See also: IRC log, previous 2009-03-10
guus: PROPOSED to accept minutes of last telcon http://www.w3.org/2009/03/10-swd-minutes.html
(no objections)
RESOLVED to accept minutes of last telcon http://www.w3.org/2009/03/10-swd-minutes.html
guus: next telcon 7 April
... regrets from ralph [for today's telecon]
guus: congrats for CR status
<scribe> 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] [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/24-swd-minutes.html#action01]
guus: mailing lists need to be notified of CR
guus: should contain request for skos checkers and vocabularies
alistair: format for responses?
guus: format proposed by sean
antoine: wiki page somewhere
<Antoine> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOSImplementationReport
<Antoine> target=SKOSImplementation.html
guus: no format there for vocabularies
Alistair: only reader, writer, checker
guus: come back to this after discuss implementation report
<scribe> 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] [DONE]
<Antoine> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Mar/0012.html
antoine: some discussion on labeling policy, but can just continues discussing, anyway it is published as CR so may get feedback in coming weeks
guus: what are issues?
antoine: i changed a lot of labels (rdfs:label) and tried to put some verbs and prepositions, e.g. broader is now "has broader concept"... done for all object properties, because ambiguous in direction, but not done for all properties because literal properties less
Guus: suggest to continue discussion on the list
Antoine: other issues still remaning
... firstly, owl2 actions. Got some feedback from I. Herman
... continue discussion on the list
Antoine: anyone has comments on the owl2 issue? (none)
antoine: contributors to first schema: nikki
rogers and dave beckett
... wonder if still ok to be mentioned, found it weird, must have been
involved in first version but now file has changed, but danbri mailed them
asking, nikki is happy with it, no news from dave, also will be settled in
next weeks
guus: isn't dan brickley also contributor?
others are also contributors? in that sense very icomplete list
... either cut it out or make it complete.
antoine: could make it complete, add 20 names
guus: ok, then we make it complete
antoine: i think it would be less than 20 names, make it easier
alistair: just include from this WG, or previous WG?
guus: hard to be complete, don't know who
contributed what
... can we put in URIs, SWAD-Europe, SWBPD, SWD, three contributing groups
alistair: also public-esw-thes@w3.org list are contributors
guus: can contributors be links?
antoine: yes, tom made comment that in current schema they are literals, not really best practice, tom can you confirm?
guus: suggest to include links to SWAD-Europe,
SWBPD, SWD and plublic-swd as dc:contributor. let's keep this open
... any more about ontology file?
antoine: that's everything
guus: any outstanding actions for SKOS Primer?
antoine: two comments since published, one about comments in turtle code (ivan h), one from alistair on sparql queries, propose to add as editorial changes in next version, ok?
guus: as long as trivial editorial changes,
error corrections, then it is fine. just keep the change history.
... leave use cases.
... SKOS Implementation report
... we have text from sean on tools, do we also want text on vocabularies? or
just ask for uri on vocabulary?
... need a structure?
... alistair, could you draft text for call, i'm happy to comment.
... also earlier link from our site, but description maybe too complex.
... we can ask for a listing of the constructs they use, but don't ask too
many questions, shouldn't be any real burden to submit.
<scribe> ACTION: alistair to write draft message call for implementations and issue to the list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/24-swd-minutes.html#action04]
antoine: looking at call for use cases format. i opened text for call for use cases we issued 2 years ago, look at what we asked for vocab descriptions at the time, some items useful but basic, e.g. title, general characteristics, languages. then other things, like ways it is used, main constructs...
guus: use this for inspiration
antoine: 3 first items, then asking about constructs used
alistair: sounds good
guus: suggest leave implementation report.
alistair if you can distribute message, we can distribute before next
telcon.
... only thing holding us up.
alistair: deadline for responses?
guus: 15 april
<scribe> 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]
guus: agrovoc, include in implementation
report
... SKOS community after SWD, leave for now.
... main web page
antoine: main web page?
guus: no, wikipedia page
... two things to do now?
antoine: maybe first briefing about main page,
i've actually explored it last week, did a number of updates, in principle
should be ok, new CR documents are mentioned, i also cleaned some links to
the old version, no refer to new version.
... alistair could check that?
alistair: thanks for that
guus: looks good
... just leaves wikipedia page...
antoine: i cannot do anything for that, in next
days or weeks
... alistair, you did something?
alistair: yes, then updated by bernard vatant i think
guus: needs to be reorganised
alistair: quite out of date
guus: ok if we use text from our current
documents here? some text, not everything of course
... leave for now, links in agenda
guus: nobody here
<scribe> 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]
diego: there is a small error in the current
note, problem is user agent is taking precendence over accept header. so
agents are served with html even if requesting rdf. not a very serious
problem, because users don't change accept header of browsers, but maybe a
problem in future if user installs plugins for browsers e.g. tabulator ...
... so it's worth fixing.
... i would appreciate a second opinion on my proposal, i think it's correct
but i'm not sure.
antoine: personally i was happy with what you did, solved my specific problem.
diego: new editors' draft for review by WG?
guus: you propose a new version of the note?
diego: yes, right step
guus: we can supersede previous note
diego: i will update current draft to new one, then send to mailing list for review
guus: please update the change history, we can just review the change, and vote on it either next time or 21 april
diego: ok
... btw i check this morning, check accept header by IE8, just released this
week, still sends same accept header as previous versions */*, accept
anything.
<scribe> ACTION: diego to prepare new version of recipes note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/24-swd-minutes.html#action07]
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph to review the revised Recipes draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html#action15] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> 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]
guus: btw, w3c wordnet implementation is one of central pieces in LOD cloud, one of few vocabularies in there currently
<scribe> 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]
-- OWL Last Call
guus: ian horrocks replied to our last call comments, link in agenda
<ed> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Mar/0058.html
guus: basically they agree with our comments,
are preparing one new document (overview), want to include also in syntax
document other syntaxes.
... they ask us to respond to this, understood in coordination group there
will be new last call for owl anyway, normally i would ask for us to see
revised documents, but we will have an opportinuty anyway. so i propose we
respond positively, with a remark we would like to see revised documents.
... they have new features document which currently doesn't contain rdf
syntax, i don't think they want to do this, i would be in favour to do this
also
alistair: sounds like a good idea
guus: important we respond positively, they are making effort to address our remarks.
antoine: no objection from me
sean: no
<scribe> ACTION: guus to draft response to ian with thanks for addressing comments, happy to see revised documents, would favour new features document also to include rdf syntax [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/24-swd-minutes.html#action11]
guus: sean, we already discussed implementation
report, alistair will draft a message, also with indications on how we expect
people to respond on skos vocabularies, have feedback on list first, then
send out to all mailing lists we used for previous notifications.
... antoine has suggested we draw on previous call for use cases.
... congrats for CR spec.
sean: congrats to all
guus: if we meet in two weeks, have to think of good way to distribute last piece of work, getting implementation report tables filled out, and alistair will be able to send out message.
sean: regrets for 7 april
guus: next time back at normal time for europeans