SemWeb Deployment Working Group

<Ralph> previous 2008-10-07

<Ralph> Ralph: regrets for next week

<Ralph> scribe: aliman

ADMIN

PROPOSED to accept minutes of the last telecon:

http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html

no objections

Proposed telecon: 21 October

guus: leave to editors

sean: week after is iswc

guus: next week is tech plenary
... nothing to prevent us next week

sean: hopefully things to ratify next week

antoine: i can make next week

daniel: can't make next week

guus: given 28 is iswc, prefer to meet next week
... propose meet next week

[no objections]

propose to cancel 28 telecon

guus: next telecon 4 november
... after 21

next telecon is 21, then 4 nov

Daniel: week of 11 nov is amia

ralph: 11-Nov is also us holiday

guus: from next week on, assume biweekly schedule more or less..

RDFa

ralph: hope everything on track for tomorrow. have updated primer, hoping both docs will be published. but don't yet have official directors decision.
... we were asked if we had demod grddl processors using namespace link, and haven't yet
... appears to be problem with existing grddl processor implementations, we don't depend on grddl

guus: that's it wrt rdfa

recipes

<scribe> 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]

<berrueta> Closing issues 16 to 23 and issue 58

<scribe> --done

ralph: see only one issue, can claim action done

guus: if want to close subject, everything must be either closed or postponed state
... i see raised issues

ralph: action was to close specific open issues

<Ralph> raised issues

guus: issue 30, 60, 98 are raised
... i see more than one open issue
... actions sorry, not issues

<Ralph> issue 24 is open

guus: diego, can you take action to make sure all issues either closed or postponed?

diego can you accept this action?

SKOS

guus: haven't listed all issues, because can get out of date quickly
... propose to go to issue list

<Ralph> raised [SKOS] isues

sean: can we approach in particular way
... have identified issues which result in no change, good to get out of the way today, because then can respond to commenters
... if i post to list, proposing no change, then walk through, ok?

alistair: sounds good

sean: send in mail

<Ralph> issue 132 "error in section 1.7 example"

sean: first is issue 132, lots of these are minor, should ratify them.
... 132 a typo, assume all happy.

[assent]

<Ralph> Proposed resolution to No Change Issues [Sean 2008-10-14]

sean: next one, issue 129, in tracker responses and rational for why no change
... comment about concepts and schemes disjoint, our response is this separation aids clarity

<Ralph> issue 129; skos:ConceptScheme is disjoint with skos:Concept

sean: any comments about proposal to do nothing?

guus: obvious way forward, i agree.

ralph: 129 not in email you just posted

sean: posted wrong email...

antoine: i agree with resolution but not the reason... I know lourens' case, can be a bit misunderstood

ralph: did send a draft response next week

<Ralph> ISSUE-129 draft response [Sean 2008-10-06]

sean: now posting correct list to mailing list

<seanb> Sorry -- posted the wrong list. Correct one should be coming now....

<seanb> The real list is -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0183.html

recipes (part 2)

guus: diego can you move all recipe issues to either closed or postponed?

diego: 3 raised, 1 open ... need to discuss them, maybe with jon first, but can propose a resolution for all 4.

guus: propose a resolution only if change document

diego: we propose something, don't think make changes to document, most likely to postpone or close because already addressed in current doc

guus: logical to postpone

ralph: i like diego's proposal

<scribe> ACTION: diego propose resolutions to remaining recipes issues [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/14-swd-minutes.html#action02]

SKOS (part 2)

sean: now posted list
... issue 129, antoine?

antoine: you say lourens uses topconcept as inclusion mechanism. not true, becuase has used inscheme... not just one inscheme statement, both present for all concepts, know in both schemes explicitly, not really overloading.

alistair: the issue was that Lourens wanted to declare some things to be both Concepts and ConceptSchemes, right?

antoine: yes

alistair: we say better not to pun on concepts and schemes

antoine: second part of your mail is less controversial

sean: if we remove first para, respond to second?

antoine: yes

<Ralph> issue 131; mappings with a boolean expression

sean: next issue 131 ... mapping with boolean expression .. a

guus: seems reasonable to me

antoine: also agree
... on our todo list, would have been useful, but no time

<edsu> +1 for postpone

guus: only alternative, if it belongs to our requirements, we could postpone instead of close, would be pointer of inclination of this group, should look at this

alistair: fine with me

sean: happy with that

guus: if feel don't have technology or time, it's the proper thing

ralph: is there a requirement?

guus: i've written mappings, often required boolean expressions, but not formal requirement for SKOS

margherita: originally in SKOS mapping, boolean expressions used. used them in fao, but realised if used, mapping is not symetric. if use narrow, broad, exact, can go from one scheme to another and back again.
... but if start to use boolean expressions, may be necessary to do mapping twice, so this was already discussed, this is why i think boolean expressions removed. don't know if should put them back.

guus: postpone?

antoine: have started to think about it, but no time to produce a document.

guus: we should postpone.

ralph: subsequent message from michael panzer in support of further work, so postpone better response

sean: next is issue 136

<Ralph> issue 136; plain literal ranges and internationalisation

guus: don't see how we can postpone this

antoine: wasn't this one of main reasons why go for informal specifications for axioms?

alistair: yes, one of them

ralph: sean's draft response does acknowledge other work in progress. feels if another skos wg in a couple of years, looking at this area would be useful

sean: comments from peter on owl2 issues, lots of things we could capture with a more expressive language, not sure whether to treat as postponed or closed

ralph: could be added to current skos model without causing compatibility issues, if might be, postpone, but if cannot be accomodated in current model then close

guus: answer is we're not sure

ralph: like guus' earlier criteria, if can leave breadcrumbs then good
... but if cannot be resolved, then close

sean: should include in response that issue has been postponed?

ralph: yes

sean: issue 137 is next, same, property disjointness, we know expressable in owl 2, so postpone.

<Ralph> issue 137; property disjointness

guus: clear cut

sean: few of these are the same

<Ralph> issue 138; S14 skos:prefLabel

sean: 138 is the same

guus: yes

<Ralph> issue 148; Irreflexive and noncyclical hierarchies

sean: issue 148 ... including different flavours of propertie,s or define subproperties of broader etc that are irreflexive, non cyclical, response is we made a call on where to stop, potentially a postponement?

ralph: here we did make a decision, so reasonable to close.

antoine: i agree with ralph, would be going in to many problems to do

sean: response is appropriate?

ralph: prefer "community extensions" rather than "exercise"

<Ralph> issue 152; Prefix for extension labels

sean: issue 152 already fixed

guus: when I reviewed, i made this remark
... already fixed

<Ralph> Alistair: this email was in July; we've fixed this in the LC draft

<Ralph> issue 155; SKOS in OWL 2

sean: 155 useful to publish owl2 version, no action required. we propose to response saying yes, nice idea
... treat as postponement.

<Ralph> issue 176; Mapping vocabulary constraints

sean: 176 is next, comment from jeremy about working of at risk section of document, so doesn't require a change to reference, because at risk part will be removed.
... but he was pointing out, no harm in including further constraints not expressible in owl 1.
... but response is, left features out because we don't know what axioms should be, not because of limitations of owl
... so response is clarification, doesn't require change.

ralph: there were things we let owl 2 question tip the balance.
... i have no objection to the example here. but would be inaccurate to say, in no case did we decide based on owl 2.

sean: closed or postponed?

antoine: no action, then closed?

ralph: if we specifically say we decided based on lack of implementation experience, then we might decide...

if there are specific constraints...

sean: comment did list specific realtionships, e.g. property chain exactmatch broadmatch, so is a specific example.
... happy to go either way.

ralph: rereading jeremy's original mail; "my opinion on at risk features" is how he begins... feels like a postponement, I vote postpone.

guus: fine with me

<Ralph> issue 177; Labelling Normative Material

sean: ok. 177 was jeremy's comment about whether material should be labeled normative or not.
... he says he wonders about labeling, read the document and decided it is ok as is. but wanted response saying we had at least considered this.

ralph: answer is, yes we considered, distinctly recall alistair and sean and antoine say, can we demand this, or leave open... so we haven't explicitly tried to apply vocab of normative/informative, but have considered how strongly to enforce things.

guus: everything in the References section is meant as normative. all informative in primer.

sean: happy to close?

guus: yes

sean: 179, multiple preferred labels, why clash pref/alt etc.

<Ralph> issue 179; PFWG: Lexical Labels

sean: some mail from antoine on this.

antoine: your answer is good

guus: this comment suggests we need more explanation in reference? hoping for this comment, expect our response to contain, this is what we say in reference.
... assume not clear enough in text.

alistair: any suggestions about what we might say [to make it clearer]?

guus: i can volunteer to draft another response, similar spirit but would include proposal for changed text.
... rule from dan c, if people say not clear, try to convince with your own text. if not, document not clear enough.

<scribe> ACTION: guus to draft revised response to ISSUE-179 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/14-swd-minutes.html#action03]

guus: i will draft revised response, you have editorial discretion what you do with it. I will propose a slight change, if commenter argues he can live with it, we will make change later.

ralph: do we have general statement of what to do with our integrity conditions? another reading of al's comment is, failure to meet integrity conditions implies processor should die?
... i think al's comment could be satisfied by saying what we mean by integrity conditions, rather than explaining this particulary condition.

<seanb>

<Ralph> 1.4 Consistency and Integrity

<Ralph> [[

<Ralph> These integrity conditions are included to promote interoperability, by defining the circumstances under which data are not consistent with respect to the SKOS data model. Tools can then be implemented which "check" whether some or all of these integrity conditions are met for given data, and therefore whether the data "fit" the SKOS data model.

<Ralph> ]]

ralph: i think this language is sufficient, would point al to this
... all three paragraphs. (section 1.4)
... pointing at these three paragraphs is sufficient.

guus: try to point to your own text.

sean: for draft to 179, should include...

guus: quote part of text

<Ralph> 1.4 Consistency and Integrity

sean: so happy to close this issue along those lines?

guus: yes

sean: end of list of no changes

guus: we are in good shape. realistic time, answer all last call comments, by 4 nov. telecon next week, keep email ongoing.

sean: i would hope to have everything on table by 4.

guus: think about transition request. no real showstoppers, sufficient comments. means we can plan for middle nov for transition request. is there moratorium?

ralph: no, not aware of any issues.

guus: look at end of charter expires 1 jan

ralph: will need charter extension, looking at early dec for CR

guus: have some real work to do on implementations, but will not be 1 feb before can ask for PR, but if get that far then on good track.

ralph: so maybe not ready complete CR by 1 feb?

guus: difficult to do much earlier. but plausible.

ralph: seems good to me.

guus: shouldn't slip too much.
... ok.

sean: can take it issues we've been through are ok, so can we get back to commenters?

guus: yes.

<scribe> ACTION: sean & alistair to respond to commenters on all issues decided today. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/14-swd-minutes.html#action04]

<Ralph> ACTION: [CONTINUES] 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]

guus: thanks all for joining, we are adjourned.

<Ralph> ACTION: [CONTINUES] Ben review RDFa Use Cases and propose transition to Group Note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02]

<Ralph> 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]

antoine: about michael panzer comments, have given some answers, would you prefer I rewrite as candidate answers?