See also: IRC log, previous 2009-04-21
tomb: RESOLVED accept minutes of last weeks
call
... next call, in 2 weeks. i will be away
guus: i'll be here
tomb: next call on 19th May
tomb: lcsh is back online, thanks Ed
ed: thanks for your help
<Ralph> yay Ed! & LC!
tomb: Clay is away today, but will come back for one of our final calls, so we can congratulate him too
edsu: lcsh.info uris will redirect to new uris,
301
... put a blog at lcsh.info, comments are still there. now added a note to
the page, about new service, and about permanent redirect for new uris.
ralph: permanent redirect is reasonable
edsu: will leave it up to jan 1 2010, then turn it off. so people who made assertions using those uris, hopefully checking they're still ok. so how long do you give people to notice it's moved?
ralph: interesting case study. I'd like to talk with you more about this case, Ed
tomb: issue of id=concept ... is #concept an
anchor in a document, or what? is it really a non-issue as m hausenblaus
said?
... there needs to be an explanation in place. dan (brickley) makes a good
point, two standards coming out of this wg, any subtleties about using
together, we should write them up and publish.
edsu: what happened as a result of dan/michael email, we changed id in xhtml to something different, so #concept not used in rdfa at all.
<Ralph> id="concept" - non-issue? [Michael Hausenblas' mail]
tomb: non-issue for lcsh?
edsu: yes. came up before with lcsh.info. wasn't a resolution then either. would be nice to have something to point at. document michael pointed to in wiki didn't cover the exact issue.
tomb: no i don't think it did either.
... is this sufficiently important to write a paragraph about? or let it drop
for now?
ralph: have we opened in tracker?
tomb: no, should we? late in game to be writing new things.
ralph: i like idea of writing a paragraph,
summarising our feelings. so recording in tracker is good place to not use
it.
... not suitable for specifications, e.g. primer.
aliman: maybe could go in primer?
tomb: if someone could volunteer to post something to list, then could use that to open issue in tracker.
<Ralph> DanBri's raising the question (or issue)
tomb: really only need two or three sentences.
even just leaving in tracker as resolution to issue would be a bare minimum,
leave behind a record.
... any volunteers?
ralph: i'd use danbri's message 0000 to open issue, then discussion following that.
<edsu> +1 for using danbri's message
ralph: i'll open the issue now.
edsu: is this issue, for rdfa more generally? reservation about putting in the primer, not specific to skos primer.
aliman: earlier i meant rdfa primer.
<edsu> +1 for RDFa Primer # i'm not just trying to get out of work :)
ralph: yes, more rdfa question than skos question.
tomb: can we ask rdfa group to come up with a statement?
edsu: their response will be, they felt they already addressed the issue in that wiki document.
tomb: i don't see the answer in that wiki document. also good to have more permanent record.
ACTION: ralph to raise issue-214 with rdfa tf [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/05-swd-minutes.html#action01]
tomb: SKOS Reference - W3C Candidate
Recommendation (2009-03-17) - CR period ended 30 April
... how many comments?
aliman: do you mean implementation submissions?
sean: i only see one open CR comment, bunch of raised ones which are skos implementations.
<Ralph> issue 214; "id='concept'"
aliman: there were a couple of comments from xx barclay, will put them in tracker and draft responses.
ACTION: Tom repost his label proposal, dropping the word 'concept' [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action01] [DONE]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0076.html
ACTION: Sean update labels in the SKOS Rec draft per resolution of 21-April [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action07] [DONE]
<TomB> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0105.html
tomb: namespace documents. there were some issues brought up on list. who do we list as contributor?
seanb: in namespace document?
tomb: we have a namespace document, which
redirects via conneg either to html or rdf.
... some inresolved issues, one is who to attribute as contributor.
... another is what it's scope should be, re owl dl.
<Ralph> skos.rdf currently says:
<Ralph> [[
<Ralph> <owl:Ontology rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core">
<Ralph> <dct:title xml:lang="en">SKOS Vocabulary</dct:title>
<Ralph> <dct:contributor>Dave Beckett</dct:contributor>
<Ralph> <dct:contributor>Nikki Rogers</dct:contributor>
<Ralph> <dct:contributor>Participants in W3C's Semantic Web Deployment Working Grou
<Ralph> p.</dct:contributor>
<Ralph> ]]
seanb: in reference document, don't have any explicit acknowledgments of contributions.
aliman: no we don't, but maybe an oversight.
tomb: i don't see ack.
... often at end of sotd?
ralph: it moves around, editors'/group choice.
current preference at end of doc.
...new website design encouraging at end of doc.
seanb: in owl docs, came after references.
ralph: content is entirely up to wg to decide. location is alongside references.
ACTION: skos editors to draft acknowledgements section for SKOS Reference [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/05-swd-minutes.html#action04]
tomb: in this case, previous wgs and swad-europe, plus input from public-esw-thes, nice to acknowledge.
seanb: do we want list of all in wgs?
... might include people who didn't make a contribution.
<Ralph> example of new Recommendation style (frontmatter w/ acknowledgements in an appendix)
tomb: also no-shows.
... i'm happy to name groups who made contribution
seanb: i'll post some draft text, but needs more acknowledgment for swd because where most of work has gone on.
tomb: owl dl prune? not clear how that was resolved. how do we point to it, and what is status?
seanb: status is, it's something i've generated.
Alistair: as I thought about this, I returned
to what the OWL WG asked us to say about the RDF schema
... i.e. that the RDF schema is a normative subset of the SKOS datamodel
... I thought in more detail about what this might really mean and how it
informs the DL prune
... I talked with Antoine but we didn't reach a clear consensus
... I deliberately avoided using 'informative' and 'normative' labels when I
wrote the first bits of the spec; I was just trying to describe the
semantics
... on the face of it, the DL prune just seems to be another subset
... if the OWL Full schema is normative and the OWL DL schema is informative,
what is this actually saying?
tomb: if one is informative, another is normative, can we point both from skos namespace?
Alistair: I'd have no problem citing the OWL DL prune from the namespace document
aliman: i'm fine with link from skos namespace document to owl dl prune.
Tom: in the HTML document?
Alistair: yes
tomb: so html variant of namespace document would link to owl dl prune?
aliman: yes
Ralph: and an rdfs:seeAlso triple in the RDF document
seanb: useful to have it somewhere. people have been asking for it.
Alistair: no objection to giving the DL prune a
high profile with such links
... the only question I have is what the official status of the DL prune
might be
tomb: we have an implicit proposal, to consider the regular [owl full] rdf schema as normative, and to consider the owl dl prune as informative, and reference them both from the html document with hyperlinks and from the rdf schema with seeAlso.
<Ralph> +1
tomb: is everyone more or less in agreement.
Alistair: not to open a can of worms, I have no objection to the statement but it's not clear to me what such a statement means
tomb: another issue is, there is a document
called "skos ... rdf schema" which is confusing
... because it's obviously an html document. alistair proposed "skos
namespace document" which seems straightforward.
... then text could include link to the owl dl prune in addition.
... but a user dereferencing uri wouldn't get conneg.
... question of normative/informative, we need to give this document here
some attention. don't really want a discussion of normative vs.
informative.
ralph: i wonder if both documents aren't really informative, because full thing is described in skos reference.
Alistair: Peter Patel-Schneider pointed out in
an early comment that we did not cite a normative machine-readable
representation
... from that point of view I'm happy to say the OWL Full schema is
normative
ralph: i'm ok with saying the OWL Full schema is normative.
tomb: i think we should just resolve it.
PROPOSED: that the skos (reference?) namespace document dereference by content negotiation to the html expression (variant?), which includes a link to the informative owl dl prune, and to the rdf expression (variant?) with rdfs:seeAlso link to owl dl prune.
tomb: i like "skos namespace document", i think it's clearer
PROPOSED: that the skos namespace document dereference by content negotiation to the html variant, which includes a link to the informative owl dl prune, and to the rdf variant, which includes rdfs:seeAlso link to owl dl prune.
seanb: what to put in skos namespace document? i.e. informative vs/ normative.
http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#triples
tomb: quote language from skos reference re
normative subset in the namespace document.
... any objections to proposed text of resolution?
<Ralph> +1
aliman: i second proposal
RESOLUTION: that the skos namespace document dereference by content negotiation to the html variant, which includes a link to the informative owl dl prune, and to the rdf variant, which includes rdfs:seeAlso link to owl dl prune.
tomb: antoine has done some work on primer, see
links in agenda.
... implementation report?
seanb: continuing to log implementations in tracker, and have generated html report.
<Ralph> Sean++ for recording implementations in tracker
seanb: also started table of constructs used in vocabularies, so have a google spreadsheet, but ongoing analysis.
guus: can you post link?
<seanb> implementation report
guus: i did a scan of all the emails, we have
20, very good news, anything else is a bonus, but this is good enough.
... i note some things, collections are not used in that many.
seanb: no explicit mention so far.
guus: if i look at the rest, everything is covered in the skos namespace, correct?
seanb: yes, i think so. still have some more to review, but think everything is covered.
guus: all the main ones are covered.
... if you go to XL, i found only one who covered it, covered older
version.
<GuuS> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/194
guus: issue 194, i inspected the skos code, what they do is have one concept "subject category", they link it to ??? which has all label definitions.
aliman: thomas bandholtz submitted something using xl
guus: as a point of order, important for finishing the group, so ask for 15 minute extension?
tomb: ok.
<edsu> . o O (i thought agrovoc used collections)
<Ralph> [[
<Ralph> The working groups intend to submit this document for consideration as a W3C Proposed Recommendation after 1 May having met the following criteria:
<Ralph> 1. At least two implementations have been demonstrated that use features of the SKOS vocabulary. Other vocabularies that use SKOS are candidates for inclusion in the implementation report.
<Ralph> 2. All issues raised during the CR period against this document have received formal responses.
<Ralph> ]]
<Ralph> -- http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#status
-> email on umthes use of skos xl
guus: table that sean has prepared, together with description of implementations. what you showed covers vocabularies?
seanb: yes.
guus: other angle is the services, checkers.
seanb: it's a work in progress, will try to split them apart.
guus: we need structural description of each implementation, derive from emails, then two tables of features, one for vocabs, one for software.
seanb: constructing the table is where the work
is. other stuff is generated off the tracker.
... if we're happy with implementation.html plus detailed table on where
vocabs and apps cover the constructs?
guus: i'm happy.
ACTION: sean to complete implementation report by 19th [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/05-swd-minutes.html#action05]
guus: will issues be closed by 19th?
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2009Apr/0030.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2009Apr/0032.html
ACTION: Sean to look for SKOS constructs not used by current implementations [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action04] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Ralph publish Antoine's new intermediate pages for legacy specs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action11] [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] [CONTINUES]
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]