15:58:08 RRSAgent has joined #swd 15:58:08 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-irc 15:58:11 rssagent, bookmark 15:58:17 zakim, this will be swd 15:58:17 ok, TomB, I see SW_SWD()11:00AM already started 15:58:25 Meeting: SWD WG 15:58:28 Chair: Tom 15:58:35 zakim, ??p25 is TomB 15:58:35 +TomB; got it 15:58:53 Previous: http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-swd-minutes.html 15:59:31 rrsagent, please make record public 16:00:57 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0073.html 16:01:03 +Ralph 16:01:04 zakim, who's on the call? 16:01:06 On the phone I see TomB, Ralph 16:01:10 Guus has joined #swd 16:01:24 marghe has joined #swd 16:01:25 +[LC] 16:01:28 +VeroniqueM 16:01:44 zakim, lc is EdSu 16:01:44 +EdSu; got it 16:01:45 edsu has joined #swd 16:01:49 zakim, VeroniqueM is Guus 16:01:49 +Guus; got it 16:03:15 +Margherita_Sini 16:03:17 Antoine has joined #swd 16:03:42 +Ben_Adida 16:04:00 seanb has joined #swd 16:04:14 benadida has joined #swd 16:04:17 just dialing in.... 16:04:42 aliman has joined #swd 16:05:37 +Guus.a 16:05:55 berrueta has joined #swd 16:06:06 zakim, Guus.a is me 16:06:07 +??P50 16:06:09 +Antoine; got it 16:06:17 zakim, ??P50 is aliman 16:06:22 +aliman; got it 16:06:35 berrueta has joined #swd 16:06:46 +??P10 16:06:53 zakim, ??P10 is me 16:06:53 +seanb; got it 16:07:33 scribe: edsu 16:07:38 scribenick: edsu 16:07:46 TOPIC: Admin 16:08:01 RESOLVED to accept minutes of the late telecon http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-swd-minutes.html 16:08:22 Topic: RDFa 16:08:22 berrueta_ has joined #swd 16:09:04 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] 16:09:08 --continues 16:09:40 benadida: we're continuing on a bi-weekly basis -- life after rec 16:10:01 ... the folks at drupal the cms, have prepared a timeline for rdfa in drupal 16:10:16 http://groups.drupal.org/node/16597 16:10:28 Topic: Recipes 16:10:51 TomB: you have proposed some resolutions to remaining issues? 16:10:53 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0003.html [Recipes] proposed resolution for remaing issues 16:10:59 + +34.98.419.aaaa 16:11:09 zakim, aaaa is Diego 16:11:09 +Diego; got it 16:11:09 zakim, aaaa is me 16:11:10 sorry, berrueta_, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa' 16:11:25 s/remaing/remaining/ 16:12:02 berrueta_: should we go through them one by one? 16:12:19 TomB: i don't think so, unless there is discussion 16:12:29 Ralph: i concur with all 4 proposals 16:12:37 TomB: would anyone like to discuss? 16:12:54 zakim, +34.98.419.aaaa is me 16:12:54 sorry, berrueta_, I do not recognize a party named '+34.98.419.aaaa' 16:13:48 PROPOSED to postpone issues 24, 30 and 98 and close 60 as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0214.html 16:15:55 RESOLVED to postpone issues 24, 30 and 98 and close 60 as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0003.html 16:16:38 Topic: RDFa Metadata Note 16:17:31 berrueta: might be helpful to get other people in the working group looking at it, not sure if the timing is right ... would like to discuss the document at some point 16:17:54 TomB: i agree we would need to assign reviewers to move this towards note status, but right now we have our hands full w/ skos 16:18:15 ... lets move on with skos for now, and come back to it in a few weeks 16:18:29 seanb: is it right we can't add RDFa to REC documents? 16:18:45 Ralph: that is currently the state, pubrules don't allow it, i can revisit that 16:19:10 seanb: aliman and i discussed this, i figure it wouldn't take long to put this in our SKOS Reference, and i think it would send the right message 16:19:20 ... would be willing to fold it in 16:19:25 Ralph: would be wonderful 16:20:29 TomB: Ralph could you check on the rdfa usage in the pubrules? is that within the scope of this working group? 16:20:52 Ralph: i can take an action for that 16:21:27 seanb: i tried to do this with my docs, and i had html entities which caused some problems with the rdfa dtd 16:21:46 berrueta: is this for existing html entities? I haven't seen it 16:22:12 Ralph: i remember danbri saying he used numeric entities ... 16:23:09 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2008Nov/0151.html 16:23:44 ACTION: Ralph to report on use of RDFa metadata in Recommendations. 16:23:55 ACTION: Guus to look at OWL documents for review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10] 16:23:58 --continues 16:24:07 Topic: SKOS 16:24:37 TomB: lets start with the actions, and go back to discussion 16:24:39 [for Sean; the message from DanBri that mentioned using numeric entity rather than   is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa/2008Nov/0004.html ] 16:24:46 JonP has joined #swd 16:24:51 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] 16:24:55 --continues 16:25:02 ACTION: Guus to propose answer for issue 186 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action02] 16:25:05 --done 16:25:32 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0079.html "ISSUE 186 - draft response" [Guus] 16:25:58 TomB: ok lets start with ISSUE-135 16:26:17 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/135 issue 135; rdfs:label 16:26:22 seanb: this is concerneing the subproperty relationship with rdfs:label 16:26:37 ... and whether pushing out of owl DL is a good idea 16:26:50 ... we already have things outside of owl DL so this isn't the issue 16:27:34 ... one way of tackling this would be to assert that they are annotation properties 16:27:46 ... might be easier to migrate to owl2 16:28:33 ... i think of the labling properties as annotation properties, i'm not clear if this would constitute a substantial change, would be interested in what alistair and others have to say 16:28:47 Guus: rdfs:label is currently an annotation property? 16:29:02 -> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#Annotations OWL Annnotations 16:29:03 seanb: pretty sure 16:29:32 Guus: i can't see a real reason against it 16:29:47 Antoine: would it have consequences with what we say about the range of the property? 16:30:28 "The sets of object properties, datatype properties, annotation properties and ontology properties must be mutually disjoint. Thus, in OWL DL dc:creator cannot be at the same time a datatype property and an annotation property." -- http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#Annotations 16:30:53 "The object of an annotation property must be either a data literal, a URI reference, or an individual." 16:31:03 -- http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#Annotations 16:31:34 seanb: i believe that one can specify ranges of annotation properties in owl2 16:31:57 Guus: it only makes sense if we can specify value restrictions, cardinality and sub-properties 16:32:24 seanb: as i understood it we would be able to range/domain and sub-properties -- not sure about cardinality 16:32:36 Guus: the non-owl user will ignore this anyway 16:33:06 Ralph: i think it's pretty useful to have subproperty of relationship there, i think it doesn't make sense to have it any other way 16:34:14 seanb: i imagine most applications will be using sub-property anyway to get the behavior that they want 16:34:45 aliman: i don't know what's happening w/ owl2 --- just heard bits and pieces about annotations 16:38:12 seanb: i'm hearing that this is a potential solution to this issue 16:38:16 Guus: i support it 16:38:25 Ralph: +1 16:38:43 aliman: abstain 16:39:01 In http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/#Annotations I see nothing about annotation property axioms... 16:39:48 Guus: your question is then 'does this change our design' ... i consider it a small refinement 16:39:57 specifically .. http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-owl2-syntax-20081008/ 16:40:09 Ralph: it still is confornmant 16:40:22 ... we've done due diligence to adding this to our issues list 16:41:32 seanb: we would be removing the assertion that it's a datatype property, and adding the new assertion 16:42:15 Guus: we can just say this was an error, and correct the error 16:42:21 s/it still is conformant/any implementation that was conformant is still conformant 16:42:25 seanb: are you happy with that alistair? 16:42:29 aliman: i don't know 16:42:51 TomB: if it's a small refinement that's ok -- but could it be arguedthat this is a substantial change? 16:43:29 seanb: i'm uncomfortable with lableing it as an error ... it seemed like a more appropriate way of typing the property 16:43:39 s/lableing/labeling/ 16:44:05 TomB: if i can ask simple question, why is this not an rdf:property? 16:44:32 ... an alternative would be just to remove the datatype assertion 16:45:20 aliman: i never had a strong preference one way or the other ... but others do rely on it 16:45:51 Guus: if owl people can add the triple we are fine 16:46:06 ... if we remove the owl:datatype statement we are fine 16:46:58 ... a less commmitting resolution 16:47:44 -> http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#L1329 skos:*Label Class & Property Definitions 16:47:59 seanb: but why don't we do that with *everything* ? 16:48:37 From SKOS Reference: 16:48:38 """ 16:48:40 We can, therefore, use OWL to construct a data model for representing thesauri or classification schemes "as-is". This is exactly what SKOS does. Taking this approach, the "concepts" of a thesaurus or classification scheme are modeled as individuals in the SKOS data model, and the informal descriptions about and links between those "concepts" as given by the thesaurus or classification... 16:48:41 ...scheme are modeled as facts about those individuals, never as class or property axioms. Note that these "facts" are facts about the thesaurus or classification scheme itself, such as "concept X has preferred label 'Y' and is part of thesaurus Z; 16:48:43 """ 16:49:01 Ralph: seems we only used this with notations 16:50:33 aliman: early on we made a decision that skos would be an owl full ontology 16:51:13 Guus: maybe we should separate the issues? i don't think use of annotation model would change the design 16:51:21 s/model/properties/ 16:51:21 q+ 16:51:53 seanb: it does open the can of worms: should perhaps other properties in skos be annotation properties 16:52:17 [our RDF does in fact only explicitly state 16:52:42 aliman: if you are dealing with individuals you don't even need annotation properties ... the only use cases where you need annotations are when you start taking bits and pieces of skos and using them elsewhere 16:53:10 s/individuals/individuals in a KOS/ 16:53:39 TomB: maybe we can take a decision on the next call, I would rather we not rush into this ... get a proposed resolution up on the list 16:54:29 Guus: are there other cases where skos properties where they are subproperties of owl annotation properties? 16:54:35 seanb: no 16:55:23 TomB: it would be good to have this proposal in writing, and to make clear it doesn't change conformance 16:55:38 ... that we can consider in the next call 16:56:23 Ralph: we have declared everything in reference to owl, and not rdf -- so it requires owl reasoning ... 16:56:41 seanb: well it requires knowledge of the relationshiops to the owl schema 16:56:48 Guus: minimal amount of owl reasoning 16:57:23 ... it would perfectly fine to add the rdf triples, can only be a gain 16:57:53 Ralph: if you have the rdfs schema loaded you'll be in good shape -- would be good enough 16:58:20 s/the rdfs/RDFS reasoning and have the OWL 16:58:51 fine with me to at p rdf:type rdf:Property assertion to schema for all property p in SKOS vocabulary 16:58:53 ACTION: Sean to propose a resolution to ISSUE-135 16:58:58 s/at/add/ 16:59:19 +1 to meeting next week to close issues 16:59:25 ACTION: Sean to add rdf:type and rdf:Property assertions to the skos schema 16:59:29 +1 to meet next week 17:00:21 RESOLVED to meet on November 25th 17:01:00 seanb: issue-147 17:01:11 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0064.html 17:01:28 aliman, Antoine, Guus : support 17:01:41 -Guus 17:01:51 PROPOSED close issue #147 per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0064.html 17:02:01 RESOLVED close issue #147 per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0064.html 17:02:04 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/147 issue 147; Notations as plain literals 17:03:16 seanb: can anyone look at the current version of the reference where i stuck in some text as an appendix about the namespace change issue 17:03:31 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20081001/ 17:03:43 seanb: it's the latest working version 17:03:50 TomB: any other business? 17:03:57 -seanb 17:03:59 nope, and byes :) 17:04:00 -Diego 17:04:01 -Ben_Adida 17:04:01 -aliman 17:04:02 -Margherita_Sini 17:04:06 -Antoine 17:04:17 zakim, list attendees 17:04:17 As of this point the attendees have been TomB, Ralph, EdSu, Guus, Margherita_Sini, Ben_Adida, Antoine, aliman, seanb, +34.98.419.aaaa, Diego 17:04:23 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-minutes.html Ralph 17:04:30 -TomB 17:05:11 -Ralph 17:05:12 -EdSu 17:05:13 SW_SWD()11:00AM has ended 17:05:15 Attendees were TomB, Ralph, EdSu, Guus, Margherita_Sini, Ben_Adida, Antoine, aliman, seanb, +34.98.419.aaaa, Diego 17:05:21 zakim, bye 17:05:21 Zakim has left #swd 17:15:44 seanb has left #swd 18:13:42 rrsagent, bye 18:13:42 I see 7 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-actions.rdf : 18:13:42 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] [1] 18:13:42 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-irc#T16-09-04 18:13:42 ACTION: Ralph to report on use of RDFa metadata in Recommendations. [2] 18:13:42 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-irc#T16-23-44 18:13:42 ACTION: Guus to look at OWL documents for review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10] [3] 18:13:42 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-irc#T16-23-55 18:13:42 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] [4] 18:13:42 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-irc#T16-24-51 18:13:42 ACTION: Guus to propose answer for issue 186 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action02] [5] 18:13:42 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-irc#T16-25-02 18:13:42 ACTION: Sean to propose a resolution to ISSUE-135 [6] 18:13:42 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-irc#T16-58-53 18:13:42 ACTION: Sean to add rdf:type and rdf:Property assertions to the skos schema [7] 18:13:42 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-irc#T16-59-25