See also: IRC log, previous 2008-10-14
Guus: about last week
minutes http://www.w3.org/2008/10/14-swd-minutes.html
... there was an action for me
... this was a mistake, the action is done
... next telecon
... no problem with the changing time
<seanb> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0222.html
Sean: I sent two lists
... I propose that we walk through this list
Guus: fine
Sean: these issues are not
difficult
... Can I ask for clarification of process?
... Is it in our power to close issues?
Guus: as quickly as you can
Sean: all responses for issues
last week have been sent
... we're waiting for answers
Guus: we can accept all the editorial changes
[Sean browsing through issues...]
Guus: let's all accept them
PROPOSED to accept the editorial changes in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0222.html
RESOLVED to accept the editorial changes in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0222.html
Guus: you can just let the commenters know about the changes
<aliman> guus: issues Antoine handled
<aliman> antoine: yes, link in agenda, proposed a number of answers
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0204.html
<aliman> ...two involve the primer, 4 relate to michael panzer email
<aliman> guus: issues proposing change to primer?
<aliman> antoine: yes for 2, 4 mostly clarification and suggestions to michael panzer on how to treat classification features in skos
<aliman> ...i did propose solutions enabling to do so
<aliman> ...don't want to change existing docs to make skos compatible with his cases, because too specific
<aliman> ...not observed them in UCR doc
<aliman> guus: you suggest to accept them as one set (all 6)
<aliman> antoine: at least first two. second list of 4
<aliman> sean: issues 181-186?
<aliman> guus: 163-164, 181-185
<aliman> ...discussion required
Alistair: I had quick look on
some answers
... I wonder whether others like them
... there might be a little bit informal
<aliman> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0197.html
Alistair: should we really
propose solutions?
... especially about 182
... and especially the first paragraph
Alistair: we could emphasize more on formal response
Guus: first part: our
answer
... second part: discussion
... would be what to do.
... it's more like a best practice response.
... 163
Antoine: that's an editorial issue
Guus: that's fine
Guus: 164
<aliman> antoine: discussion of provenance, alistair comment to leave things open
<aliman> I like Antoine's response to 164
<aliman> antoine: ability to represent some specific collections of classes in classification scheme. looks like skos:Collections, but should be included in network of semantic relationships, but not possibly in current skos.
<aliman> ...answer maybe too informal
<aliman> guus: do same as 182, start with formal answer, then indicate what you think about best practice
<aliman> ...you can keep it in one mail, but make sure there is editorial distinction, mail with two parts
<aliman> ...formal part is ok
<aliman> [discussion of 181]
<aliman> guus: go to 183 class-topic
<aliman> antoine: again specific concern about classification schemes, i proposed a solution, quite informal, not sure what he means.
<aliman> guus: again informal
<aliman> antoine: i should apply same recipe.
<aliman> guus: proposal antoine, for these four messages 181, 182, 183, 185, do splitting of formal and informal
<aliman> antoine: for 183 it is not really clear, whether we should say doubts about what Michael meant? or hide that from the answer?
<aliman> guus: make a clear assumption about what you think he means
<aliman> ..I propose we approve responses to 163, 164, action antoine to write revised response 181, 182, 183, 185
<aliman> PROPOSED: to approve responses to 163 and 164
<aliman> second: alistair
<aliman> no objections
<aliman> RESOLVED: to approve responses to 163 and 164
<aliman> guus: discuss 184, 186
<aliman> antoine: 184 is about notation and preflabel overlap.
<aliman> ...question from michael panzer, about ability to represent alternative notations, because we can use skos:notation, skos:prefLabel, skos:altLabel ...
<aliman> ... i was preparing answer regarding skos:altLabel plus custom language tags solution, but same time there was discussion about use of skos:notation and skos:preflabel
<seanb> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0200.html
<aliman> ... before writing answer about 184 wanted to be sure about current policy w.r.t. skos:notation and skos:preflabel
<aliman> guus: relationship between them?
<aliman> antoine: I understood from docs skos:notation used with datatype literals; people use plain literals, use preflabel with notation language tags.
<aliman> ...I infer that from both docs, worded so that skos:notation applied with typed literals. then some mails starting from you [guus] saying skos:notation could be used with plain literals as well
<aliman> ...so overlap between object of preflabel and nontation; made idea the use of these properties unclear.
<aliman> ...so I wanted clear opinion on what properties should be used with.
<aliman> sean: discussion about this, see link above, my last thoughts on this.
<aliman> ...edging towards original wording, notation used with typed literal. Peter's original comment, guus points out owl spec requires applications treat unrecognised datatypes as unsupported datatypes, so we can have datatypes, revert to original wording, fit with antoine's desire
<aliman> guus: also my position
<aliman> sean: response from norman gray, happy with this notion. proposal as it stands for issue 156 (peter's comment about datatypes) we make no change
<aliman> guus: i agree
<aliman> sean: maybe slight editorial change, make reference to datatype support paragraph in owl reference
<aliman> guus: also what we had in mind when talked about datatypes
<aliman> sean: so that ticks off 156 too
<aliman> alistair: fine with me
<aliman> guus: solve your issue antoine?
<aliman> antoine: yes
<aliman> sean: will need change in working draft, revert to original wording
<aliman> guus: antoine wait on response until have revised wording
<aliman> ... 186,
<aliman> antoine: this is about relation between mapping properties and semantic properties. currently broadmatch subprop of broader etc. michael panzer raised objection, disagreed with mapping links interpreted as normal structural links. that was a discussion at our last f2f, i wanted to know reaction of wg.
<aliman> ...personally I'm against link between mapping and hierarchical links. ready to accept again, but wanted reflection
Alistair: I thought we were trying to follow these standards
Guus: we're not deriving the
mapping relations from standard relations
... this change would change our design
<aliman> guus: sufficient input to write draft response, antoine?
<aliman> ...comfortable with issue?
<aliman> antoine: no, not comfortable. I could write something, but wouldn't feel easy.
<aliman> guus: i'll take this one. hearing alistair's arguments, adding specifics from new british standard
<aliman> ...definitely see no evidence to change the design
Guus: Antoine should propose
revised answers for issues 181-185
... and me for 186
<scribe> ACTION: Antoine to propose revised answers for issues 181-185 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action01]
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to propose answer for issue 186 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action02]
Guus: Sean, Alistair, do you have other issues ot discuss?
Sean: no
<scribe> ACTION: Guus and Jeremy to give concrete implementation examples of the [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action03]
use of rdfs:label w/ SKOS [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#action10]
[CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: guus to draft revised response to ISSUE-179 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/14-swd-minutes.html#action03] [DROPPED]
<scribe> ACTION: guus to draft revised response to ISSUE-179 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/14-swd-minutes.html#action03] [DROPPED]
<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] [DONE]
<scribe> ACTION: Sean and Alistair to send answers wrt. the editorial issues resolved on 21-10-08 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action07]
Guus: congratulations to all RDFa people!
<scribe> ACTION: diego propose resolutions to remaining recipes issues [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/14-swd-minutes.html#action02] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action09] implementations] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20] [CONTINUES]
Guus: OWL WG have asked for
review of OWL documents
... I will indicate that the group is small and busy with
LC.
... Are there volunteers here?
Sean: I cannot promise to do it, not much time
Alistair: mee too
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to look at OWL documents for review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10]
Guus: meeting is adjourned, we'll meet on Nov 4