- From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 12:31:27 -0500
- To: public-swd-wg@w3.org
The record of today's Semantic Web Deployment Working Group telecon
is available for review:
http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-swd-minutes.html
A text snapshot follows.
----
SWD WG
04 Nov 2008
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0001.html
See also: [3]IRC log, previous [4]2008-10-21
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-swd-irc
[4] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html
Attendees
Present
Tom Baker, Ralph Swick, Alistair Miles, Antoine Isaac, Sean
Bechhofer, Margherita Sini
Regrets
Daniel Rubin, Jon Phipps, Ben Adida, Ed Summers, Diego
Berrueta, Quentin Ruel
Chair
Tom
Scribe
Ralph
Contents
* Topics
1. Admin
2. RDFa
3. Recipes
4. SWD Review of OWL WDs
5. SKOS
* Summary of Action Items
_____________________________________________________
Admin
RESOLVED to accept [12]minutes of the last telecon
[12] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html
next telecon in 2 weeks; 18 Nov
RDFa
ACTION: Ben review RDFa Use Cases and propose transition to Group
Note [recorded in
[13]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02]
[CONTINUES]
[13] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02
Recipes
ACTION: [DONE] diego propose resolutions to remaining recipes issues
[recorded in
[14]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/14-swd-minutes.html#action02]
[14] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/14-swd-minutes.html#action02
-> [15][Recipes] proposed resolution for remaing issues Deigo
2008-11-03]
[15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0003.html
Tom: let's wait for Diego and Jon to be at a telecon before taking
up those proposals
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation
[of Recipes implementations] [recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]
[16] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20
SWD Review of OWL WDs
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Guus to look at OWL documents for review
[recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10]
[17] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10
SKOS
Tom: I believe we resolved last telecon to close several issues per
msg 222
Sean: we were waiting for responses from the commentors
<Guus> [my phone is out of power, sorry]
Antoine: it might confuse the commenter if we close an issue before
getting their response
<aliman>
[18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0287.h
tml
[18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0287.html
-> [19]Alistair's review of 23 Oct issue proposals
[19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0010.html
Alistair: can we resolve a batch of issues as I propose in [20]0010
?
[20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0010.html
Antoine: issue 134 should be included in your batch
<aliman> PROPOSED: to resolve issues 140, 141, 146, 133, 134, 144,
145, 149, 150,
<aliman> 152, 162, 160, 171, 172, 178 and 180 (part 1) as described
in
<aliman>
[21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0287.h
tml
[21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0287.html
Antoine: I've read each one and am satisfied with the proposal
Sean: I'm happy with Alistair's proposal
Antoine: for issue 160 I proposed to add an invitation to Doug to
post something but OK to proceed
Alistair: in order: 133, 134, 140, 141, 144, 145, 146, 149, 150,
152, 160, 162, 171, 172
... I propose to agree on the response to the comment
Sean: if the commentors agree with our response then our resolution
here is to close or pospone the respective issue
RESOLVED respond to issues 133, 134, 140, 141, 144, 145, 146, 149,
150, 152, 160, 162, 171, 172, 178, and the first part of 180 per
[22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0287.h
tml
[22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0287.html
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Guus and Jeremy to give concrete implementation
examples of the use of rdfs:label w/ SKOS [recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#action10]
[23] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#action10
ACTION: [DONE] Antoine to propose revised answers for issues 181-185
[recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action01]
[24] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action01
<GuusS> pls continue my action wrt Issue 186, will be completed this
week
Antoine: I sent these proposals last week
-> [25]ISSUE-181 new draft response
[25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0226.html
-> [26]ISSUE-182 new draft response
[26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0227.html
-> [27]ISSUE-183 new draft response
[27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0228.html
-> [28]ISSUE-184 new draft response
[28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0304.html
-> [29]ISSUE-185 new draft response
[29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0230.html
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Guus to propose answer for issue 186 [recorded
in [30]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action02]
[30] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action02
ACTION: [DONE] Sean and Alistair to send answers wrt. the editorial
issues resolved on 21-10-08 [recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action07]
[31] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action07
ACTION: [DONE] Sean and Alistair to send answers wrt. the editorial
issues resolved on 21-10-08 [recorded in
[32]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action07]
[32] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action07
Sean: see a slew of email on 22 October
-- issue 151
<TomB>
[33]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0010.h
tml
[33] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0010.html
<aliman>
[34]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0270.h
tml -> draft response on 151
[34] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0270.html
-> [35]issue 151; skos:member definition
[35] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/151
Alistair: none of the commentors have demanded a range but Jeremy
has noted that there is an effective range
... I propose to not explicitly define a range
<GuusS> Ii;ve made progress in reviewing OWL docs, and talked to Ian
at ISWC about timing SWD comments
Alistair: I can live with either approach (defining or not defining)
Antoine: I'm rather in favor of defining a range
<Antoine>
[36]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0290.h
tml
[36] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0290.html
Sean: Antoine has arguments for including a range, not seeing
arguments against it
Alistair: the argument against is to leave flexibility
Antoine: in the case of collections, I think we gain from adding
constraints
Sean: we've included ranges in other places, so why the need for
flexibility here?
... for consistency in the text, make it clear that collections are
collections of concepts
Alistair: the original document did not say "collections *of
concepts*"; it only said "collections"
... there are other cases of flexiblity; e.g. no domain for
skos:inScheme
... we've not chosen to have domains and/or ranges for everything
Tom: coherence of specs, coherence of data all sound good but I
don't think anything is harmed by leaving it unspecified
Ralph: I hear Antoine saying it would be useful
PROPOSED: we define the range of skos:member as the union of
skos:Concept and skos:Collection
RESOLUTION: we define the range of skos:member as the union of
skos:Concept and skos:Collection
Alistair: I'll redraft and send the response
-- issue 180
<TomB>
[37]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0282.h
tml
[37] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0282.html
-> [38]issue 180; PFWG: skosxl:Label class
[38] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/180
Alistair: this is about the extensibility of the vocabulary
... PFWG would like to extend the xl:Label class to be able to
specify labels in other modalities
... e.g. in other markup languages; MathML, etc.
... currently we require that every instance of xl:Label have a
plain literal form
... should we relax this restriction, e.g. from "exactly one [plain
literal form]" to "at most one"?
Tom: I prefer solution 1, our current solution
Alistair: saying "at most one" would still permit "dumbing-down"
Antoine: do both really support dumbing-down?
Alistair: if there is no plain literal form then there are no
entailments
Antoine: so SKOSXL might not provide data that is compatible with
standard SKOS tools
Alistair: correct, but the PFWG scenarios do not provide data
useable by standard SKOS tools and we wouldn't want those tools to
dumb-down
Antoine: I prefer option 1; live with the current XL data model
... this is consistent with our resolution on symbolic labels, which
is related
<TomB> +1 with Antoine - go with option 1
Ralph: I suspect that if we keep the restriction and folks find good
reason to violate it the world won't fall apart :)
Alistair: I may hold you to this at some point in the future :)
Antoine: I can see a use for more than one resource form attached to
a label
RESOLUTION: retain the current XL data model; make no change to the
restriction on xl:Label
-- issue 181
-> [39]issue 181; Non Assignable Concepts
[39] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/181
-> [40]ISSUE-181 new draft response [22]
[40] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0226.html
[22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0287.html
Antoine: this is about what might be allowed to be introduced in
concept schemes
... there was a requirement that we dropped
... we discussed this in issue 48 and dropped the indexing
... I propose a practice to solve the issue in specific cases
... I suggested to Michael to consider proposing a practice
Alistair: I'm happy with Antoine's response
Tom: I'm happy with the response as drafted
-- issue 182
-> [41]issue 182; Index Terms
[41] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/182
Antoine: the problem here is to attach classes to concepts
... would look a bit like indexing
<TomB> [42]ISSUE-182 new draft response
[42] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0227.html
Antoine: I propose to make no change but again suggest a practice
that could be used
Alistair: could we say that this be resolveed within a community of
practice without giving specific practices?
... Michael is effectively proposing some extensions
... could we say that we agree these are important areas and that we
look forward to proposed practices from the community?
... we look forward to seeing this requirement addressed by
third-party extensions
... noting that Michael's suggestions might be good candidates for
such third-party extensions
Antoine: so use the word 'extension' explicitly in the response?
Alistair: yes, this requirement is out of scope for SKOS but can be
dealt with by extensions
... be more positive; we acknowledge that this is an important
requirement
Tom: could have boilerplate text, as this comes up in a number of
cases
Alistair: yes, I've tried to be consistent in the language I use
Antoine: I'd be happy for Alistair's help in drafting the language
of the response
Antoine: I just need to reformulate the last paragraph of the
responses for issues 181 and 182
RESOLUTION: close issue 182 without changing the specification
-- issue 183
-> [43]issue 183; Class-Topic relationships
[43] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/183
-> [44]ISSUE-183 new draft response
[44] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0228.html
Antoine: this was a case of a classification scheme and a concept
scheme co-existing
... I suggest this is an unusual use case and that we not try to
adapt the SKOS standard to handle this
... and again note a possible practice for using SKOS classes and
concepts, suggesting Michael use that practice if it is useful
Alistair: I try to word my responses to avoid stimulating a long
conversation
... try to elicit a "yes, I can live with the Group's decision"
response
Antoine: I can extract the essential details
Tom: sounds like we agree on the substance, though
Antoine: I felt that this commentor really wanted to be convinced
that a solution could be found
Tom: shall we leave it to Antoine's discretion?
Alistair: sure
-- issue 184
-> [45]issue 184; Notation and prefLabel overlap
[45] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/184
<TomB> [46]ISSUE-184 new draft
[46] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0304.html
Antoine: Michael objected that skos:notation wouldn't handle the
case
... I gave an example of using private notations
... so the response is long just to illustrate the solution
Alistair: the core of the response is that we acknowledge the
utility of the case but that it's out of scope for SKOS
Antoine: however, SKOS can do what he wants
-- issue 185
-> [47]issue 185; Order in Classification Systems
[47] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/185
<TomB> [48]ISSUE-185 new draft response
[48] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0230.html
Antoine: the commentor wanted a way to distinguish order of children
... my proposed response is that we did not have a use case for this
and that ordering is difficult to express in RDF
... an alternative is to use ordered collections
Alistair: we could also refer to a previous issue where we resolved
that capturing all of the information one might want to display is
out of scope
... some parallel coding might be necessary
Antoine: have we discussed ordering for systematic display?
Alistair: not, but we agreed that SKOS does not have to capture all
the information needed for a systematic display
RESOLUTION: we accept Antoine's proposed responses for issues 181,
182, 183, 184, and 185 with stylistic adjustments at Antoine's
discretion
Alistair: so Antoine will post the responses to the commentor when
he's ready
[adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
[PENDING] ACTION: Ben review RDFa Use Cases and propose transition
to Group Note [recorded in
[49]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02]
[PENDING] ACTION: Guus and Jeremy to give concrete implementation
examples of the use of rdfs:label w/ SKOS [recorded in
[50]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#action10]
[PENDING] ACTION: Guus to look at OWL documents for review [recorded
in [51]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10]
[PENDING] ACTION: Guus to propose answer for issue 186 [recorded in
[52]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action02]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of
Recipes implementations] [recorded in
[53]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]
[49] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02
[50] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#action10
[51] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10
[52] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action02
[53] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20
[DONE] ACTION: Antoine to propose revised answers for issues 181-185
[recorded in
[54]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action01]
[DONE] ACTION: diego propose resolutions to remaining recipes issues
[recorded in
[55]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/14-swd-minutes.html#action02]
[DONE] ACTION: Sean and Alistair to send answers wrt. the editorial
issues resolved on 21-10-08 [recorded in
[56]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action07]
[54] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action01
[55] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/14-swd-minutes.html#action02
[56] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action07
[End of minutes]
_____________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [57]scribe.perl version 1.133
([58]CVS log)
$Date: 2008/11/04 17:29:49 $
[57] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[58] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 17:31:50 UTC