF or OWL. Here, it *is* possible to do it.
... Would avoid complication of anonymous properties.
Guus: Only require inverse of
hasTopConcept or inScheme.
... topConceptOf would do the trick.
Alistair: Called it topConceptInScheme in Ref.
Guus: awful name!
Alistair: Subjective view. Not really worried about the naming.
Jeremy: is the intention to
document the relationship within OWL. Could one include this
in
... a separate file with a seeAlso.
Alistair: If we can do it without jumping through hoops, why not do it?
Guus: Surprised that other constraints can be expressed in RDF.
Alistair: All but two current. Would be three with this one.
Guus: WHat's the problem with three rather than two?
Alistair: For this one, we could do it.
Guus: But only at the cost of new vocabulary.
Alistair: But non-standard semantics is also costly.
Antoine: Can't see why my axiom is not valid OWL
Alistair: Entailments that follow are not valid RDF.
Jeremy: There is a bug with RDF
(ter Horst). Significant problems and adding an anonymous
... property would exercise that bug. Would advise against
it.
Antoine: That's the argument I
was looking for.
... Also assume a bug in the OWL specification then.
Jeremy: There is a need for a bug fix. But will not be done any time soon.
Guus: We're not going there.
Jeremy: Cost of new predicate vs.
non-standard. New predicate is cheaper.
... preference would be to say nothing.
Guus: small cost with a small group.
Sean: preference for new predicate.
Guus: Suggest that Reference
Editors make a proposal for this.
... Will reopen ISSUE 83, but expect a proposal to close with a
new property.
Alistair: Do we need to open the issue?
Guus: yes, need documented
rationale.
... alternative is to open new issue and immediately propose
closing it.
... That might be better.
... for me topConceptOf would be an appropriate name.
... Propose a new issue which is then closed.
ACTION: Alistair to open issue relating to topConceptOf and propose a resolution. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/29-swd-minutes.html#action12]
Guus: Any more w.r.t content?
Antoine: happy
Guus: Margherita reviewed, but
reviewed the old draft.
... chance for a new draft next week?
Alistair: Think so. Resolutions to things are done. Need to mark at rsik and some editorial stuff.
Guus: Earliest possible for LC
decision is August 19th.
... problem for Guus as on holiday. Could review but only in
next two days.
Alistair: Have to finish this week.
Guus: Could do it if it's there by Friday.
Alistair: Could provide a link which will be pretty much the version we publish.
Guus: Can expect cmments by the
12th, one week for discussion and a decision about LC
... on the 19th.
... would be preferable if at the same point we have a primer
draft consistent with the Reference.
Antoine: Feasible apart from
action on co-ordination.
... Version of the primer for the 19th?
Guus: Would also like to take a
decision about publishing primer on 19th.
... agenda item for next week will be scheduling.
... also need to discuss LC period given that
... publishing will take a few days. 5-6 week period is
appropriate.
... end September/beginning October.
Sean: some traffic on the list about broader/broaderTransitive.
Guus: no new arguments there. No real evidence to reopen this.
Alistair: i'd agree. Concerned
about how many people misunderstand this.
... not a technical problem, but perhaps some confusion with
names.
... its a shame that people are misunderstanding this.
Sean: Question of education rather than technical details.
Antoine: Whatever the names, the
pattern will be the same, and that's
... hard for people to get.
Guus: Will pay attention to this.
Jeremy: Is a simple example more accessible? Parent/Ancestor etc?
Sean: is the reference an appropriate place for this?
Antoine: Could put some drawings in the primer.
Alistair: Antoine's slide at the SKOS event was very clear.
Antoine: Animated.
Guus: Could make snapshots.
Guus: Parent/ancestor is already a long way towards this.
Guus: nobody here
Guus: nobody here
<aliman> ISKO event with link to antoine's slides
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]
Guus: Recipes?
Diego: Document is ready to be
published. Ralph has not had time
... to do it.
... will try to publish asap
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]
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]
Jeremy: back to RDFa, at call on
Thursday, hope to get WG approval on 19th.
... reviewers to be appointed for 5th.
Guus: Only need review for
implementation report. WG should check that we've met the
conditions.
... not like reviewing a regular document
Jeremy: Only major change was on Primer. HTML vs XHTML issue.
Guus: useful background
... next telecon 5th August, then 19th August