See also: IRC log, previous 2008-08-05
RESOLVED to accept minutes of the last telecon: http://www.w3.org/2008/08/05-swd-minutes.html with correction ISSUE-83 => ISSUE-123
Next telecon: 26 Aug
Group agreed to meet next week
2 reviews of the SKOS reference have been provided
Sean: started to address comments made by
Guus
... Wiki has the text from the review and shows progress
... discussion required about one or two of Margherita's comment
... Guus asked to discuss section 1.5
<seanb> SWD/wiki/SKOS/Reference/Planning
Guus: says that the explanantion for integrity constraint is unclear
Sean: often if an assumption is made and if a
property doesn't have a domain and range that this can be an error
... However, this is not correct
Alistair: wasn't sure how to express the idea
Guus: part can be dropped as not essential to the argument
Sean: do you propose to drop the whole pragraph?
Guus: only people knowledgeable about DL
wouldn't know this is an error
... Make explicit that datatype don't have to be made explicit
Sean: No objection if the comments are addressed
Guus: would like to get an email showing how the different comments have been addressed
Sean: The wiki addresses this and then will send an email version of the wiki page
Guus: the revision should be made available by
next Tuesday for a decision to be made at next telecon
... question about cardinality in appendix 2.2
Alistair: thought it was correct
Guus: difference between local and global
constraints
... is the intended semantic should always be 1?
... text seem to suggest it should be precisely one label
ACTION: Sean and Alistair to propose a revised SKOS Reference for the last call by Fri 22/08/08 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/19-swd-minutes.html#action01]
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] [DONE]
<edsu> Concept Coordination text for SKOS Primer
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re: broaderGeneric and equivalence w/r/t subclass [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action08] [WITHDRAWN]
<Ralph> from the March 18 meeting record:
[[
Sean: make skos:broaderGeneric rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subClassOf .
Guus: if you look at the broader definition it's not clear
... need more dicussion
Alistair: if you have broaderGeneric as a subPropertyOf subClassOf
... through broaderGeneric
... requires more thought
Sean: no theoretical reason for having super as transitive
Guus: proposal was to write some primer text on it and should be fine
]]
Ed and Antoine said it was not required anymore
ACTION: Alistair 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: Ed to write a note on SKOS-XL in the Primer [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/05-swd-minutes.html#action10] [DONE]
Antoine wrote the proposal
<edsu> Antoine, thanks for picking that skos-xl primer stuff up
Antoine has published on the wiki the latest editor's draft
<Ralph> new editor's draft of the SKOS Primer [Antoine 2008-08-19]
it could be considered for publication
except that 2 items have still to be addressed
1. Tom has some editorial comments (minor)
2. Comment made by Alistair about example to be modified
Ed is currently addressing this problem now
<aliman> ed sounds great
Ed: the example is going to be adapted to be more real
3. Related to comment on reference wrt to provenance and name graph
The problem is caused by the Primer referring to the reference
Alistair: no current plans
Guus: propose to re-use text from previous reference
Antoine: the section was empty, and not really sure how to solve it
This is wrt section 2.5 and 3.1
<seanb> Draft Primer
Antoine: propose solution to remove reference to these sections in the primer
Alistait: could refer to Web Conference paper on name graph
Ralph: to refer to this work in progress on named graphs could be confusing to SKOS readers
Sean: would be stranged to say there isn't any mechanism to do this
Ralph: it's currently true, unless an example showing SPARQL usage is created
Alistair: SKOS Reference doesn't cover this issue
ACTION: Ralph and Guus to review the Primer Editor's Draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/19-swd-minutes.html#action06]
Ben: The implementation report has been submitted
<Ralph> RDFa Implementation Report and Reviewed Editors' Draft [Ben 2008-08-19]
Ralph: Does this need to be formally reviewed?
The syntax draft should also be reviewed
Guues: thought the task force wanted to have a review of the implementation report
<Ralph> we're not proposing to publish the Implementation Report as a Group Note, are we?
Ben: Ask the reviewer (Ed and Diego) to check wether changes are ok
ACTION: Ed and Diego to review the latest RDFa Syntax Editor's Draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/19-swd-minutes.html#action07]
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] [DONE]
Ralph: what about CURIE Last Call draft review?
Guus: take that under other business
<Ralph> [I'd have liked to take that up before Ben left, but ok]
Guus: Is anything blocking publication?
Ralph: no, I just dropped the ball. Very sorry to Jon and Diego
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]
a. Minimum RDFa metadata set for WG deliverables
Diego: I changed the formatting as Ralph
requested
... I'd like to add some examples
... regarding GRDDL, I added a section on how to use GRDDL
... I'd like to discuss this section -- whether it's relevant or not
<berrueta> --> SWD/wiki/AddingRDFaToTR
Ralph: Section "How to use GRDDL?" needs to
have some such material to be included
... the current markup could be confusing however
... i.e. TR markup with RDFa
Diego: changed the name of the document wrt the document name
Ralph: No problem with the title as mainly using RDFa
Sean: Problem with HTML tag in the document
Diego: Content negotiation could be the problem
Sean: though it was caused with DTD
Ralph: I have no objection to the change in title from "RDFa" to "metadata", but the justification is NOT that we're using more than RDFa
Diego: problem has not been evaluated as problem with W3C markup validator
ACTION: Diego to put the Wiki page on RDFa metadata in a Note form [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/05-swd-minutes.html#action11] [CONTINUES]
<Ralph> [I'd say that Diego's action is done :) and now we're reviewing it ]
b. Review CURIE Syntax 1.0 by Sep 5
"[Fwd: Last call announcement: CURIEs]" [Guus 2008-08-18]
Ralph: Revision of the RDFa syntax addressing
solution in CURIE
... This group through the RDFa are co-author of the Curie syntax and as such
we were asked to review the document
Jeremy: What if CURIE spec are rejected but NOT RDFa?
Ralph: No answer can be made @ the current time
Discussion to be postponed to next week
ACTION: Jeremy to review Curie syntax doc by Sep 05 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/19-swd-minutes.html#action12]