See also: IRC log, previous 2008-09-16
Guus: schedule for future telecons?
Tom: haven't created a proposal yet
<TomB> +1 for 7 October next call
RESOLUTION: next telecon 7 October
scribe: Tom to chair, Ed to scribe
Jon: I'm at risk for 7 Oct
Antone: regrets for 7 Oct
PROPOSED: accept 16-swd-minutes as minutes of previous meeting
Sean: I'd indicated my regrets for 16 Sep
RESOLUTION: http://www.w3.org/2008/09/16-swd-minutes.html accepted as minutes of previous meeting, amended to show Sean's regrets
Ben: no specific update; we have to schedule
the last step
... only minor comments received during PR; some typos
... I need to tweak the Primer
... we've had positive comments on the Primer but some recent comments say
there's not enough in it
... we want to have an updated version to publish with the REC
Ralph: It's important that WG members get their AC reps to respond to the Call for Reviwe
ACTION: All to remind respective AC Reps to respond to RDFa Proposed Rec Call for Review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action01]
Guus: schedule also says we'll publish RDFa Use Cases as WG Note
Ben: yep, we should see if it needs any updates
ACTION: Ben review RDFa Use Cases and propose transition to Group Note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02]
Guus: I think we're done here
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes implementations] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]
Guus: was this discussed at the previous telecon?
Diego: there's a new version in the Wiki
... but I haven't yet discussed this draft with Ed
... hope to discuss with Ed in the next few days and then have a version for
the WG
ACTION: Diego updates "Minimum RDFa metadata set for WG deliverables" draft in the wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action04]
Ed: I read the previous draft and found a few minor things, would like to talk about this in a telecon; in particular, talk about the various vocabularies to use
Diego: I propose that Ed and I talk about it during the week and we put it on the agenda for 7 October
ACTION: [DONE] Jeremy to send a review to XHTML2 with comments [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/16-swd-minutes.html#action06]
-> "CURIE review from SWD WG" [Jeremy 2008-09-22]
Guus: no status change
Alistair: [reviews comments received]
... comment about disjointness of ConceptScheme and Concept
... hasTopConcept v. hasTopConceptOf
... mappings
<aliman> public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0014
<aliman> public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0015
-> Last Call Comment: S9 skos:ConceptScheme is disjoint with skos:Concept [issue 129]
<aliman> public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0026
-> Last Call Comment: skos:hasTopConcept and skos:topConceptOf [issue 130]
<aliman> wiki/SKOS/LastCall#preview
Alistair: I've linked all these messages from LastCall#preview
<aliman> public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0037
Alistair: Quentin spotted an error in an example
<aliman> public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0044
<aliman> public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0055
Alistair: several comments from Michael Schneider, I broke out into separate issues
<aliman> 5 external last call comments
Sean: I expect a comment from Peter Patel-Schneider about some of the OWL
<Ralph> Alistair++ for entering these into tracker
Antoine: I found another, from 28 June; from Erik Hennum of IBM
Alistair: I was wondering whether this should be entered as if it were a Last Call comment
Ralph, Guus: yes, we should include Eric's message among Last Call comments
Alistair: I'll generate issues for it
Guus: I don't see many comments from the
thesaurus or representation fields
... should we extend Last Call to get more comments?
Ralph: is the esw-thes list sufficiently represented? Could we get more expressions of support?
Alistair: we could definitely get more expressions of support
Ralph: that would be helpful
Guus: do we have input on our features at risk?
Alistair: yes, in particular from Kjetl
ACTION: Alistair enter Last Call issues from Erik Hennum's 28 June mail [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action06]
Sean: we've had no comments about the namespace
-> "SKOS comment" [Erik Hennum 2008-06-27]
Margherita: I have not yet had time to update
[my work] with the latest SKOS
... I might ask folk in the Fisheries Department; they have a glossary and
other resources
Guus: I'll ask some folk here to comment
Ed: Clay and I are the primary Library of
Congress folk working with SKOS right now
... I might be able to get a general note of support but unlikely to get
specific comments on the namespace
Ralph: it would be good to get a consensus from esw-thes on the namespace question
Alistair: I can ask that list explicitly; I've just sent a reminder
Guus: I am worried that we don't have enough input on the features at risk
Ralph: right, folks who like what we've proposed may feel they don't need to comment but the opposite is true
Jon: Ed and I have presented SKOS at CAUSE
conferences, including noting the features at risk
... there have been no objections
Guus: it would be helpful to send a mail with that
<Zakim> TomB, you wanted to suggest to Ed that a note of support and interest from someone at LC, even just a one-liner, would be helpful
Ed: ok, but not from me or Clay, right?
Tom: right; better from Barbara
Ed: dbpedia uses SKOS quite heavily in their datastore; has anyone approached them?
ACTION: Ed ask dbpedia to send a message in support of SKOS [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action07]
Ed: I could also contact the Department of Agriculture Library
Guus: should we formally extend Last Call or just accept comments until 14 October?
Ralph: I'm happy either way
Guus: most WGs accept comments even if they arrive late
<JeremyCarroll> (There is no option to reject late comments .... but one can take the lateness into account)
Guus: Alistair; what, in your opinion, are the major comments
Alistair: issue 129; ConceptScheme and Concept
Sean: issue 135; should the label
properties be subClassOf rdfs:Label
... Michael Schneider suggests that the label properties *not* be sub
properties of rdfs:label
... I recall a related comment from Bernard Vatant
... some tools want the subPropertyOf so they can pull the labels out
easily
<JeremyCarroll> (as a tool builder I am keen for all label props to be subPropertyOf rdfs:Label)
Guus: [my group] depends on subPropertyOf a lot; we don't have to adapt our software that looks for rdfs:label
Alistair: there might be a different way to do
this in OWL2 than what we currently use
... Alan Ruttenburg sent mail recently that might be relevant
<aliman> Alan Ruttenberg links to OWL 2 annotations proposal
<aliman> OWL 2 Syntax -- Annotations
ACTION: [DONE] SKOS Reference editors to send mail asking for feedback from users [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-swd-minutes.html#action06]
ACTION: [DONE] Sean to add a request for implementations to the mail asking for feedback [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-swd-minutes.html#action07]
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]
<aliman> sorry for no progress on that
Guus: it would be nice to show
implementations
... every vocabulary owner who uses SKOS to produce a compliant thesaurus
should be considered an implementation
... we should find some example thesaurii that use features from our spec
... finding one or two such vocabularies for each feature would make a nice
implementation report
... showing some vocabularies that use the label features would be good
Jon: what's the timeframe for implementation responses?
Guus: during Candidate Rec phase, which is typically 4-6 weeks
Ralph: We can propose what our own Candidate Rec exit criteria are. Traditionally, two independent implementations. Traditionally, candidate rec lasts as long as it takes to get implementations.
Jeremy: recently most groups have been very close to meeting their CR exit criteria before they enter CR
Jon: We have 100+ vocabularies in the registries. Have been avoiding switching over these vocabularies to new namespace because may be messy.
Jon: I may be able to submit some examples but it will take a while
Antoine: do the implementations have to be publicly available?
Ralph: we can accept an email message from an implementor describing their experiences, without making the code public
Jeremy: that mail can even go to a Member- or Team-confidential list :)
[adjourned]