IRC log of swd on 2008-12-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:59:55 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #swd
15:59:55 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-swd-irc
16:00:00 [TomB]
rrsagent, bookmark
16:00:00 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-swd-irc#T16-00-00
16:00:04 [TomB]
zakim, this will be swd
16:00:04 [Zakim]
ok, TomB, I see SW_SWD()11:00AM already started
16:00:12 [TomB]
Meeting: SWD WG
16:00:18 [TomB]
zakim, who is on the call?
16:00:18 [Zakim]
On the phone I see [IPcaller]
16:00:24 [TomB]
zakim, IPcaller is me
16:00:24 [Zakim]
+TomB; got it
16:01:08 [Antoine]
Antoine has joined #swd
16:01:20 [Zakim]
-TomB
16:01:21 [Zakim]
SW_SWD()11:00AM has ended
16:01:21 [Zakim]
Attendees were TomB
16:01:43 [Zakim]
SW_SWD()11:00AM has now started
16:01:50 [Zakim]
+??P39
16:01:57 [TomB]
zakim, ??P39 is me
16:01:57 [Zakim]
+TomB; got it
16:02:22 [TomB]
Previous: http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html
16:02:38 [aliman]
aliman has joined #swd
16:03:07 [seanb]
just dialing in....
16:03:28 [Zakim]
+??P46
16:03:30 [aliman]
i see no agenda in mail archives...
16:03:31 [seanb]
there was no agenda sent out though.....
16:03:42 [Antoine]
zakim, ??P46 is Antoine
16:03:42 [Zakim]
+Antoine; got it
16:04:21 [Antoine]
zakim, please mute me
16:04:21 [Zakim]
Antoine should now be muted
16:04:41 [Zakim]
-Antoine
16:04:43 [Zakim]
+Ralph
16:04:48 [Zakim]
+??P57
16:04:50 [Zakim]
+??P53
16:05:12 [Ralph]
zakim, ??p53 is Sean
16:05:12 [Zakim]
+Sean; got it
16:05:22 [Ralph]
zakim, ??p57 is Alistair
16:05:22 [Zakim]
+Alistair; got it
16:06:21 [Ralph]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Dec/0055.html
16:06:36 [Ralph]
scribenick: aliman
16:06:46 [aliman]
TOPIC: admin
16:07:06 [Zakim]
+Antoine_Isaac
16:07:17 [aliman]
RESOLVED: to accept minutes of the last telecon: http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html
16:07:36 [aliman]
tomb: propose next telecon 16 dec
16:07:44 [aliman]
ralph: regrets for 16 dec
16:07:52 [aliman]
TOPIC: RDFa
16:08:17 [aliman]
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]
16:08:20 [aliman]
--continues
16:08:26 [aliman]
TOPIC: recipes
16:08:34 [aliman]
ACTION: Ralph to review the revised Recipes draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html#action15]
16:08:37 [aliman]
--continues
16:08:49 [aliman]
ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes implementations] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]
16:08:52 [aliman]
--continues
16:09:00 [aliman]
TOPIC: RDFa metadata note
16:09:08 [aliman]
ACTION: Ralph post his comments on the editor's draft of the metadata note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action03]
16:09:12 [aliman]
--continues
16:09:19 [aliman]
ACTION: Guus to look at OWL documents for review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10]
16:09:21 [aliman]
--continues
16:09:36 [aliman]
TOPIC: AOB
16:09:41 [aliman]
previous action goes here
16:09:45 [aliman]
TOPIC: SKOS
16:10:00 [aliman]
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]
16:10:02 [aliman]
--done
16:10:12 [Zakim]
+??P25
16:10:21 [aliman]
seanb: in latest version of schema, looking for link
16:10:44 [seanb]
Schema is at: -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20081001/skos.rdf
16:10:46 [aliman]
ACTION: Guus discuss response to issue 157 with Sean [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action12]
16:10:48 [aliman]
--done
16:10:57 [aliman]
seanb: guus posted the draft for 157
16:11:31 [aliman]
ACTION: Antoine to write something in Primer wrt. ISSUE 160 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html#action14]
16:11:32 [seanb]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Dec/0037.html
16:11:34 [aliman]
--continues
16:11:51 [aliman]
ACTION: Antoine propose 1 or 2 SPARQL examples showing named graph usage [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action14]
16:11:53 [aliman]
--continues
16:12:29 [aliman]
tomb: discuss skos issues, go back to 157
16:12:38 [Ralph]
scribenick: ralph
16:12:46 [Ralph]
Topic: Issue 157
16:13:00 [Ralph]
Alistair: Guus wrote a draft proposing to rearrange the examples
16:13:05 [Ralph]
... however Peter wasn't satisfied
16:13:09 [Ralph]
-> @@
16:13:26 [Ralph]
... Guus noted some things that OWL DL wouldn't support
16:13:57 [Ralph]
... Antoine noted issues with the rearrangement as this would introduce stylistic differences between the Reference and the Primer
16:14:18 [Ralph]
... Guus proposed that the OWL Full examples be collected under a caveat
16:14:32 [Ralph]
... we need to find a way to resolve issue 157
16:15:00 [Ralph]
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/157 issue 157; Last Call Comment: SKOS and OWL 2 analysis
16:15:11 [Ralph]
Antoine: was Peter's comment about SKOS itself?
16:15:26 [Ralph]
Sean: Peter's worries are not about the data model itself but about the presentation of the examples
16:15:51 [Ralph]
... Peter was concerned that if we used OWL Full patterns in the examples this would encourage [more] people to use OWL Full
16:15:52 [aliman]
scribenick:aliman
16:16:11 [aliman]
seanb: can't stop people doing anything, but peter keen we don't use rdf:value in example
16:16:26 [aliman]
antoine: people should use patterns about to be hidden, because most simple and common ones
16:18:21 [aliman]
antoine: uncomfortable with encouragement
16:18:21 [Ralph]
Alistair: if this is a problem we need an alternative
16:18:40 [aliman]
...clear warning about OWL DL
16:19:01 [aliman]
...reference has normative value, so people won't come in to primer first
16:19:16 [aliman]
...so maybe sub-optimal
16:19:41 [aliman]
seanb: we have these three examples, a literal, a blank node with rdf:value, and a URI -- you want to see all three with equal value?
16:19:49 [aliman]
antoine: literal one is most common, simplest
16:20:08 [aliman]
...wouldn;t use rdf:value, but means don't need URIs for notes, so could be beneficial
16:20:44 [aliman]
seanb: came late, but alistair had alternative proposal to consider them as annotation properties, so then problem using them with literals and objects goes away
16:21:15 [aliman]
antoine: at first glance ok with that, already something we have for labeling properties, so re-using this solution is proper way to do it
16:21:26 [aliman]
...might still be problems with use of annotation properties
16:21:42 [aliman]
seanb: rdf:value is still an issue, but would solve some of the problems
16:21:54 [aliman]
antoine: anything about rdf:value in OWL 2?
16:22:02 [aliman]
seanb: not mentioned, has no semantics
16:22:07 [aliman]
antoine: what is problem with it?
16:22:48 [aliman]
tomb: where is use of rdf:value documented? mentioned in primer, in reference too?
16:22:54 [aliman]
aliman: just in an example in reference
16:23:17 [aliman]
antoine: in rdf semantics, listed with containers, collections etc. just gives ideas on use, no formal constraint
16:23:27 [aliman]
tomb: more like a usage convention
16:23:56 [aliman]
antoine: small paragraph of 7 lines, meaning can vary
16:23:59 [Antoine]
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#ReifAndCont
16:24:42 [Ralph]
Alistair: to make Peter happy we should look at how rdf:value is being treated in OWL2
16:25:08 [Ralph]
... suppose we made all of the properties be owl:AnnotationProperty ?
16:25:17 [Ralph]
... but leave the Primer as it is
16:25:24 [Ralph]
Antoine, Sean: I'd be happy
16:25:29 [Ralph]
Sean: Guus might not be satisfied
16:25:38 [aliman]
seanb: i would support that
16:25:57 [aliman]
...discussing with simon jupp, why aren't documentation props annotation props? tells a consistent story
16:26:07 [aliman]
...veering towards substantial change, I'm not sure it is.
16:26:20 [aliman]
antoine: given that skos:note is for annotations, easy to defend.
16:26:43 [aliman]
seanb: object properties (semantic relations), then labeling and documentation properties (annotation proeprties)
16:26:58 [aliman]
antoine: difficult to defend doc props not as annotation props
16:28:09 [Ralph]
Alistair: someone might want to add an extension to SKOS that placed cardinality restrictions on some properties
16:28:29 [Ralph]
Antoine: complicated because there are many annotation properties in the SKOS world
16:28:40 [aliman]
aliman: i can live with them as annotation props
16:28:53 [aliman]
seanb: ralph, do you see this as a substantive change? more editorial?
16:29:02 [aliman]
ralph: not sure ...
16:30:05 [aliman]
from two viewpoints: Would any developer of a skos tool have to change their code to conform to altered version of reference? Or, likely that any existing LC comments would disagree with this proposed change? I.e. would anyone feel this is unacceptable change?
16:30:09 [aliman]
seanb: difficult to say
16:30:24 [aliman]
ralph: prefer to err on side of caution, if not sure, consider it substantive
16:30:45 [aliman]
seanb: none of comments mention documentation properties; but maybe not mentioned because totally happy;
16:30:59 [aliman]
ralph: suspect relatively few looking at OWL DL vs OWL Full differences in detail
16:31:05 [aliman]
seanb: I would be happy with this change
16:31:21 [aliman]
tomb: what are implications if do consider this substantive?
16:31:29 [aliman]
ralph: we would need to do another last call
16:31:54 [aliman]
...formally, we don't have huge variety of choices; more than an editorial change, peter feels it's important.
16:32:14 [aliman]
...but could say, we don't consider this change invalidates any other reviews, and don't consider that skos implementers have to make changes.
16:32:37 [aliman]
seanb: if happy to change to labeling props, then I'm surprised if we're unhappy to similar change to doc props.
16:33:10 [aliman]
tomb: could we assert this is not substantive change, not hide problem but ... to go to another last call over this seems to far on the side of caution
16:33:45 [aliman]
ralph: i agree another last call is overkill. i wouldn't want to wordsmith too finely to avoid substantive change question, just say we have made the following changes.
16:34:02 [aliman]
seanb: we're still giving people option to comment, so this isn't final.
16:34:58 [aliman]
ralph: purpose of this part of review process is to make sure, if somebody did look very carefully at doc props and decide exactly right, they wouldn't comment. need to make sure any reviewer who could care is on notice that changes have occurred.
16:35:06 [aliman]
tomb: need to take an action?
16:35:31 [aliman]
aliman: need to redraft response to peter on 157
16:35:59 [aliman]
ACTION: seanb to redraft response to peter on ISSUE-157, where skos doc props are annotation props, and rdf:value example is dropped from skos reference
16:36:35 [aliman]
tomb: any objections to this?
16:36:39 [aliman]
[none]
16:37:04 [Ralph]
Sean, please make sure these sorts of things are explicit in the Changes section
16:37:07 [aliman]
aliman: need to approve sean's drafts on namespace issues
16:37:49 [aliman]
seanb: approved and sent already
16:38:49 [aliman]
tomb: so look forward to next week, we should vote next week on a resolution to request candidate rec in first week of jan, then on next day ralph will ask for extension of charter to end of april
16:39:18 [aliman]
...Need to propose to go to candidate rec on the list, so can vote at next week's call.
16:39:49 [Ralph]
rrsagent, please make record public
16:40:04 [aliman]
ACTION: alistair send email with editors' draft proposed for CR before next telcon
16:40:57 [aliman]
tomb: can say time has run out if no response by next week
16:40:59 [Ralph]
Alistair: on 157, can Sean send his revised response based on today's discussion directly to Peter
16:41:09 [Ralph]
s/Peter/Peter?/
16:41:27 [Ralph]
Tom: yes, that would save time
16:42:18 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-swd-minutes.html Ralph
16:42:19 [aliman]
PROPOSED: to respond to ISSUE-157 commenter, proposing skos documentation props are made OWL annotation properties and rdf:value example is removed from skos reference
16:42:23 [edsu]
edsu has joined #swd
16:42:54 [aliman]
tomb: any discussion?
16:43:15 [aliman]
RESOLVED: to respond to ISSUE-157 commenter, proposing skos documentation props are made OWL annotation properties and rdf:value example is removed from skos reference
16:43:15 [Ralph]
Chair: Tom
16:43:34 [aliman]
seanb: i'll check with guus, what if he doesn't like it?
16:43:45 [Zakim]
+[LC]
16:43:45 [aliman]
tomb: then we have to go to list somehow
16:44:02 [Ralph]
zakim, lc is EdSu
16:44:02 [Zakim]
+EdSu; got it
16:44:29 [Ralph]
Regrets+ Ben_Adida
16:45:11 [Ralph]
Alistair: we'll make a new editors' draft incorporating all the changes we proposed to commentors
16:45:30 [Ralph]
... will be contingent on Peter and Guus being willing to live with the resolution to issue 157
16:45:45 [Ralph]
Topic: SKOS Implementations
16:45:53 [aliman]
tomb: ask if, implementations, ed and antoine what's the status of the LoC subject headings?
16:45:59 [aliman]
...any issues to resolve there?
16:46:50 [aliman]
edsu: we're both working on separate things, but kind of the same. what LC is doing, what their not doing. lcsh.info was done as an experiment by me, to get feedback on whether correct and/or useful.
16:47:23 [aliman]
...people here see it is useful, good feedback, most concerns come back to having it live at real domain in LC rather than my domain, no concerns about skos implementation details.
16:48:28 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-swd-minutes.html Ralph
16:48:46 [aliman]
...antoine and I discussed things specific to LCSH, meaning to write email on the topic, basically that LCSH has sets of concepts that are more specialised than skos:Concept, e.g. topical concepts, geographic concepts, form/genre concepts, things specific to LC. antoine and I discussing, i've been inclined to specialise SKOS, whereas antoine inclined to use skos:inScheme to identify separate...
16:48:48 [aliman]
...groupings.
16:49:48 [aliman]
tomb: also wanted to ask about other vocabs in clay's department. i was interested to see if marc relator terms are now declared as rdf properties? have been for past 2-3 years, but proposal to declare smae URIs as both rdf properties and skos concepts. antoine you discussed that with clay?
16:49:59 [aliman]
antoine: not that. specific concept scheme of relations?
16:50:24 [aliman]
tomb: i went into skos reference, it's not a contradiction to say that a skos concept is also an rdf property... but it makes my head spin :)
16:50:58 [aliman]
edsu: i talked to rebecca about it, better to leave definitions as they are. if want to declare elsewhere then fine, but leave existing ones as are and keep uris stable
16:51:12 [aliman]
tomb: proposal was to additoinally say they are also skos concepts
16:51:25 [aliman]
...nothing formally says you can't do that, but i'm wondering what it means
16:51:30 [aliman]
edsu: potentially confusing
16:51:46 [aliman]
tomb: can have sub-property relation between uri as property, and a broader relation between same uris
16:52:56 [aliman]
...meeting in may, rdf schema doesn't distinguish preferred labels, so feature of skos attractive, but labeling properties are not committed to skos concepts, so could use preflabel with properties
16:53:09 [aliman]
antoine: but problem with semantic relations, restricted to skos concepts.
16:53:21 [aliman]
tomb: i sent a not to clay, wanted to follow up
16:54:32 [aliman]
...if using marc relator terms as implementation, need to resolve that.
16:54:51 [aliman]
tomb: anything else to discuss?
16:55:16 [aliman]
seanb: on topic of implementations, some work here (manchester) simon jupp building api infrastructure for skos and an editor as well, so can use as implementation experience
16:55:30 [aliman]
edsu: i've been emailing with simon, he's been using lcsh.info as testbed
16:55:47 [aliman]
seanb: simon makes use of schema to drive the application, so if we change schema he can cope with that
16:55:59 [aliman]
ralph: two action items not carried forward...
16:56:02 [Ralph]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ralph to report on use of RDFa metadata in Recommendations. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-minutes.html#action02]
16:56:19 [Ralph]
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]
16:56:27 [Ralph]
-- dropped
16:57:08 [aliman]
tomb: meeting adjourned
16:57:19 [Ralph]
Tom: dropped that action re: rdfs:label last week
16:57:24 [Zakim]
-Sean
16:57:25 [Zakim]
-??P25
16:57:25 [Zakim]
-Ralph
16:57:33 [Zakim]
-Alistair
16:57:39 [Ralph]
zakim, list attendees
16:57:39 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been TomB, Antoine, Ralph, Sean, Alistair, Antoine_Isaac, EdSu
16:57:45 [Ralph]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
16:57:45 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-swd-minutes.html Ralph
17:22:41 [Zakim]
-Antoine_Isaac
17:22:42 [Zakim]
-EdSu
17:22:42 [Zakim]
-TomB
17:22:43 [Zakim]
SW_SWD()11:00AM has ended
17:22:44 [Zakim]
Attendees were TomB, Antoine, Ralph, Sean, Alistair, Antoine_Isaac, EdSu
17:22:59 [edsu]
edsu has left #swd
17:23:58 [TomB]
query Ralph
18:39:26 [Ralph]
rrsagent, bye
18:39:26 [RRSAgent]
I see 12 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-swd-actions.rdf :
18:39:26 [RRSAgent]
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]
18:39:26 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-swd-irc#T16-08-17
18:39:26 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ralph to review the revised Recipes draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html#action15] [2]
18:39:26 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-swd-irc#T16-08-34
18:39:26 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes implementations] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20] [3]
18:39:26 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-swd-irc#T16-08-49
18:39:26 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ralph post his comments on the editor's draft of the metadata note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action03] [4]
18:39:26 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-swd-irc#T16-09-08
18:39:26 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Guus to look at OWL documents for review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10] [5]
18:39:26 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-swd-irc#T16-09-19
18:39:26 [RRSAgent]
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] [6]
18:39:26 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-swd-irc#T16-10-00
18:39:26 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Guus discuss response to issue 157 with Sean [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action12] [7]
18:39:26 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-swd-irc#T16-10-46
18:39:26 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Antoine to write something in Primer wrt. ISSUE 160 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html#action14] [8]
18:39:26 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-swd-irc#T16-11-31
18:39:26 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Antoine propose 1 or 2 SPARQL examples showing named graph usage [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action14] [9]
18:39:26 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-swd-irc#T16-11-51
18:39:26 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: seanb to redraft response to peter on ISSUE-157, where skos doc props are annotation props, and rdf:value example is dropped from skos reference [10]
18:39:26 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-swd-irc#T16-35-59
18:39:26 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: alistair send email with editors' draft proposed for CR before next telcon [11]
18:39:26 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-swd-irc#T16-40-04
18:39:26 [RRSAgent]
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] [12]
18:39:26 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-swd-irc#T16-56-19