See also: IRC log
<TomB> Previous: http://www.w3.org/2008/08/19-swd-minutes.html
RESOLUTION: to accept minutes http://www.w3.org/2008/08/19-swd-minutes.html
TomB: we have to reviews of the SKOS Reference
<seanb> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20080820/
TomB:Margherita is not here to give her reaction to the response
TomB: we have two issues: skos labeling properties, and the aspects of owl2 annotations
<Ralph> SKOS Labelling Properties [Sean 2008-08-22]
seanb: wrt labeling properties,
in the reference it doesn't explicitly state that the labeling
properties are subproperties of rdfs:label
... alistair and i discussed this, i felt that they should be
subproperties of rdfs:label, alistair was ambivalent, guus was
in support
TomB: are we ready to take a decision on Last Call, my only concern is Margherita isn't here
Guus: do we have a proposal from the editors?
seanb: can we make it now?
Ralph: the revised reference is published or not published?
Guus: send an email to the list quickly, and propose it as a LC working draft
Ralph: i think the group has been
following along and understands that the aug 22 document would
be coming up today
... don't feel a strong reason to delay
<scribe> 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] [DONE]
seanb: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Aug/0082.html
Ralph: lets resolve to publish, but wait till weds to see if Margherita responds
PROPOSED: That the draft http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20080820/
... That the draft http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20080820/
be published as a last call working draft with 24 hr delay to
see if Margherita responds
... PROPOSED: That the draft http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20080820/
be published as a last call working draft unless Margherita
objects by Aug 27th 16:00 UTC
RESOLUTION: That the draft http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20080820/ be published as a last call working draft unless Margherita objects by Aug 27th 16:00 UTC
TomB: congrats to editors
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph and Guus to review the Primer Editor's Draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/19-swd-minutes.html#action06]
Ralph: we're currently inconsistent between the primer and reference about the URI for the SKOS namespace
TomB: has it been corrected?
Antoine: still incorrect
Ralph: reference uses 2008, primer uses 2004
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph and Guus to review the Primer Editor's Draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/19-swd-minutes.html#action06] [DROPPED]
Antoine: it's corrected right now ...
PROPOSED: that the draft http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/DraftPrimer?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=SKOSPrimer-080826.html be published as an updated working draft
RESOLUTION: that the draft http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/DraftPrimer?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=SKOSPrimer-080826.html be published as an updated working draft
Guus: we have to have actions to draft the request, and fix the last call period
<scribe> ACTION: Chairs to request Last Call for SKOS Reference [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/26-swd-minutes.html#action04]
GuusS: we have to think about the dependencies we have on other groups, who we should ask explicitly for a review, and decide on period
TomB: should we discuss now?
Ralph: we could brainstorm on
groups
... the OWL group is an obvious one
GuusS: I think 5 week period would be fine, publish on Friday, which would bring us to 3 Oct
Ralph: seems fine
GuusS: need to LC training for editors
PROPOSED: 5 week LC period for SKOS Reference, lasting until 3 Oct
Ralph: i will be unavailable sep 9-18
TomB: I second
<Ralph> +1
RESOLUTION: 5 week LC period for SKOS Reference, lasting until 3 Oct
Ralph: we're supposed to notify chairs, and get them to agree on the date we've proposed
GuusS: which groups do we need to inform?
Ralph: perhaps we could check charter :)
<Ralph> SWD charter
Ralph: Rules Working Group probably doesn't care about SKOS, SWEO doesn't exist anymore
GuusS: I don't think we have any formal dependencies
Ralph: I think we should request comments from OWL
GuusS: perhaps the coordination group
Ralph: perhaps you could send
mail to the OWL Chairs and the CG, with the last call
period
... LC is a statement to the world that technically we think
we're done, other than things we documented as 'at risk'
... we expect only editorial changes, we are required to
respond to all email messages, accepting or modifying each
editorial suggestion, hopefully any technical questions can be
resolved based on our previous discussions, it's important we
respond on a timely basis to all email messages after we
publish LC
GuusS: when we get comments, be
extremely polite, delay responding if you don't know how, it's
custom to quote the document, don't come up w/ a new argument
that's not in the document
... also use the magic phrase "can you live with these changes"
to get consensus, and try to get the response "yes"
... we typically use the issue list, like you saw RDFa
doing
<Ralph> use the phrase "Last Call Comment:" in the title of an issue
GuusS: if it's a small editorial thing might not be necessary, anything other than that raise the LC issue pointing to the message
Ralph: even for small edits, so
we have a list when we go to the Director
... if you include "last call comment:" ben has a handy script
for compiling these
<Ralph> for example, -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/112
benadida: i should write up short guide, you effectively enter a little bit of structured data to the issue text
<scribe> ACTION: Ben to write a short message to the list about how to enter in Issues so that they can be tracked [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/26-swd-minutes.html#action05]
GuusS: aliman, seanb you comfortable w/ this?
aliman, seanb: yup
GuusS: good to propose response to the list first
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to confirm w/ OWL Chairs and Coordination Group that the LC period is OK [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/26-swd-minutes.html#action06]
TomB: RDFa Syntax, the XHTML WG
has accepted
... Diego and Ed reviewed
benadida: happy with both ed's comments
TomB: can we take a decision without having the edited version?
<Ralph> Ed's comments
benadida: i think so
Ralph: I agree
... are we likely to get a reply from Allan?
benadida: he said he would look
at it
... don't think he will object
Ralph: not having acknowledgment doesn't need to block us
<scribe> 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] [DONE]
Ralph: we received a lengthy set
of comments from Allan that we decided were editorial, and have
not received a response, but we can proceed in the absence of
those comments, but we would prefer not to have to
... ben is in close contact
benadida: he'll get back to the group, i'm not worried
PROPOSED: Semantic Web Deployment WG agrees transition RDFa from CR to PR
RESOLUTION: Semantic Web Deployment WG agrees transition RDFa from CR to PR
TomB: thanks to the editors!
Ralph: and the reviewers
<Ralph> Sean on annotations
seanb: what kind of requirements
do we have for annotation properties, within the owl wg they
felt they might provide annotation properties with open ended
semantics
... not sure how much discussion we can have without seeing
detailed proposal
... just wanted to make the WG aware, seems like it would take
additional vocabulary
... which would allow you to make assertions about annotation
properties
Ralph: do you think properties like this are something that owl2 would eventually do?
seanb: from what i understood
form talking to people, yes it could be ... some vocab would be
defined without pinning down the semantics
... they would be opaque to the owl reasoners
<aliman> sean means things like "owl2:subAnnotationProperty" in addition to rdfs:subPropertyOf ... ?
seanb: i think it needs more detail for us to discuss, but thought it was worth raising for awareness
Ralph: if this is something that owl2 might have, then it might be premature to consider in the context of skos right now
seanb: i don't think it should impact what we are doing, but that it might be useful for a skos vocabulary, still speculative
<Zakim> aliman, you wanted to ask, who drafts the announcement emails? and to support the requirement, without any comment on the solution
seanb: wasn't proposing a change to the reference or skos schema
aliman: i don't know that we can make any comment without more detail
TomB: not clear to me if we need to take an action that we need to track
seanb: i can track down some details, and discuss on the list
TomB: welcome Margherita
Margherita: why do you leave the SKOS elements open, that's my general question
TomB: having trouble understanding
Margherita: no problem, i will send in email ... i'm in india and the connection is not very reliable
Ralph: we would like to publish the SKOS Reference as LC, which means we don't plan on making any more technical changes, do you think we should have your discussion about irreflexivity and wait
marghe: all the comments on the list were fine for me
<Ralph> Margherita: all the responses to my comments seem ok. Generally, I wondered why more properties are not declared as irreflexive
TomB: it sounds like your concerns should not hold up LC?
marghe: definitely
TomB: so we'll go ahead w/
publication of LC working draft
... perhaps we can combe back to SKOS Quick Reference next
week
<scribe> 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]
<scribe> 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]
<scribe> 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]
<scribe> 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] [DONE]
<scribe> ACTION: Jeremy to review Curie syntax doc by Sep 05 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/19-swd-minutes.html#action12] [CONTINUES]
GuusS: for next time we need to
put on the agenda the Implementation Report, and how we're
going to handle the candidate rec period for SKOS
... last piece of real work, assuming LC goes well
TomB: next call will be on 2
Sep
... congrats to all the editors, see you next week