See also: IRC log, previous 2009-01-06
RESOLVED to accept minutes of the Jan 06 telecon: http://www.w3.org/2009/01/06-swd-minutes.html
TomB: our charter has been extended to end of apr
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]
BenA: we're in the middle of a discussion with the XHTML WG re use cases
BenA: working now to provide guidance about adding rdfa in HTML
TomB: any isssues?
<Guus> [i will not be able to join sorry]
<TomB> [ok]
BenA: introduction of a new attribute to
declare namespaces in html (not xmlns)
... @prefix
... another issue, ability to import profiles specially targeted to common
patterns (i.e., vocabularies)
... for instance, social networks
... focus on browser features vs. data extracted from RDFa-documents
TomB: any pointers to the discussion?
BenA: in the XHTML WG mailing list
ACTION: Ralph to review the revised Recipes draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html#action15] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes implementations] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20] [CONTINUES]
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] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Guus to look at OWL documents for review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Ralph send CR transition request for SKOS [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/06-swd-minutes.html#action01] [DONE]
<Ralph> Transition Request: SKOS to Candidate Recommendation [Ralph 2009-01-07]
** SKOS primer
ACTION: Antoine to prepare revised draft of SKOS Primer ready for decision to publish as WD [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/06-swd-minutes.html#action04] [DONE]
-> Revised draft of SKOS Primer
TomB: propose we take a decision to publish as WD
Ralph: I'm ok to proceed
TomB: I'm the main reviewer, I'm ok with
publishing
... some issues may need futher discussion, maybe later in this telecon, they
are non-blocking
<Ralph> Editor's Draft 13 January 2009
PROPOSED to publish http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/primer/primer-20090113.html as WD
Antoine: both versions are the same
... http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/primer/primer-20090113.html
is the same as the wiki attachment
TomB: any discussion?
<Ralph> +1 to publish
RESOLVED to publish http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/primer/primer-20090113.html as WD
<aliman> nice work!
TomB: thanks Ed and Antoine
** SKOS Impl report
ACTION: Guus to report on usage of SKOS in vocabularies at VU for SKOS implementation report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/06-swd-minutes.html#action09] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Sean to report on SKOSED for SKOS implementation report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/06-swd-minutes.html#action10] [CONTINUES]
TomB: Ralph: what's the status of our CR request?
Ralph: send, probably reply by this week
TomB: when our CR is published, we can make a call for impl
Ralph: it's part of the CR announcement
TomB: call for impl should include updated pointer to Primer
Ralph: I'll make sure they cross-reference each
one
... do we have a draft of the impl report in any form?
TomB: none I'm aware of
Ralph: I would like to have content for the URI
I put in the draft Status
... but if we don't have one, that's ok
TomB: re Impl Report, I would like to talk about LCSH
<Ralph> I wrote "An implementation report will be available at http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/implementation-report " and that URI is currently 404
<Ralph> (which is OK, until we actually publish :)
TomB: what the situation is about LCSH in SKOS?
edsu: they want to have it running for an upcoming conference
<aliman> I've read all the comments at http://lcsh.info -- all very constructive I thought
aliman: we have more than enough vocabs
Ralph: we have six weeks to deliver the impl report, lcsh.info may be included as an experiment if it's online at the time
<Ralph> Ralph: http://lcsh.info/comments1.html is now an important piece of our history :) so if and when the experimental data reappears at lcsh.info, I hope http://lcsh.info/comments1.html will also remain 'cool' :)
<edsu> Ralph++
Antoine: we can mention LCSH in the Impl Report even if not online at that time
<Ralph> [I wish I hadn't been off the 'net during that period to add my comments.]
TomB: i would be nice to know who to contact in LCSH regarding statements about skos usage
<edsu> Barbara Tillett is your best bet
TomB: re: discussion about RDF struct values, I don't see this as a blocker
<TomB> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Jan/0039.html
TomB: section on the primer about mapping/standard/ properties, three paragraphs, need more discussion
Antoine: I could buy your story
JonP: the mappings aren't owned by either schema, but by the creator of the mapping
TomB: Alistair suggested to drop the paragraph,
I rather think to replace it
... the challenge is to articulate what the distinction is. Not sure if the
current text does that
Tom: I think we can better articulate the difference between mapping properties and standard semantic properties
<aliman> SKOS Reference: The mapping properties skos:broadMatch, skos:narrowMatch and skos:relatedMatch are provided as a convenience, for situations where the provenance of data is known, and it is useful to be able to tell "at a glance" the difference between internal links within a concept scheme and mapping links between concept schemes.
JonP: better replaced than dropped
TomB: the question is who feels in the position to make assortments about standard properties as opposite to mapping relationships
aliman: I rather say as little as possible
<Ralph> [perhaps we can note that we recognize a need for standard ways to communicate provenance in the Semantic Web and when we have such mechanisms, the answer to this question of what one thesaurus provider says versus what others say about the thesaurus will become more explicit]
aliman: there is enough in the examples in the
Primer
... i think it's difficult to say more than the quotation from the SKOS
Reference
Ralph: it's outside scope of SKOS to differenciate triples with regard to their source
<aliman> +1 on what ralph says, hence SKOS Reference says: However, using the SKOS mapping properties is no substitute for the careful management of RDF graphs or the use of provenance mechanisms.
<TomB> [The argument could run as follows: Ideally, we should be able
<edsu> Ralph++ # well said
TomB: actually the text I propose says that
<Antoine> +1
Ralph: we're both thinking in the same line
aliman: we don't have best practices to represent provenance. This may be a convention you may follow
<Antoine> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Jan/0039.html
<TomB> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Jan/0039.html
TomB: if we don't say anything about the distinction, people will wonder what the distinction is
<Ralph> [ah, I see the difference Alistair points out between my thoughts and Tom's text. I'll have to think about this more. Thanks, Alistair.]
Antoine: I would be happy if we say sthg about mapping relations in the Primer
<Ralph> [it's still out of scope for SKOS to say anything about provenance :) ]
TomB: propose we move the discussion to the
list
... next meeting?
<edsu> thanks everyone for the useful discussion of loc.gov/lcsh/skos issues
TomB: I propose we meet next week even if a short call
[adjourned]
<Antoine> http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#item04