15:53:58 RRSAgent has joined #swd 15:53:58 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-irc 15:54:02 rrsagent, bookmark 15:54:02 See http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-irc#T15-54-02 15:54:08 Ralph has joined #swd 15:54:12 zakim, this will be swd 15:54:12 ok, TomB; I see SW_SWD()11:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes 15:54:31 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Feb/0022.html 15:54:44 Previous: http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html 15:54:51 Regrets: Sean 15:54:58 Meeting: SWD WG 15:55:00 Chair: Tom 15:55:10 rrsagent, please make record public 15:56:57 SW_SWD()11:00AM has now started 15:57:04 +Ralph 15:57:42 actionagent, please continue all my actions :( 15:57:50 +??P2 15:58:00 zakim, ??p2 is TomB 15:58:00 +TomB; got it 15:58:17 Ralph: no, there's not really an actionagent ;) 16:01:16 Antoine has joined #swd 16:02:44 +manrique 16:02:50 zakim, manrique is me 16:02:50 +berrueta; got it 16:02:59 +??P10 16:03:08 zakim, ??p10 is Antonine 16:03:08 +Antonine; got it 16:03:23 s/Antonine/Antoine 16:04:04 Guus has joined #swd 16:05:22 +Guus_Schreiber 16:05:40 Regrets+ Sean 16:06:02 aliman has joined #swd 16:06:02 scribe: ralph 16:06:07 seanb has joined #swd 16:06:13 + +0786654aaaa 16:06:24 zakim, aaaa is Alistair 16:06:24 +Alistair; got it 16:06:59 Topic: Admin 16:07:14 RESOLVED: accept minutes of 27-Jan telecon http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html 16:07:46 RESOLVED: next meeting 24 Feb 16:08:07 Tom: today is our 98th WG telecon. closing in on 100 :) 16:08:10 +??P45 16:08:14 Guus: I'll buy drinks for the 100th 16:08:18 zakim, ??p45 is Sean 16:08:18 +Sean; got it 16:08:18 zakim, ??P45 is me 16:08:19 I already had ??P45 as Sean, seanb 16:08:23 regrets- Sean 16:08:40 Topic: SKOS 16:08:57 [DONE] ACTION: Alistair respond to Felix re: issue-188 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html#action01] 16:09:11 Alistair: editorial suggestion, we accepted and put it in the editor's draft 16:09:22 Tom: CR transition status? 16:10:21 Ralph: I18N Core agreed to send any Last Call comments by 18 Feb 16:10:43 ... after that, assuming they don't find any serious flaws, we should be able to proceed 16:11:29 ... are we willing to give the editors discretion to make any trivial editorial changes? 16:11:32 Guus: yes, sure 16:12:23 Ralph: I expect that the editors and I can judge whether a change would need formal WG approval 16:13:00 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Feb/0018.html 2009-02-07 Comment from Magnus Knuth - proposed response 16:13:13 Antoine: Magnus asked that the recommendation be an informal one 16:13:35 ... as that was already the case -- was informal -- that seems to satisfy Magnus 16:14:03 ... there was a comment on prefLabel in the RDF version of the onotology that seems to more strongly enforce this recommendatoin 16:14:12 ... I propose to reword this comment following the current language of the Primer 16:14:31 ... "It is recommended that no two concepts in the same concept scheme be given the same preferred lexical label for the same language tag" 16:14:38 s/datoin/dation 16:14:48 ... I'm ready to send this response if the WG agrees 16:15:08 Alistair: I concur 16:15:15 Sean: fine with me 16:15:38 RESOLVED: Antoine's proposed response in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Feb/0018.html approved 16:16:30 ACTION: Antoine raise and close an issue for Magnus Knuth's comment 16:16:41 ACTION: Alistair update the RDF file for response to Magnus Knuth's comment 16:17:04 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/157 issue-157; Last Call Comment: SKOS and OWL 2 analysis 16:17:12 Sean: I think it's an oversight that this issue is still open 16:17:24 ... we haven't received a formal response [on behalf of the WG] for this 16:17:39 ... we've noted his [personal] agreement with the resolution 16:17:49 ... so we can close 157 16:18:19 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Feb/0020.html SKOS ontology sanity-check? [Antoine 2009-02-07] 16:18:28 Antoine: this was directly related to Magnus' comment 16:18:50 ... should we do a final check of the RDF ontology? 16:19:25 Alistair: it would be good to have as many people as possible to look at the comments and labels in the RDF ontology and compare with the document 16:19:39 ... I've done some basic [machine] checks but these don't look at the labels or comments 16:19:56 Antoine: I'll try for the basic ontology, won't get to the -xl ontology 16:20:02 Guus: I'll do the same 16:20:24 Topic: SKOS Primer 16:20:47 i/-> http:/Topic: SKOS Ontology 16:21:27 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Feb/0019.html Updated Primer editor's draft [Antoine 2009-02-07] 16:21:51 Antoine: is this update small enough to republish the WD? 16:22:23 Ralph: yeah, sure; because of the delay in the CR publication we haven't actually published the Primer yet so this update will be part of the published version 16:22:47 PROPOSED: Accept http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/primer/primer-20090207.html as the next WD 16:22:56 RESOLVED: Accept http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/primer/primer-20090207.html as the next WD 16:23:16 [DONE] ACTION: SKOS Editors drop "However, the use of mapping properties might..." sentence from the primer section 3.1 [recorded in [39]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html#action10] 16:23:29 Topic: SKOS Implementation report 16:23:40 [CONTINUES] ACTION: Sean to report on SKOSED for SKOS implementation report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/06-swd-minutes.html#action10] 16:23:52 ACTION: Guus discuss with Sean editors for the SKOS implementation report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html#action04] 16:24:01 Guus: problem will be time 16:24:13 ... we need an implementation report before we can exit Candidate Recommendation 16:24:29 ... if we setup a structure for folks to fill-in it will be easier 16:24:42 ... create a list of what we want and ask people to add to that list 16:24:51 ... create a table for SKOS Editors and Checkers 16:25:00 ... would Sean propose a structure for these tables? 16:25:12 ... we could include this in our Call for Implementations 16:25:58 -> http://www.few.vu.nl/~ronny/eculture/skos-usage-eculture.html 16:26:06 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Jan/0080.html 16:26:28 Guus: let's try to have the structure in 2 weeks for people to fill 16:26:57 ^ SKOS usage at eCulture/Europeana [Antoine, fwd from Ronald Siebes] 16:27:37 Guus: for a tool, the differences would be whether the tool handles a particular construct 16:27:47 Sean: extra functions like reading, writing, modifying 16:28:00 ... I can add some categories for these 16:28:18 ... for an implementation report we'd want each implementation to add a line to the table? 16:28:26 ... plus a short paragraph about the implementation? 16:28:28 Guus: yes 16:28:41 Antoine: could re-use some of the text in our call for use cases 16:28:45 s/in our/from our 16:29:29 zakim, mute alistair 16:29:29 Alistair should now be muted 16:29:29 Ralph: sure, referring back to our use cases seems reasonable 16:30:44 ACTION: Ralph include in the Call for Implementation prose on "feedback on implementations of SKOS Editors and Checkers" 16:30:52 Sean: yes, we use "checker" rather than "validator" 16:31:01 Guus: we'd like to know which SKOS concepts are supported 16:31:18 ... and for SKOS Vocabularies we'd like to know the purpose, a link, and a list of SKOS concepts used 16:31:44 ... we could extract the concepts used if the vocabulary is public 16:32:59 Ralph: could put this in the Wiki and let implementors update directly 16:33:18 Sean: we're not expecting hundreds of reports, so may be easier just to supply a list of the data we'd like 16:33:42 ... I'm not yet accepting editorship of this report :) 16:33:55 [Guus' action to discuss done] 16:34:30 Guus: we may not need a formal report; could just be links to several tables 16:34:34 Ralph: yes 16:35:05 ... an implementation report need not be a formal document 16:35:16 Topic: RDFa 16:35:26 [CONTINUES] 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] 16:35:29 Topic: Recipes 16:35:39 [CONTINUES] ACTION: Ralph to review the revised Recipes draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html#action15] 16:35:48 [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] 16:35:55 Topic: RDFa METADATA NOTE 16:36:05 [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] 16:36:29 Topic: OWL documents 16:36:37 [DONE] ACTION: Guus to look at OWL documents for review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10] 16:36:56 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Jan/0084.html proposed response to OWL LC documents [Guus 2009-01-28] 16:37:15 Guus: the link [2] should point to OWL Reference 16:38:10 ... several of the new OWL2 constructs, particularly property characteristics, are useful for characterizing SKOS 16:38:25 .. .another typo; reflexivity should be irreflexitivity 16:38:53 ... in my second point I note that the OWL2 documents are not accessible to the typical SKOS user 16:38:59 ... this is an editorial comment 16:39:16 ... while substantial, it's not a technical point against OWL2 16:39:49 ... point 3 is about terminology; to what does "OWL2" refer? Just the DL subset or the whole thing? 16:40:08 +1 Guus's comments look good 16:40:35 ... I added a fourth point which needs more discussion 16:41:06 Sean: I'm less worried about point 2 from where I sit 16:41:18 ... but I don't object to including it in the group's comments 16:41:43 Guus: I could imagine the OWL WG responding that there will be one document that uses an RDF representation 16:42:05 ... they wouldn't have to re-do all the documents; it would be sufficient for one document to use RDF 16:42:12 ... leave it to them to decide how to remedy this 16:42:22 ... I don't think it ought to be a lot of work for them 16:42:58 ... internally [in Vrieje] in our group there was consensus about this from folk who were very familiar with RDF 16:43:21 Alistair: I support Guus' comment 16:43:28 s/comment/comments 16:43:35 Antoine: I support them fully 16:43:45 Guus: my fourth comment ... 16:44:00 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Jan/0091.html Re: proposed response to OWL LC documents [Guus 2009-02-29] 16:44:09 Guus: I chatted with Ivan about this 16:44:21 ... Ivan suggested I have misinterpreted the OWL documents 16:44:31 ... this might be the case, but my misinterpretation could be revealing 16:45:21 ... I was worried that OWL2 tools might no longer be required to produce RDF/XML 16:45:44 ... these other syntaxes are used in normative sections of the OWL2 documents but apparently that does not mean that the other syntaxes are themselves normative 16:46:34 Sean: is there an explicit statement of what the normative syntax is? 16:46:45 Guus: I can rephrase as a question; 16:47:21 ... we would expect RDF/XML to continue to be the normative exchange syntax. It is not completely clear from the documents whether this is the case. Would the OWL WG care to clarify? 16:47:32 ... from the documents I am unclear about the status of the other syntaxes 16:47:45 ... is this a fair question to ask? 16:47:51 Ralph, Alistair: yes, it's fair 16:48:06 Alistair: it's a valid concern. It would be a problem for me if OWL tools stopped emitting RDF/XML 16:48:44 +1 16:48:55 Guus: we can ask this as a clarification question 16:49:49 marghe has joined #swd 16:50:35 +Margherita_Sini 16:50:57 Ralph: I think it's reasonable and proper for this WG to ask the OWL WG to be explicit that RDF/XML continues to be a required exchange syntax 16:51:01 Guus: 'a' or 'the'? 16:51:13 Ralph: I'd like 'the' but we can ask them to clarify at least 16:51:20 Diego: I agree that RDF/XML must be required 16:51:31 ... we would otherwise introduce interoperability problems 16:52:15 ... someone must study the impact of changing the normative syntax 16:52:29 Guus: I could live with a tool that produces other syntaxes if it always produces RDF/XML too 16:52:40 Diego: my problem is not just producers but also tools that consume 16:53:07 ... if OWL2 introduces new syntaxes equivalent to RDF/XML then effectively this adds a requirement on implementors 16:53:21 Sean: looking at the OWL2 Conformance and Test Cases document ... 16:53:29 ... in Section 2 ... 16:53:56 +1 on what guus said, I have no problem with an OWL tool that produces other syntaxes, if it can produce some RDF syntax too 16:53:58 ... I see "... successfully parsed using canonical RDF parsing process ..." 16:54:01 -> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-owl2-test-20081008/ 16:54:04 ... which to me says that RDF is still in there 16:54:04 Section 2 16:54:25 Guus: but the other documents aren't clear as the other syntaxes do appear in normative sections 16:54:30 Sean: so you want a clarification? 16:54:45 Guus: yes, I want a clarification but without putting too much pressure on them 16:55:01 ... I will rephrase this as a question 16:55:15 ... I'd like to send this response in a day 16:56:07 ... I'll send a revise proposal tonight, would like comments from SWD tomorrow, then I'll send the comment to OWL WG on Thursday 16:56:18 Tom: OK 16:56:21 antoine i see you've raised issue 189, were you planning to also raise another issue for the comment in the RDF? 16:56:57 ACTION: Guus send draft of revised OWL2 response by end of day Tuesday, for WG to review on Wednesday, then send to OWL WG on Thursday 16:57:31 Guus: I can keep this general; request clarification on status of RDF/XML as a normative exchange syntax 16:58:35 Ralph: I think it is appropriate and useful for this WG to state that RDF/XML is mandatory 16:59:05 -Sean 16:59:10 -Alistair 16:59:35 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html Ralph 17:00:03 Margherita: apologies for being less available; I expect to have more time in 2 weeks 17:00:25 Tom: editorial input [after we publish CR] will be useful 17:00:42 Guus: especially on how FAO uses SKOS; this would be very useful for the implementation report 17:01:02 Margherita: the new application we are building will have SKOS export 17:01:21 AGROVOC 17:01:27 ... this is a new maintenance tool; AgroVoc service 17:01:54 http://naist.cpe.ku.ac.th/agrovoc/ 17:02:30 -Margherita_Sini 17:02:31 -Antoine 17:02:33 ^ AGROVOC Concept Server Workbench 17:02:36 Antoine has left #swd 17:02:41 -berrueta 17:07:43 zakim, list attendees 17:07:43 As of this point the attendees have been Ralph, TomB, berrueta, Antoine, Guus_Schreiber, +0786654aaaa, Alistair, Sean, Margherita_Sini 17:07:52 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html Ralph 17:09:25 [DONE] ACTION: SKOS Editors drop "However, the use of mapping properties might..." sentence from the primer section 3.1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html#action10] 17:13:21 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/ 17:15:56 -Ralph 17:15:57 -TomB 17:16:12 -Guus_Schreiber 17:16:17 SW_SWD()11:00AM has ended 17:16:18 Attendees were Ralph, TomB, berrueta, Antoine, Guus_Schreiber, +0786654aaaa, Alistair, Sean, Margherita_Sini 17:16:28 zakim, bye 17:16:28 Zakim has left #swd