See also: IRC log, previous 2009-02-24
Today is the 100th telecon!
RESOLVED to accept minutes of the last teleconference http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-swd-minutes.html
TomB: talk about next conference at the end of the call, we've been doing every 2 weeks, but for the next 3 tuesdays i'm not available, so Guus would need to chair that
ACTION: Ralph include in the Call for Implementation prose on "feedback on implementations of SKOS Editors and Checkers" [recorded inhttp://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action07] [CONTINUES]
Ralph: continues until we get the CR out
... we're having email exchange with Addison and Richard, it seems that we
are reaching agreement
... we've changed the language that Addison had some concern with
... if we don't see a response soon, it would be good to quote the new
language in an email
TomB: lets come back to that when we get to the Primer
aliman: there was an email to the
public-esw-thes list asking about the timetable from Norman Gray, could you
or Guus respond to that?
... would be nice to have a here is where we are at summary
TomB: what do we need from a process point of view to get consensus on to get the CR out?
<Guus> [sorry to be late]
Ralph: the only dependency i'm aware of is for addision of the i18n wg to say they are satisfied
<aliman> email from norman gray asking for timetable
Ralph: alistair asked if we had responded adequately, at that point I was reasonably confident we hadn't ... my sense is we are close to getting approval
TomB: it looks to me like we are saying we've already changed the text in question, and we are waiting for him to say he agrees, but have we explicitly asked if he can live with the changes?
Ralph: perhaps we can see what alistair discovered w/ his action item?
<Ralph> thread with Addison, Antoine, and Ralph
<Ralph> Alistair opens issue 191 in response to Addison's mail
<aliman> public-swd-wg/2009Feb/0066
aliman: i just looked at the discussion prior
to Antoine's point, richards comments, but i couldn't see an issue there
... i sent that email to see if there's anything he'd like us to change, and
have not heard back
<aliman> public-swd-wg/2009Feb/0067
aliman: i sent a separate email that provides a background example
<aliman> SWD/track/issues/191
aliman: in subsequent discussion i think there
is a potential editorial issue, because addison has explicitly asked us to
make some changes i added an issue to the tracker
... he is asking us to make some reference to filtering and lookup schemes,
ways of dealing with language tags
... antoine's point about the changed wording might not address it, since
addison is looking for some reference to RFC 4647
... he won't be satisfied until the reference or the primary mention it
Antoine: i wanted to wait till this telecon before responding
aliman: i suggested a slightly revised version of the sentence for the reference
Antoine: if addison would like to have it added to the reference, i fully support it
aliman: it's difficult for the primer, because
the exact sentence would require examples
... could be dealt with in a separate note that deals w/ i18n, but we're not
going to have time for that
Ralph: it might have been premature to ask for the OK, before some of his questions were answered ... if i were him i would want to hear the WG say why they are using the american spelling for en
aliman: i found it hard to pick out the specific editorial issue
Ralph: perhaps just responding to his comments specifically, even if the response is that we tossed a coin ...
<TomB> public-swd-wg/2009Feb/0067
Ralph: i think we should go through Richard's message of feb 2nd and make sure that each of his comments, we have given him some reply to
ACTION: Alistair look at Richard Ishida and Felix Sasaki's messages in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Feb/thread.html#msg10 and see if there's an issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-swd-minutes.html#action01] [DONE]
TomB: antoine you were going to follow up with another email?
Antoine: i sent a link to the new primer, which solves the problem, i'm happy with what alistair did
<aliman> public-swd-wg/2009Mar/0020
<Ralph> ISSUE-191 reference filtering in RFC 4647 [Alistair 10-Mar]
TomB: if we had a favo(u)rable response to Richard's email, and one from Addison we would have no obstacles to moving forward w/ CR
Ralph: i think that's the case
Ralph: if we could resolve this by the end of
this week, TomB when would the CR actually be processed?
... early next week
... have to produce the evidence that we met the i18n review requirement, but
if we have emails from Richard and Addison it should be ok
TomB: I'm wondering how to present this on the public-esw-thes list for when the rec might come out ...
<Ralph> SKOS CR Transition Request [Ralph 7-Jan]
Ralph: transition request was issued 2 months
ago
... we proposed 27-feb, so we were thinking 6 weeks CR
... we should stick with 6 weeks CR, so we'd be looking at May 1
... for end of CR, add a week for any editorial changes
TomB: and then PR?
Ralph: we could hope to have PR starting May 8th, ending June 5th
TomB: i think we could say we inted to finish with Recommendation by the end of June
Ralph: we could say our schedule looks promising :)
<TomB> public-swd-wg/2009Mar/0016
TomB: Antoine has done two sanity checks of the skos ontology
<Ralph> Public-ESW-Thes archive
TomB: including xl, Antoine would you like to walk us through these comments?
Antoine: there are many small points, let the
editors review them
... question about the use of the dublincore namespace, proposed to move to
the dcterms namespace
... for the reference and the rdf file
... is there consensus on that?
Ralph: it's preferred usage, doesn't change skos substantially
TomB: the new ones have formal domains and ranges, the legace dc-elements have no formal domains and ranges
Ralph: this change won't impact the conformance of SKOS usage though
Antoine: only editorial
... no error on the formal semantics
TomB: there is one question you asked about the legacy labels
<Ralph> SKOS ontology sanity-check? [Antoine 9-Mar]
Antoine: the natural language lables, all the
skos vocab elements are given rdfs:labels, sometimes the follow verbs, and in
other cases it's different, was wondering if we should enforce some
homogeneity here
... was wondering if there is some policy we could follow
<Antoine> hasTopConcept is "has top concept"
<Antoine> inScheme is not "is in scheme"
<Ralph> [[I don't really understand why the rdfs:label of hasTopConcept is "has top concept" while the rdfs:label of inScheme is not "is in scheme"! Or why the natural language rdfs:label of OrderedCollection is "Ordered Collection" with upper case O and C whereas "broadMatch" has a label "broad match" with only lower case.]] -- public-swd-wg/2009Mar/0012
aliman: i don't mind either way, i can live it
the way it is, i just hope it doesn't take much time
... would be happy for Antoine to go through it and regularize it :)
... i don't know of any policy, we put properties in lower case and classes
in upper case, sean did a bit of editorializing
Antoine: i'm ok with that, will talk to sean
ACTION: Antoine to ammend the labels and other annotations in skos rdf in consultation w/ sean [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/10-swd-minutes.html#action03]
Antoine: does that mean i'd be changing the rdfs comments as i suggested?
aliman: yes
Ralph: +1
TomB: maybe you could send a diff to the list and if sean or anyone objects we could discuss that
Ralph, aliman support that
TomB: i can only see one reference to dc:title, since it's not mapped to a particular namespace it's not wrong, not sure if there's a need to change the reference or not
Ralph: at least the uri in the xmlns should change
ACTION: Antoine provide a pointer to the new Primer Editor's Draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-swd-minutes.html#action05] [DONE]
-- DONE primer-20090224
Alistair: it's worth changing to dct: just for clarity
ACTION: Sean move [48]http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/573036/SWD/implementation.html to the WG Wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-swd-minutes.html#action07] [DONE]
ACTION: Antoine add the Vrieje Uni tool to the implementation report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-swd-minutes.html#action08] [CONTINUES]
TomB: wanted to have discussion about skos community, but would like to get through the rest of the agenda
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]
<Guus> [sorry to be late]
benadida: technically it should be a note, but perhaps just leaving it on the wiki is the right thing to do
Ralph: we have an rdfa as use case working draft dated 2 years ago, are you proposing to terminate that?
benadida: what would your recommendation be?
Ralph: what is the size of the deltas compared with what's in the wiki?
benadida: pretty large
Ralph: we should wrap up the working draft in
some way, leaving it dangling is confusing
... perhaps as part of this action you can think about what the most cost
effective way of wrapping it up is. we could say we are dropping it ...
personally i would prefer to snapshot the wiki and make it a working group
note
... the fact that the wiki is an evolving document is also good though
... perhaps pointing from the note to the wiki would work
benadida: i would be in favor of doing some sort of snapshot, and then pointing at the wiki
Ralph: need to figure out how much work it would be, and if it was worth the effort
TomB: would you like to comment on state of play with HTML community?
benadida: i think i have 100 outstanding emails to read ... i have instituted inbox filtering for the first time because of that discussion :)
<Ralph> RDFa Task Force meeting record 2009-03-05
benadida: quickest summary, is that i'm a
little bit pessimistic about the html working groups willingness to accept a
specification that they didn't design themself, we're going to keep trying to
show how rdfa doesn't break what they are doing, but i don't know if we're
going to get an interesting result by the time the WG finishes
... there was a reasonable issue brought up with the TAG, which i responsed
to on the wiki, consistent syntax for the rel across versions of html
... take a look at that for a substantial issue
<benadida> http://rdfa.info/wiki/%40rel_attribute_discussion
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]
TomB: i think we should think about what kind of community support, or model could be used, wanted to ask Ben about the rdfa.info website, to say a bit about how it got started, and who maintains it, its relation to the w3c, etc
benadida: rdfa.info was started on a whim
before www2006 presentation, where we wanted a url at the end of the
presentation
... we realized fairly quickly there was a need to rapidly add use cases and
examples, and a wiki seemed like the right thing to do, the entire time
creative commons was maintaining it
... was very minor marginal work to have the extra instances running
... that combination of a blog and media wiki worked out pretty well
... have a spam extension installed, and one to do openid logins, and a few
wiki gardeners
... we're still struggling with making sure that someones stream of
conciousness thinking doesn't imply w3c positions, so we're tagging things
with big red banners that something is experimental
... for example we're trying to explore html5 issues, but need to make clear
they aren't rec or rec-track yet
TomB: Ralph is there an official policy about the relationship of ongoing community activities with recommendations?
Ralph: we've had some discussion of blogs,
there is a QA blog that w3c hosts (Questions & Answers)
... there is some encouragement, but no formal policy
... i don't know if the communications team is aware of rdfa.info ; i don't
think that there would be a particular position
TomB: there is a sense that this sort of thing is encouraged?
Ralph: w3c doesn't believe it should control how the community discusses amongst themself
<Ralph> RDF "home" page
Ralph: there aren't enough team resources to do more of that sort of thing, so it's great people like Ben and Creative Commons can pitch in
TomB: was also looking at when does a w3c
standard have a web page, aside from the list of technical reports, and do
they point off at community maintained resources
... was looking at the rdf page
... it has links out to things happening in the community, but it's stopped
being maintained
... couldn't find similar page for rdfa, if there were a community site could
it be pointed at from the w3c site?
<Ralph> OWL home page
benadida: we do point to rdfa wiki from the primer
<TomB> http://www.w3.org/RDF/
Ralph: i agree, the rdf page could use some
update, would be wonderful if someone wanted to contribute some updated
content, like the OWL page which is somewhat more up to date
... what i would like to solicit is a more attractive marketing page for RDF
and RDFa and then the w3c homepage could be updated to point at them
TomB: so ideally there would be a page like that for SKOS as well?
Ralph: there is some discussion about what is eligible for an A-Z list, but I think i could convince the webmaster
<Ralph> (the "A to Z list" to which I refer is the W3C home page list http://www.w3.org/ )
TomB: Guus when are we going to host the next telecon, would the 24th work, I am not available
Guus: 24th is fine for me
<Ralph> regrets for 24 March
Guus: would be available to chair
TomB: thanks everyone, this was the 100th telecon of the SWD!
<Ralph> medals for everyone who has attended today's 100th telecon :)
<TomB> :-)