See also: IRC log, previous 2009-01-27
RESOLUTION: accept minutes of 27-Jan telecon
RESOLUTION: next meeting 24 Feb
Tom: today is our 98th WG telecon. closing in on 100 :)
Guus: I'll buy drinks for the 100th
ACTION: [DONE] Alistair respond to Felix re: issue-188 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html#action01]
Alistair: editorial suggestion, we accepted and put it in the editor's draft
Tom: CR transition status?
Ralph: I18N Core agreed to send any Last Call
comments by 18 Feb
... after that, assuming they don't find any serious flaws, we should be able
to proceed
... are we willing to give the editors discretion to make any trivial
editorial changes?
Guus: yes, sure
Ralph: I expect that the editors and I can judge whether a change would need formal WG approval
-> 2009-02-07 Comment from Magnus Knuth - proposed response
Antoine: Magnus asked that the recommendation
be an informal one
... as that was already the case -- was informal -- that seems to satisfy
Magnus
... there was a comment on prefLabel in the RDF version of the onotology that
seems to more strongly enforce this recommendation
... I propose to reword this comment following the current language of the
Primer
... "It is recommended that no two concepts in the same concept scheme be
given the same preferred lexical label for the same language tag"
... I'm ready to send this response if the WG agrees
Alistair: I concur
Sean: fine with me
RESOLUTION: Antoine's proposed response in public-swd-wg/2009Feb/0018.html approved
ACTION: Antoine raise and close an issue for Magnus Knuth's comment [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action02]
ACTION: Alistair update the RDF file for response to Magnus Knuth's comment [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action03]
-> issue-157; Last Call Comment: SKOS and OWL 2 analysis
Sean: I think it's an oversight that this issue
is still open
... we haven't received a formal response [on behalf of the WG] for this
... we've noted his [personal] agreement with the resolution
... so we can close 157
-> SKOS ontology sanity-check? [Antoine 2009-02-07]
Antoine: this was directly related to Magnus'
comment
... should we do a final check of the RDF ontology?
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
... I've done some basic [machine] checks but these don't look at the labels
or comments
Antoine: I'll try for the basic ontology, won't get to the -xl ontology
Guus: I'll do the same
-> Updated Primer editor's draft [Antoine 2009-02-07]
Antoine: is this update small enough to republish the WD?
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
PROPOSED: Accept primer-20090207 as the next WD
RESOLUTION: Accept primer-20090207 as the next WD
ACTION: [DONE] 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] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action04]
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Sean to report on SKOSED for SKOS implementation report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/06-swd-minutes.html#action10]
ACTION: [DONE] Guus discuss with Sean editors for the SKOS implementation report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html#action04]
Guus: problem will be time
... we need an implementation report before we can exit Candidate
Recommendation
... if we setup a structure for folks to fill-in it will be easier
... create a list of what we want and ask people to add to that list
... create a table for SKOS Editors and Checkers
... would Sean propose a structure for these tables?
... we could include this in our Call for Implementations
<Antoine> public-swd-wg/2009Jan/0080.html
-> SKOS usage at eCulture/Europeana [Antoine, fwd from Ronald Siebes]
Guus: let's try to have the structure in 2 weeks for people to fill
Guus: for a tool, the differences would be whether the tool handles a particular construct
Sean: extra functions like reading, writing,
modifying
... I can add some categories for these
... for an implementation report we'd want each implementation to add a line
to the table?
... plus a short paragraph about the implementation?
Guus: yes
Antoine: could re-use some of the text from our call for use cases
Ralph: sure, referring back to our use cases seems reasonable
ACTION: Ralph include in the Call for Implementation prose on "feedback on implementations of SKOS Editors and Checkers" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action07]
Sean: yes, we use "checker" rather than "validator"
Guus: we'd like to know which SKOS concepts are
supported
... and for SKOS Vocabularies we'd like to know the purpose, a link, and a
list of SKOS concepts used
... we could extract the concepts used if the vocabulary is public
Ralph: could put this in the Wiki and let implementors update directly
Sean: we're not expecting hundreds of reports,
so may be easier just to supply a list of the data we'd like
... I'm not yet accepting editorship of this report :)
[Guus' action to discuss done]
Guus: we may not need a formal report; could just be links to several tables
Ralph: yes
... an implementation report need not be a formal document
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Ben review RDFa Use Cases and propose transition to Group Note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02]
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Ralph to review the revised Recipes draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html#action15]
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes implementations] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]
ACTION: [CONTINUES] 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]
ACTION: [DONE] Guus to look at OWL documents for review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10]
-> proposed response to OWL LC documents [Guus 2009-01-28]
Guus: the link [2] should point to OWL
Reference
... several of the new OWL2 constructs, particularly property
characteristics, are useful for characterizing SKOS
... .another typo; reflexivity should be irreflexitivity
... in my second point I note that the OWL2 documents are not accessible to
the typical SKOS user
... this is an editorial comment
... while substantial, it's not a technical point against OWL2
... point 3 is about terminology; to what does "OWL2" refer? Just the DL
subset or the whole thing?
<TomB> +1 Guus's comments look good
Guus: I added a fourth point which needs more discussion
Sean: I'm less worried about point 2 from where
I sit
... but I don't object to including it in the group's comments
Guus: I could imagine the OWL WG responding
that there will be one document that uses an RDF representation
... they wouldn't have to re-do all the documents; it would be sufficient for
one document to use RDF
... leave it to them to decide how to remedy this
... I don't think it ought to be a lot of work for them
... internally [in Vrieje] in our group there was consensus about this from
folk who were very familiar with RDF
Alistair: I support Guus' comments
Antoine: I support them fully
Guus: my fourth comment ...
-> Re: proposed response to OWL LC documents [Guus 2009-02-29]
Guus: I chatted with Ivan about this
... Ivan suggested I have misinterpreted the OWL documents
... this might be the case, but my misinterpretation could be revealing
... I was worried that OWL2 tools might no longer be required to produce
RDF/XML
... 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
Sean: is there an explicit statement of what the normative syntax is?
Guus: I can rephrase as a question;
... 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?
... from the documents I am unclear about the status of the other syntaxes
... is this a fair question to ask?
Ralph, Alistair: yes, it's fair
Alistair: it's a valid concern. It would be a problem for me if OWL tools stopped emitting RDF/XML
<Antoine> +1
Guus: we can ask this as a clarification question
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
Guus: 'a' or 'the'?
Ralph: I'd like 'the' but we can ask them to clarify at least
Diego: I agree that RDF/XML must be required
... we would otherwise introduce interoperability problems
... someone must study the impact of changing the normative syntax
Guus: I could live with a tool that produces other syntaxes if it always produces RDF/XML too
Diego: my problem is not just producers but
also tools that consume
... if OWL2 introduces new syntaxes equivalent to RDF/XML then effectively
this adds a requirement on implementors
Sean: looking at the OWL2 Conformance and Test
Cases document ...
... in Section 2 ...
<aliman> +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
Sean: I see "... successfully parsed using canonical RDF parsing process ..."
<seanb> OWL 2 Web Ontology Language:Conformance and Test Cases
Sean: which to me says that RDF is still in there
<seanb> Section 2
Guus: but the other documents aren't clear as the other syntaxes do appear in normative sections
Sean: so you want a clarification?
Guus: yes, I want a clarification but without
putting too much pressure on them
... I will rephrase this as a question
... I'd like to send this response in a day
... I'll send a revise proposal tonight, would like comments from SWD
tomorrow, then I'll send the comment to OWL WG on Thursday
Tom: OK
<aliman> antoine i see you've raised issue 189, were you planning to also raise another issue for the comment in the RDF?
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 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action13]
Guus: I can keep this general; request clarification on status of RDF/XML as a normative exchange syntax
Ralph: I think it is appropriate and useful for this WG to state that RDF/XML is mandatory
Margherita: apologies for being less available; I expect to have more time in 2 weeks
Tom: editorial input [after we publish CR] will be useful
Guus: especially on how FAO uses SKOS; this would be very useful for the implementation report
Margherita: the new application we are building will have SKOS export
<TomB> AGROVOC
Margherita: this is a new maintenance tool; AgroVoc service
<marghe> AGROVOC Concept Server Workbench