W3C

SWD WG

18 Nov 2008

Agenda

See also: IRC log, previous 2008-11-04

Attendees

Present
Tom Baker, Ralph Swick, Ed Summers, Guus Schreiber, Margherita Sini, Ben Adida, Antoine Isaac, Alistair Miles, Sean Bechhofer, Diego Berrueta
Regrets
Chair
Tom
Scribe
Ed

Contents


Admin

RESOLVED to accept minutes of the late telecon http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-swd-minutes.html

RDFa

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: we're continuing on a bi-weekly basis -- life after rec
... the folks at drupal the cms, have prepared a timeline for rdfa in drupal

http://groups.drupal.org/node/16597

Recipes

TomB: you have proposed some resolutions to remaining issues?

<Ralph> [Recipes] proposed resolution for remaining issues

Diego: should we go through them one by one?

TomB: i don't think so, unless there is discussion

Ralph: i concur with all 4 proposals

TomB: would anyone like to discuss?

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

RDFa Metadata Note

Diego: 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

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
... lets move on with skos for now, and come back to it in a few weeks

seanb: is it right we can't add RDFa to REC documents?

Ralph: that is currently the state, pubrules don't allow it, i can revisit that

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
... would be willing to fold it in

Ralph: would be wonderful

TomB: Ralph could you check on the rdfa usage in the pubrules? is that within the scope of this working group?

Ralph: i can take an action for that

seanb: i tried to do this with my docs, and i had html entities which caused some problems with the rdfa dtd

Diego: is this for existing html entities? I haven't seen it

Ralph: i remember danbri saying he used numeric entities ...

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2008Nov/0151.html

ACTION: Ralph to report on use of RDFa metadata in Recommendations. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-minutes.html#action02]

ACTION: Guus to look at OWL documents for review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10] [CONTINUES]

<Ralph> [for Sean; the message from DanBri that mentioned using numeric entity rather than &nbsp; is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa/2008Nov/0004.html ]

SKOS

TomB: lets start with the actions, and go back to discussion

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] [CONTINUES]

ACTION: Guus to propose answer for issue 186 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action02] [DONE]

<Ralph> ISSUE 186 - draft response [Guus]

TomB: ok lets start with ISSUE-135

<Ralph> issue 135; rdfs:label

seanb: this is concerneing the subproperty relationship with rdfs:label
... and whether pushing out of owl DL is a good idea
... we already have things outside of owl DL so this isn't the issue
... one way of tackling this would be to assert that they are annotation properties
... might be easier to migrate to owl2
... 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

Guus: rdfs:label is currently an annotation property?

<Ralph> OWL Annnotations

seanb: pretty sure

Guus: i can't see a real reason against it

Antoine: would it have consequences with what we say about the range of the property?

<Ralph> "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

<Ralph> "The object of an annotation property must be either a data literal, a URI reference, or an individual." -- http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#Annotations

seanb: i believe that one can specify ranges of annotation properties in owl2

Guus: it only makes sense if we can specify value restrictions, cardinality and sub-properties

seanb: as i understood it we would be able to range/domain and sub-properties -- not sure about cardinality

Guus: the non-owl user will ignore this anyway

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

seanb: i imagine most applications will be using sub-property anyway to get the behavior that they want

aliman: i don't know what's happening w/ owl2 --- just heard bits and pieces about annotations

seanb: i'm hearing that this is a potential solution to this issue

Guus: i support it

Ralph: +1

aliman: abstain

<aliman> In http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/#Annotations I see nothing about annotation property axioms...

Guus: your question is then 'does this change our design' ... i consider it a small refinement

<aliman> specifically .. http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-owl2-syntax-20081008/

Ralph: any implementation that was conformant is still conformant
... we've done due diligence to adding this to our issues list

seanb: we would be removing the assertion that it's a datatype property, and adding the new assertion

Guus: we can just say this was an error, and correct the error

seanb: are you happy with that alistair?

aliman: i don't know

TomB: if it's a small refinement that's ok -- but could it be arguedthat this is a substantial change?

seanb: i'm uncomfortable with labeling it as an error ... it seemed like a more appropriate way of typing the property

TomB: if i can ask simple question, why is this not an rdf:property?
... an alternative would be just to remove the datatype assertion

aliman: i never had a strong preference one way or the other ... but others do rely on it

Guus: if owl people can add the triple we are fine
... if we remove the owl:datatype statement we are fine
... a less commmitting resolution

<Ralph> skos:*Label Class & Property Definitions

seanb: but why don't we do that with *everything* ?

<aliman> From SKOS Reference:

<aliman> """

<aliman> 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...

<aliman> ...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;

<aliman> """

Ralph: seems we only used this with notations

aliman: early on we made a decision that skos would be an owl full ontology

Guus: maybe we should separate the issues? i don't think use of annotation properties would change the design

seanb: it does open the can of worms: should perhaps other properties in skos be annotation properties

<Ralph> [our RDF does in fact only explicitly state <owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2008/05/skos#altLabel" />

aliman: if you are dealing with individuals in a KOS 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

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

Guus: are there other cases where skos properties where they are subproperties of owl annotation properties?

seanb: no

TomB: it would be good to have this proposal in writing, and to make clear it doesn't change conformance
... that we can consider in the next call

Ralph: we have declared everything in reference to owl, and not rdf -- so it requires owl reasoning ...

seanb: well it requires knowledge of the relationshiops to the owl schema

Guus: minimal amount of owl reasoning
... it would perfectly fine to add the rdf triples, can only be a gain

Ralph: if you have RDFS reasoning and have the OWL schema loaded you'll be in good shape -- would be good enough

<aliman> fine with me to add p rdf:type rdf:Property assertion to schema for all property p in SKOS vocabulary

ACTION: Sean to propose a resolution to ISSUE-135 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-minutes.html#action06]

<Ralph> +1 to meeting next week to close issues

ACTION: Sean to add rdf:type and rdf:Property assertions to the skos schema [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-minutes.html#action07]

<aliman> +1 to meet next week

RESOLVED to meet on November 25th

seanb: issue-147

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0064.html

aliman, Antoine, Guus : support

RESOLVED close issue #147 per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0064.html

<Ralph> issue 147; Notations as plain literals

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

seanb: it's the latest working version

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Ralph to report on use of RDFa metadata in Recommendations. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Sean to add rdf:type and rdf:Property assertions to the skos schema [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-minutes.html#action07]
[NEW] ACTION: Sean to propose a resolution to ISSUE-135 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-minutes.html#action06]
 
[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: 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]
[PENDING] ACTION: Guus to look at OWL documents for review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10]
[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: Guus to propose answer for issue 186 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action02]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2008/11/18 18:11:45 $