W3C

SWD WG

07 Oct 2008

Agenda

See also: IRC log, previous 2008-09-30

Attendees

Present
Tom Baker, Ed Summers, Diego Berrueta, Ralph Swick, Margherita Sini, Ben Adida, Alistair Miles, Guus Schreiber, Sean Bechhofer, Jeremy Carroll
Regrets
AntoineIsaac, Jon Phipps, Quentin Reul, Daniel Rubin
Chair
Tom
Scribe
Ed

Contents


Admin

RESOLUTION: to accept minutes from Sep-30 telecon

TomB: Guus will chair next week's meeting [14 Oct]

RDFa

<Ralph> record of 2-Oct RDFa TF telecon

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] [DONE]

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] [CONTINUES]

<benadida> draft --> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20081004/

benadida: wanted to ask about moving to REC
... we've received comments, two required no change to the draft (typos, clarifications)
... since these are only typos there's no need for additional review, right Ralph?

Ralph: we can make editorial changes

TomB: is there a formal requirement to also record the editorial changes?

Guus: yes in the changes section

benadida: yes Shane has done this, and included a diff

Ralph: i've submitted the request for transition, and we'll see when the necessary parties are available to discuss
... the last deadline for requesting publication is next monday, before the the tpac meeting

Guus: would be nice to publish the primer as a note at the same time

benadida: we haven't looked at the use cases in a while, and i wouldn't want to produce inconsistency ... but the primer will be ready for submission by the end of the week ... minor editorial changes

Ralph: that sounds like you are making a proposal that the group transition the Primer to a WG Note

benadida: i didn't realize there was a transition to note, but if so yes

Guus: what is the most likely date for transition to REC?

Ralph: i would expect a decision at the end of this week

Guus: can we control the day of announcement?

Ralph: yes, but to meet next weeks publishing moratorium we need to do it before noon on monday

JeremyCarroll: a working draft is a work in progress, unfinished -- a working group note is a statement that the document is adequate

benadida: it's sufficiently completed that it could transition to Note (the Primer)

Guus: if there are editorial changes nobody is going to object

TomB: are we saying we need to delay?

benadida: i think that most people who read the press release won't notice ... we can transition Primer later

Ralph: what's your best guess about the changes to the Primer?

benadida: i think that the liklihood of the primer getting a couple new paragraphs is about 70%

<JeremyCarroll> Jeremy: on RDFa call belief was that there was enough non-W3C material to play this role

benadida: it's purpose is to get people interested and curious, will do a couple well focused paragraphs, no more than that

<JeremyCarroll> I suggest we formally approve Primer for WG Note now, subject to confirmation next week

TomB: should we formulate a proposal to transition the syntax document to REC? leaving the Primer as a working draft?
... so can we approve the Primer working draft for note now?

<Guus> +1 for Jeremy's proposal

Ralph: i'm comfortable with the proposal to transition the primer to note now

PROPOSED: the syntax editors use their judgement in correcting typos in preparation of recommendation version of RDFa Syntax

<Ralph> +1

JeremyCarroll: what about the comment yesterday, regarding the colon ... looks like the sort of thing that could cause implementation difficulties

<Ralph> RDFa review ... too late, but maybe still helpful for the group [Axel Polleres 2008-10-06]

JeremyCarroll: correcting an alignment between some english text and xml schema definitions ...

TomB: benadida you can take that into account?

benadida: sure, will get mark and shane to take a look

<JeremyCarroll> +1

RESOLUTION: the syntax editors use their judgement in correcting typos in preparation of recommendation version of RDFa Syntax

<benadida> PROPOSE that RDFa Primer in its last WD state, with some minor editorial edits at editors' discretion, be transitioned to Note.

PROPOSED: that the RDFa Primer, with some minor editorial changes at editors discretion be published as Working Group Note

<Ralph> +1

RESOLUTION: that the RDFa Primer, with some minor editorial changes at editors discretion be published as Working Group Note

+1

TomB: so where are use cases?

benadida: i wouldn't ask for this sort of discretion on the use cases ... no decision at this time

TomB: great progress here

Recipes

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]

<Ralph> Re: [Recipes] Open issues in Recipes [Diego 2008-10-04]

TomB: there are some open and raised issues that Diego wrote about: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0067.html

berrueta: except for 3 or 4 of the issues we can close without too much discussion
... i think we can close issue-16 through issue-23

TomB: can we give someone an action to record this in tracker?

PROPOSED: resolved issue-16 through issue-23 and issue-58 are closed as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0067.html

Ralph: are you certain Carl's comments in ISSUE-18 have been resolved?

berrueta: yes

RESOLUTION: resolved issue-16 through issue-23 and issue-58 are closed as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0067.html

ACTION: diego to close recipe issues issue-16 through issue-23 and issue-58 citing email [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#action04]

RDFa Metadata Note

<berrueta> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/AddingRDFaToTR?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=tr-metadata-20081002.html

ACTION: Diego to update "Minimum RDFa metadata set for WG deliverables" draft in the wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action04] [DONE]

TomB: is it ready to be reviewed?

berrueta: i think before a formal review, we may want to discuss some of the points in a telecon

TomB: lets add it to an upcoming telecon, and move on for today

berrueta: ok

SKOS

seanb: didn't we send email asking for feedback a while ago?
... didn't alistair do that?

ACTION: SKOS Reference editors to send mail asking for feedback from users [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-swd-minutes.html#action06] [DONE]

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] [DONE]

http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=f032cc060810061047w443e49b8qeedace3b6d009adc%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=dbpedia-discussion

ACTION: Ed to ask dbpedia to send a message in support of SKOS [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action07] [DONE]

TomB: that leaves us with the long list of issues, many of which we can just go down the list

seanb: i think a lot of these issues alistair and i can deal with, there are a couple that would merit some discussion to get people's input first

TomB: i thought we could quickly go through the easy ones

aliman: maybe we could focus on the trickier ones

TomB: sure, where would you like to start

seanb: issue-175 and issue-153 to do w/ the skos namespace

<aliman> ISSUE-153

<aliman> ISSUE-175

seanb: tbl indicated he was not in favor of changing the namespace, and jeremy also indicated that he would've been opposed to changing the namespace

JeremyCarroll: implementors using the namespace before REC do so at their own risk, so generally i would be against changing namespaces, whatever we do will leave someone unhappy, tbl's comment has more weight than mine, and if he wants to stick with the old one, lets stay with the old one

seanb: also a comment from simon about maintaining the old namespace
... there is the caveat that we are changing the semantics

GuusS: given the history of skos i don't agree w/ jeremy's point ... until a few years ago it wasn't clear this was going to be a REC track effort

<Ralph> [I agree with Guus' point about the history of SKOS and the 2005 namespace]

GuusS: i have changed my opinion, after reading tim and simon's comments ... from pragmatic reasons it's more important to keep the namespace

<aliman> I'm trying to find simon's mail...

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0036.html -> simon's comments

seanb: i would be in favor of keeping the same namespace

aliman: i'm leaning in the same direction

<Ralph> "If you change the semantics at

<Ralph> any point, my tools still work and always give the right answer

<Ralph> according the published spec, it's up to the user to be aware of what

<Ralph> the SKOS semantics entail. So for this reason I would be in favor of

<Ralph> keeping the old namespaces and just changing the semantics.

<Ralph> "

<Ralph> -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0036.html

TomB: do i correctly understand that retain skos:broader and change the semantics

Ed: is there any concern about existing uses of skos:subject, etc?
... that these will no longer resolve to anything?

Guus: it's not a real problem; people could still use it
... in OWL the decision was that people could use old terms and the tool should give a warning

Sean: so no explicit deprecation?

Guus: I prefer not to explicitly deprecate the old terms

Sean: that's my position as well; don't deprecate

Guus: could have a namespace change history in the documentation

GuusS: for historic reasons it would be nice to note when things changed

TomB: did we ever take a decision to stop resolving the old documentation ...

Ralph: would you object to using the rdfs:description property to say in effect, this has been deprecated ... keep it in the namespace document, was in 2005 but not in standard SKOS?

TomB: we're talking about adding a short section to the Reference ... adding a new section and coming up with a policy for dealing w/ the deprecated terms feels like a fairly substantial change

GuusS: i think an appendix wouldn't be a major change

Ralph: i could see some concerns about removing things from a namespace document, but I don't know, we could argue that's part of the same question

TomB: could one of the editors write up this appendix?

seanb: i can do that

<JeremyCarroll> Jeremy: reviewers have been asked specifically about ns change, if no one spoke up supporting it, thati indicates a lack of concern about old properties

Ralph: have we resolved to keep the old namespace?

<seanb> +1 for Jeremy's point

GuusS: perhaps the editors could propose the resolution?

seanb: as a mechanism for this, could we propose this as a draft response to the issue?

GuusS: take the issues you think are significant, and address them together, and propose a solution

<Ralph> 6-May F2F discussion of the namespace

ACTION: sean to propose resolutions to outstanding issues, bundling editorial issues where necessary [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#action09]

TomB: are there any other issues we can pick off?

seanb: there was ISSUE-135 which relates to labeling properties

<JeremyCarroll> (yes please)

seanb: implementors are keen to have this relationship with rdfs:label
... a while ago i looked through the mailing list and couldn't find a whole lot, found one frmo tbl about tabulator, but was wondering if we could get something clearer from implementors

<JeremyCarroll> I'll ask Holger

GuusS: you could a message from me or one of my people

<JeremyCarroll> and me

ACTION: Guus and Jeremy to give concrete implementation examples of the use of rdfs:label w/ SKOS [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#action10]

<JeremyCarroll> (thanks)

GuusS: there are good reasons for keeping it

aliman: this is also higlighted in his analysis ... don't know if this is a problem that will go away with owl2

TomB: we've reached the top of the hour

GuusS: sean, alistair i'll be around for another 10 minutes to discuss other issues

<Ralph> [adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Diego to close recipe issues issue-16 through issue-23 and issue-58 citing email [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Guus and Jeremy to give concrete implementation examples of the use of rdfs:label w/ SKOS [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#action10]
[NEW] ACTION: Sean to propose resolutions to outstanding issues, bundling editorial issues where necessary [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#action09]
 
[PENDING] 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]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes implementations] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]
 
[DONE] 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]
[DONE] 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]
[DONE] ACTION: Diego to update "Minimum RDFa metadata set for WG deliverables" draft in the wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action04]
[DONE] ACTION: Ed to ask dbpedia to send a message in support of SKOS [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action07]
[DONE] ACTION: SKOS Reference editors to send mail asking for feedback from users [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-swd-minutes.html#action06]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2008/10/07 16:14:35 $