IRC log of swd on 2007-01-23

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:41:20 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #swd
13:41:20 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:41:30 [RalphS]
Meeting: SWD Boston Face-to-face, day 2
13:41:33 [RalphS]
Chair: Guus
13:43:37 [RalphS]
-> Day 1
13:44:57 [JonP_]
JonP_ has joined #swd
13:51:18 [Zakim]
SW_SWD(f2f)8:30AM has now started
13:51:26 [Zakim]
13:51:37 [RalphS]
zakim, meetingroom has JonP, IvanHerman, Ralph
13:51:37 [Zakim]
+JonP, IvanHerman, Ralph; got it
13:51:53 [Steven]
Steven has joined #swd
13:52:05 [Zakim]
13:55:19 [mhausenblas]
zakim, mute me
13:55:19 [Zakim]
sorry, mhausenblas, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
13:55:47 [RalphS]
zakim, nick mhausenblas is michael
13:55:47 [Zakim]
ok, RalphS, I now associate mhausenblas with Michael_Hausenblas
13:56:07 [mhausenblas]
zakim, mute me
13:56:07 [Zakim]
Michael_Hausenblas should now be muted
13:56:27 [RalphS]
zakim, meetingroom also has Antoine
13:56:27 [Zakim]
+Antoine; got it
13:56:50 [RalphS]
zakim, meetingroom also has Guus
13:56:50 [Zakim]
+Guus; got it
13:58:45 [timbl]
timbl has joined #swd
13:59:53 [Steven]
zakim, dial steven-617
13:59:53 [Zakim]
ok, Steven; the call is being made
13:59:56 [TomB]
TomB has joined #swd
13:59:56 [Zakim]
14:00:00 [RalphS]
zakim, meetingroom also has TimBL, Alistair
14:00:00 [Zakim]
+TimBL, Alistair; got it
14:00:08 [RalphS]
zakim, meetingroom also has Diego
14:00:08 [Zakim]
+Diego; got it
14:00:42 [Zakim]
14:01:16 [Steven]
zakim, drop steven
14:01:16 [Zakim]
Steven is being disconnected
14:01:18 [Zakim]
14:01:23 [Steven]
zakim, dial steven-617
14:01:23 [Zakim]
ok, Steven; the call is being made
14:01:24 [Zakim]
14:02:32 [RalphS]
zakim, meetingroom also has Ben
14:02:32 [Zakim]
+Ben; got it
14:02:35 [Zakim]
14:02:35 [Antoine]
Antoine has joined #swd
14:02:36 [MarkB_]
MarkB_ has joined #swd
14:02:45 [Steven]
zakim, dial steven-617
14:02:45 [Zakim]
ok, Steven; the call is being made
14:02:46 [Zakim]
14:02:50 [Guus]
Guus has joined #swd
14:03:00 [RalphS]
rrsagent, please make record public
14:03:28 [MarkB_]
Steven, with life generally?
14:03:57 [Zakim]
14:04:14 [Steven]
well, that too
14:05:34 [Steven]
zakim, dial steven-617
14:05:34 [Zakim]
ok, Steven; the call is being made
14:05:36 [Zakim]
14:06:03 [Zakim]
14:06:16 [Steven]
zakim, code?
14:06:16 [Zakim]
the conference code is 79394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), Steven
14:06:42 [Zakim]
14:06:47 [Zakim]
14:07:02 [Zakim]
14:07:11 [Steven]
Ralph, I connected
14:07:38 [benadida]
benadida has joined #SWD
14:07:52 [Steven]
zakim, mute me
14:07:52 [Zakim]
Steven should now be muted
14:08:16 [Steven]
I dialled in instead
14:08:37 [aliman]
aliman has joined #swd
14:10:07 [RalphS]
zakim, meetingroom also has Kjetil
14:10:07 [Zakim]
+Kjetil; got it
14:10:19 [RalphS]
zakim, meetingroom also has Fabien
14:10:19 [Zakim]
+Fabien; got it
14:11:01 [Antoine]
14:11:31 [RalphS]
Topic: RDFa
14:11:39 [Antoine]
Guus: Ben proposed to start with use case doc
14:11:59 [Antoine]
Ben: we are continueing work with RDFa syntax, primer and UC doc
14:12:07 [Antoine]
... compiling rdfa test cases
14:12:24 [Antoine]
... keep in mind that html wg is still under review
14:12:30 [Steven]
Review ended last friday
14:12:41 [TomB]
TomB has joined #swd
14:12:43 [berrueta]
berrueta has joined #swd
14:13:00 [Antoine]
... we expect that the rdfa syntax can be adapted to every html syntax
14:13:11 [Antoine]
... adapting test cases etc
14:13:32 [Zakim]
+ +1.617.475.aaaa
14:13:35 [Antoine]
Guus: overall schedule
14:13:50 [Antoine]
Ben: push primer further with help with WG
14:14:13 [Antoine]
and use case
14:14:14 [Zakim]
- +1.617.475.aaaa
14:14:17 [Zakim]
+ +1.617.475.aabb
14:14:31 [Antoine]
... syntax and html module withing 6-8 weeks
14:14:35 [RalphS]
zakim, aabb is TomB
14:14:35 [Zakim]
+TomB; got it
14:15:01 [Antoine]
Ivan: if it is record track, end of february would be for last call?
14:15:13 [Antoine]
Ben: no. That was not the idea for now
14:15:28 [timbl]
s/record/W3C Recommentation/
14:15:37 [Antoine]
Ben: last call means technical issues are addressed
14:15:50 [Antoine]
... we still expect reactions and comments and various aspect
14:16:01 [Antoine]
s/and various/on various
14:16:06 [kjetilk]
kjetilk has joined #swd
14:16:07 [MarkB_]
14:16:33 [Antoine]
Guus: two issues
14:16:44 [Antoine]
... pushing things further with swd wg
14:16:54 [Antoine]
... and html aspect
14:16:54 [MarkB_]
14:17:11 [Antoine]
... propose to bundle
14:17:19 [Steven]
14:17:33 [Antoine]
Guus: can this wg publish a rec on a module for html?
14:17:38 [Steven]
ack me
14:17:45 [MarkB_]
14:17:49 [Antoine]
Ralph: our charter allows for that
14:17:57 [Zakim]
14:18:08 [Antoine]
... the question is still open
14:18:31 [Antoine]
Steven: dropping html wg: existing one or proposed one?
14:18:44 [Antoine]
... if existing one, no problem with publishing a rec
14:19:12 [Steven]
zakim, mute me
14:19:12 [Zakim]
Steven should now be muted
14:19:16 [Antoine]
Ivan: there are precedents of modules published by other activities
14:19:32 [Antoine]
Mark: it's not a modification of html
14:19:41 [Antoine]
... it's a module which uses xhtml techniques
14:20:00 [Antoine]
Ben: bundle idea seems good idea to me
14:20:09 [Antoine]
TimBL: importment is deployment strategy
14:20:19 [MarkB_]
s/xhtml techniques/XHTML 1.1 M12N techniques/
14:20:38 [Antoine]
... pushing RDF into attributes. Current browser do nothing with attributes
14:20:43 [Antoine]
Ben: yes
14:21:02 [Antoine]
TimBL: other issue are value and validation
14:21:23 [RalphS]
zakim, Jonathan_Rees just arrived in meetingroom
14:21:23 [Zakim]
+Jonathan_Rees; got it
14:21:30 [Antoine]
Ben: content management tools need publishing and validation, yes
14:21:53 [Antoine]
Ben: I don't want to discuss the syntax
14:21:59 [Antoine]
... I want to discuss rec or not
14:22:00 [timbl]
s/value/HTML tidy/
14:22:22 [Antoine]
Guus: my feeling: discussion on UC is different if we go for rec track
14:22:43 [Antoine]
Ralph: short term question is readiness to publish new version of doc
14:23:02 [Antoine]
... how much is needed depending on our choosing note or rec
14:23:37 [Antoine]
Guus: would the UC doc content need to be different?
14:23:56 [Antoine]
Guus: postpone the discussion, ack that doc might end in rec track
14:24:01 [benadida]
use case doc:
14:24:20 [berrueta_]
berrueta_ has joined #swd
14:24:22 [Antoine]
Ben: Use case doc
14:24:47 [Antoine]
... Guus review: should we mention RDFa?
14:25:06 [Antoine]
... we modeled document after griddl
14:25:22 [Antoine]
Guus: strictly speaking it is not a UC doc if you mention RDFa
14:25:34 [Antoine]
... to avoid too much technology-driven document
14:25:44 [Antoine]
... and overlap between primer and UC
14:25:57 [Antoine]
Ben: OK
14:26:01 [mhausenblas]
does this also effect the code snippets?
14:26:23 [Antoine]
Ralph: it would be artificial
14:26:43 [Antoine]
Guus: XXX shows it was possible to rationalize after design
14:26:44 [Zakim]
14:27:08 [benadida]
14:27:12 [benadida]
14:27:15 [Antoine]
TimBL: it makes sense to explain the kind of things you want to do
14:27:22 [mhausenblas]
14:27:47 [Antoine]
Ralph: there are still things undecided
14:27:52 [MarkB_]
14:27:59 [Antoine]
... eg. how much rdf/xml we want in rdf/html
14:28:10 [Antoine]
... a use case can explain the boudaries we want to hav
14:28:19 [Antoine]
Guus: UC are useful for scoping
14:28:29 [mhausenblas]
14:28:39 [Antoine]
... explaining to the outside public our decision
14:28:53 [Antoine]
Ben: there was already some consultation outside
14:29:15 [Antoine]
TimBL: did you find case for publishing full RDF?
14:29:20 [FabienG]
FabienG has joined #swd
14:29:32 [Antoine]
... or just a chunk?
14:29:52 [Antoine]
Ben: there were case (like bibtex) that caused us to rethink
14:30:08 [Antoine]
TimBL: are there thing we cannot do?
14:30:23 [Antoine]
Ivan: problem of expressing lists/containers
14:30:26 [timbl]
Tim: Is there a well-defined list about what can't be expressed?
14:30:34 [Antoine]
... reification, but less important
14:30:37 [timbl]
Tim: reification is negatively importnat IMHO
14:30:45 [Antoine]
Ben: we have also datatypes
14:30:50 [timbl]
14:31:10 [Antoine]
Ben: action to take that list of exclusions of the wiki
14:31:29 [RalphS]
ACTION: Ben start a list of RDF/XML features that are not supported by RDFa
14:32:18 [Antoine]
Mark: RDF community might want us to resolve their problems according to current best practices, e.g. for reification
14:32:28 [ivan]
14:32:32 [ivan]
14:32:35 [Antoine]
... not clear which way we should go to the broader community
14:32:36 [Steven]
zakim, who is muted?
14:32:36 [Zakim]
I see Michael_Hausenblas, Steven, TomB muted
14:32:45 [mhausenblas]
Zakim, please unmute me
14:32:45 [Zakim]
Michael_Hausenblas should no longer be muted
14:32:47 [Antoine]
... I think Guus point on UC is relevant
14:32:58 [Antoine]
... not having sample markup makes sense
14:33:17 [FabienG]
q+ to talk about GRDDL use cases doc
14:33:35 [Antoine]
... seems wrong that UC doc looks like primer
14:34:18 [Antoine]
Ben: what is the WG opinion on removing rdfa code from doc?
14:34:30 [Antoine]
WG: approves
14:34:42 [RalphS]
zakim, Stephen_Williams just arrived in meetingroom
14:34:42 [Zakim]
+Stephen_Williams; got it
14:35:04 [TomB]
+1 on removing RDFa snippets from UC doc
14:35:36 [kjetilk]
I'm abstaining from voting since I'm very new to the group. Will start voting when I feel I have a clue
14:35:40 [Antoine]
Michael: link with microformats?
14:35:48 [Antoine]
Guus: could be a good test
14:35:58 [aliman]
q+ to say selling RDFa in use cases potentially wrong
14:36:15 [Antoine]
Ben: the requirement we have now are likely to go further than microformats
14:36:19 [Zakim]
RalphS, you wanted to comment on building brand
14:36:32 [mhausenblas]
Zakim, please mute me
14:36:32 [Zakim]
Michael_Hausenblas should now be muted
14:36:55 [Antoine]
Ralph: it's ok to mention rdfa some times, to build a brand
14:37:31 [Antoine]
Guus: removing the code is what is really needed
14:37:39 [mhausenblas]
instead of remove RDFa code, why not ADD microformat code :)
14:38:05 [Antoine]
Ivan: From the very start the goal what that rdf/xml could be fully embedded in html
14:38:18 [Steven]
14:38:20 [Antoine]
... in some cases it proved to be too complicated
14:38:26 [Guus]
14:38:27 [Antoine]
... like for reification
14:38:40 [Antoine]
... UCs do not include reification now
14:38:49 [MarkB_]
q+ To explain my outstanding action item on reification v. n-aray relationships.
14:38:54 [Antoine]
... we could revisit that goal
14:39:26 [Antoine]
Ben: we could annotate triples like provenance of license info
14:39:34 [timbl]
q+ re collections
14:39:41 [timbl]
q+ to discuss collections
14:39:44 [Zakim]
FabienG, you wanted to talk about GRDDL use cases doc
14:39:48 [timbl]
q- re
14:39:53 [Antoine]
Fabien: there is no code is griddl use cases
14:39:56 [timbl]
q- collections
14:40:08 [Antoine]
... first part: problem we propose to address, no mention to griddl
14:40:20 [Antoine]
... second part: how griddl could solve the problem
14:40:55 [Antoine]
Alistair: RDFa primer is best doc to go for info
14:41:07 [Zakim]
aliman, you wanted to say selling RDFa in use cases potentially wrong
14:41:23 [FabienG]
GRDDL use case scenario doc for info :
14:41:34 [Antoine]
Guus: I would prefer if RDFa design goal were not trying to address complete RDF
14:41:42 [Antoine]
14:42:02 [Antoine]
... it shoudl be easy to understand, simple document
14:42:04 [RalphS]
q+ to propose a resolution re: RDF/XML completeness
14:42:29 [Antoine]
... if we spend one year on addressing everything we migh propose something scary for the community
14:42:47 [Antoine]
14:43:01 [Elisa]
Elisa has joined #swd
14:43:06 [Antoine]
Mark: this was a flexible design goal, no criterion for success
14:43:51 [Guus]
14:44:09 [Zakim]
14:44:28 [Antoine]
... originally there were request like this document is about that with 80% certainty
14:44:51 [mhausenblas]
+1 to Mark
14:44:52 [Antoine]
... there could be other way that reification
14:44:59 [Antoine]
14:45:34 [Antoine]
... I argue against too much simplicity
14:45:54 [Antoine]
Guus: there are conflicting requirements for any technology
14:46:14 [mhausenblas]
we could also do a CFA ( as
14:46:18 [timbl]
Mark seems to augur forinformation about triples, which to me suggests graph literals .. a way of putting a wrapper around some rdf/a.
14:46:18 [Antoine]
... we have too solve this req of simplicity while supporting all the use case
14:46:47 [Antoine]
... there is no problem with having such conflicting req
14:46:52 [Guus]
14:47:00 [Zakim]
MarkB_, you wanted to explain my outstanding action item on reification v. n-aray relationships.
14:47:05 [Guus]
14:47:24 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to discuss collections
14:47:48 [Antoine]
TimBL: drawing the line between what's in and out
14:48:07 [Antoine]
... annotating triples is important
14:48:25 [Antoine]
... RDF bag and sequences are difficult to work with
14:48:43 [Antoine]
... some applications (creative commons) use it
14:48:52 [mhausenblas]
14:48:54 [Antoine]
... also valid for sequences
14:49:14 [kjetilk]
q+ to ask about v2
14:49:29 [Antoine]
Ben: ol in html embodies collection, we try to see that
14:49:43 [ivan]
14:49:55 [timbl]
ol a collection, ul a class maybe
14:50:37 [RalphS]
PROPOSE: RDFa is not required to support every feature of RDF/XML
14:50:40 [Antoine]
Ralph: we should apply the same process as for SKOS UCs yesterday
14:51:30 [Antoine]
... we have to wait for a use case before deciding wether reification is in or not
14:52:08 [mhausenblas]
Zakim, please unmute me
14:52:08 [Zakim]
Michael_Hausenblas should no longer be muted
14:52:19 [Zakim]
RalphS, you wanted to propose a resolution re: RDF/XML completeness
14:52:24 [mhausenblas]
14:52:55 [Antoine]
Michael: make sense to make a critical sector analysis on wiki?
14:53:23 [ivan]
14:53:56 [Antoine]
Guus: it could be a good idea, it would take more time
14:53:58 [mhausenblas]
14:54:16 [Antoine]
... in Rule wg, use cases were much more difficult to analyse
14:54:43 [Zakim]
kjetilk, you wanted to ask about v2
14:54:59 [Antoine]
Kjetilk: we have good idea of what people want to do now
14:55:10 [Antoine]
... and what people might want to do later
14:55:10 [mhausenblas]
Zakim, please mute me
14:55:10 [Zakim]
Michael_Hausenblas should now be muted
14:55:28 [Antoine]
... could we introduce a version 1 and a version 2?
14:55:46 [Antoine]
Ben: in theory, yes, in practice we would have to be really careful
14:55:51 [Guus]
14:56:19 [RalphS]
PROPOSE: RDFa is not required to support every feature of RDF/XML
14:56:59 [Antoine]
WG agrees
14:57:33 [Antoine]
RESOLVED by consensus: RDFa is not required to support every feature of RDF/XML
14:57:51 [Antoine]
Ben: use case 1: basic structured blogging
14:58:41 [Antoine]
Ivan: for many people this might not be relevant: many bloggers do not use html
14:59:08 [Antoine]
Ben: this use case means that people can write plug-ins to do that
14:59:37 [MarkB_]
15:00:07 [Antoine]
Ben: UC1 should be clearer about the tool support
15:01:13 [Antoine]
Mark: there might be a use case with markup by hand
15:01:31 [Antoine]
Ben: UC2: publishing an event
15:02:53 [Antoine]
... could go to a specific tool (creative common) to get a machine-readable chunk and copy-paste in html page
15:03:19 [Antoine]
... UC1 could be for tool support for RDFa, UC2 more wizard-like
15:03:37 [Antoine]
Ivan: one big feature of RDFa is mixing vocabularies
15:03:51 [Antoine]
... if we look at this UC, microformats could do that
15:04:10 [Antoine]
... event information should mix different vocabulary
15:04:21 [Antoine]
... just some words to be added to the text
15:04:32 [MarkB_]
15:04:46 [Antoine]
TimBL: put the RDF to include in the HTML in the example
15:05:02 [Antoine]
Mark: other benefit is the use of existing taxonomies
15:05:16 [Antoine]
... problem with microformat is that you have to reinvent taxonomies
15:05:39 [Antoine]
... should we include two different use cases?
15:06:14 [Antoine]
Ivan: additional benefit: author can add his own namespace
15:06:35 [RalphS]
Ivan: mix events, bibtex, geolocation
15:06:35 [Antoine]
Ben: use case 3: content management metadata
15:06:50 [Antoine]
... various decisions about content
15:06:54 [Guus]
q+to suggest that we explicitly discuss at the end of the document why MF are not sufficient for handling the use cases
15:07:15 [Antoine]
... the structured data may not be rendered
15:07:22 [mhausenblas]
+1 to Guus suggestion
15:07:55 [Antoine]
Ivan: this code seems to be xhtml2 perhaps not wisest thing to do
15:08:34 [RalphS]
15:08:43 [Antoine]
... also technical issue: if final design is only to add attributes or to change content model
15:09:04 [Antoine]
... raise more problems if we want to combine with text
15:09:30 [Antoine]
Ben: this is a fair comment, to take into account
15:10:24 [Antoine]
Ben: use case 4: creative commons use case
15:10:47 [Antoine]
... self contained chunk added in html
15:11:19 [Antoine]
Guus: section in the document where it is said that MF are not enough to solve the problems
15:11:49 [Antoine]
Ralph: I think we do that by presenting use cases
15:12:04 [Antoine]
... if MF meet challenges then MF are the solution
15:12:27 [ivan]
15:12:35 [ivan]
ack guus
15:12:35 [Zakim]
Guus, you wanted to suggest that we explicitly discuss at the end of the document why MF are not sufficient for handling the use cases
15:13:23 [Antoine]
Mark: for the simple use case we could show that MF and RDFa can solve the problem
15:13:30 [mhausenblas]
15:13:33 [Antoine]
... and for complex ones that only RDFa is OK
15:13:47 [Antoine]
15:13:59 [Antoine]
Ben: UC5: clipboard
15:14:12 [Antoine]
... comment by alistair this was not a distinct UC
15:14:39 [Antoine]
... I think it is important, I can demo it
15:15:02 [Antoine]
Guus: there is no problem with overlapping UCs
15:15:46 [Antoine]
Alistair: copy-pasting in html has nothing with RDFA
15:16:12 [mhausenblas]
Zakim, please unmute me
15:16:12 [Zakim]
Michael_Hausenblas should no longer be muted
15:16:12 [Antoine]
... the point is that if I copy html with rdfa statement, I want them to be included when pasting
15:16:23 [Guus]
15:17:46 [Antoine]
Ben: there should be a way to associate with a certain region of the interface some statements
15:18:07 [Antoine]
... that should be copy-pasted and brought somewhere else
15:18:25 [Antoine]
TimBL: the need is to copy-paste html with all the rdfa about this piece
15:19:00 [RalphS]
TimBL: there's a sense of locality to the RDFa and HTML markup
15:19:04 [Antoine]
Ben: should emphasize the need for localize relevant rdfa statements for copy-paste
15:19:05 [timbl]
depends on the abilit to localize the data to a part of the doc
15:19:26 [Antoine]
Ben: UC6: semantic wiki
15:19:36 [FabienG]
q+ to talk about GRDDL equivalent use case :
15:19:48 [Antoine]
... rdfa as input when editing wiki and having it in result
15:19:51 [mhausenblas]
15:20:08 [Antoine]
Ivan: is that really rdfa? there would be a different syntax
15:20:49 [FabienG]
15:21:06 [ivan]
ack fabien
15:21:06 [Zakim]
FabienG, you wanted to talk about GRDDL equivalent use case :
15:21:11 [Antoine]
Fabien: good idea to link with the griddl wiki UC
15:21:36 [Antoine]
... lot of semantic wiki get rid of wikiML and just copy-paste
15:22:08 [Antoine]
... wysiwyg interfaces are preferred
15:22:11 [ivan]
ack mich
15:22:23 [Antoine]
Michael: two issues
15:22:24 [mhausenblas]
15:22:34 [FabienG]
example of WYSIWYG interface using XHTML and RDFa for a wiki:
15:22:40 [Antoine]
... requirement link to multimedia semantics WG
15:23:00 [Antoine]
... using a wiki syntax related to rdfa
15:23:40 [FabienG]
15:24:23 [Antoine]
Ben: let's not focus on rdfa as input
15:24:33 [Antoine]
... but you could paste rdfa
15:24:36 [Guus]
15:25:00 [kjetilk]
q+ to ask about bbcode in foras
15:25:13 [Guus]
ack Ralph
15:25:17 [ivan]
ack kje
15:25:17 [Zakim]
kjetilk, you wanted to ask about bbcode in foras
15:25:46 [mhausenblas]
can you provide a pointer, please?
15:26:13 [FabienG]
BBCode :
15:26:21 [mhausenblas]
15:26:24 [Antoine]
Ben: UC6: strutured publishing by scientists
15:26:37 [Antoine]
... motivated by existing chemist blog
15:27:09 [Antoine]
... UC is more advanced user agent, getting local RDF
15:27:38 [Antoine]
Ivan: so emphasis is on adding some sexy UI to visualize the RDF info
15:27:39 [MarkB_]
15:27:42 [Zakim]
15:27:57 [Antoine]
... what I like is reference to other community
15:28:18 [Antoine]
... you should put some more reference to creative commons
15:28:27 [benadida]
s/creative commons/science commons/
15:29:29 [Antoine]
... The difference here with MF is that vocabularies are huge
15:29:44 [Antoine]
Mark: I agree with that
15:30:25 [Antoine]
... perhaps the structured blogging UC should be different
15:30:26 [Guus]
ack mark
15:30:31 [Guus]
ack Ralph
15:30:31 [Zakim]
RalphS, you wanted to note reference to browser enhancement
15:31:01 [Antoine]
Ralph: this last UC mentions application-specific extensions
15:31:17 [timbl]
q+ for 3 iuse cases
15:31:23 [Antoine]
Guus: brainstorm with suggestions of applications
15:31:26 [timbl]
15:31:38 [Antoine]
TimBL: 3 UCS
15:31:50 [Guus]
ack tim
15:32:24 [Antoine]
... 1: have RDF recording a collection of authors
15:32:48 [Antoine]
... bibtex can be used as example, but point should be made that order should be kept
15:33:16 [Antoine]
... 2: UC with unordered list: list of references for a WG
15:33:35 [Antoine]
... owl:oneOf
15:34:40 [Antoine]
... 3: UC: collect a foaf file manually done
15:35:14 [FabienG]
q+ just to list the GRDDL use cases in case one could be inspiring.
15:37:00 [FabienG]
q- just
15:37:18 [FabienG]
q+ to list the GRDDL use cases in case one could be inspiring.
15:37:24 [JonP]
15:38:21 [Guus]
ack Fabien
15:38:21 [Zakim]
FabienG, you wanted to list the GRDDL use cases in case one could be inspiring.
15:38:28 [Antoine]
Fabien: 3 use cases from GRDDL
15:39:23 [Antoine]
15:39:39 [RalphS]
15:39:39 [RalphS]
# Use case #1 - Scheduling : Jane is trying to coordinate a meeting.
15:39:39 [RalphS]
# Use case #2 - Health Care: Querying an XML-based clinical data using an standard ontology
15:39:39 [RalphS]
# Use case #3 - Aggregating data: Stephan wants a synthetic review before buying a guitar.
15:39:39 [RalphS]
# Use case #4 - Querying sites and digital libraries: DC4Plus Corp. wants to automate the publication of its electronic documents.
15:39:41 [RalphS]
# Use case #5 - Wikis and e-learning: The Technical University of Marcilly decided to use wikis to foster knowledge exchanges between lecturers and students.
15:39:44 [RalphS]
# Use case #6 - Voltaire wants to facilitate the extraction of transport semantics from an online form used to edit blog entries.
15:39:47 [RalphS]
# Use case #7 - XML schema specifying a transformation: the OAI would like to be able to specify document licenses in their XML schema.
15:39:50 [RalphS]
15:39:52 [RalphS]
15:40:04 [Antoine]
Fabien: relation between grddl and rdfa
15:40:21 [Antoine]
... one use case is a counter-example
15:40:55 [Antoine]
... case where it is explained that sometimes it can fail
15:41:14 [RalphS]
Fabien: GRDDL UC editor's draft contains a new use case 8 counter-example
15:41:26 [RalphS]
15:41:36 [Antoine]
Jon: metadata registry which express the vocabularies
15:41:53 [Antoine]
... we want to embed the RDF in HTML for rendering
15:42:12 [Antoine]
Ben: could be interesting to have a SKOS-specific UC
15:42:46 [ivan]
ack ralph
15:43:09 [Antoine]
Ralph: maybe an online dictionary can include some SKOS
15:43:11 [FabienG]
Counter-example in GRDDL use cases current draft:
15:43:32 [Antoine]
Guus: UCs having different vocabularies
15:43:38 [RalphS]
Ralph: dictionary or our HTML wordnet files might include SKOS markup
15:43:45 [Antoine]
... food domain
15:44:01 [Antoine]
... product catalog
15:44:34 [Antoine]
... this is kind of UC which is not emphasized currently
15:46:24 [Antoine]
Steven:UC with retailers, venders, with multiple vocabulary. HTML view of last financial transactions in RDFa, interpretable by browsers
15:46:39 [RalphS]
15:46:50 [Guus]
15:47:00 [Antoine]
... trip organizer to help with decisions
15:47:52 [Antoine]
... news stories, journals: grab all the key ideas about the stories you care about
15:48:08 [MarkB_]
15:48:26 [MarkB_]
15:48:33 [Antoine]
Ben: comments on primer are editorial
15:48:43 [Antoine]
... we can skip it
15:49:22 [Steven]
ack me
15:49:35 [FabienG]
Counter-example in GRDDL use cases current draft:
15:49:51 [TomB]
ack TomB
15:50:12 [TomB]
zakim, please unmute me
15:50:12 [Zakim]
TomB was not muted, TomB
15:50:24 [Steven]
zakim, mute me
15:50:24 [Zakim]
Steven should now be muted
15:51:20 [TomB]
I will type
15:51:29 [TomB]
I want to discuss VM note
15:51:44 [Guus]
15:51:44 [TomB]
but would need to change bldgs if discussion goes beyond 11:45
15:52:03 [TomB]
sorry - 12:45 -
15:52:12 [Guus]
15:52:15 [Guus]
that works
15:53:24 [Zakim]
15:53:25 [MarkB_]
15:53:28 [Zakim]
16:02:58 [Zakim]
16:04:15 [Zakim]
16:04:21 [berrueta]
berrueta has joined #swd
16:05:06 [Steven]
are we restarting?
16:06:56 [Steven]
16:07:04 [Steven]
16:09:00 [Zakim]
16:10:41 [RalphS]
16:10:47 [Zakim]
16:10:56 [FabienG]
Scribe: FabienG
16:11:09 [FabienG]
ScribeNick: FabienG
16:11:32 [TomB]
16:11:45 [Guus]
zakim, who is here?
16:11:45 [Zakim]
On the phone I see MeetingRoom, Elisa_Kendall, TomB
16:11:46 [Zakim]
MeetingRoom has JonP, IvanHerman, Ralph, Antoine, Guus, TimBL, Alistair, Diego, Ben, Kjetil, Fabien, Jonathan_Rees, Stephen_Williams
16:11:49 [Zakim]
On IRC I see berrueta, Elisa, FabienG, kjetilk, TomB, aliman, benadida, Guus, MarkB_, Antoine, timbl, Steven, JonP, RRSAgent, ivan, Zakim, RalphS
16:12:02 [RalphS]
Mark, Steven, are you going to re-dial?
16:12:10 [Steven]
zakim, dial steven-617
16:12:10 [Zakim]
ok, Steven; the call is being made
16:12:12 [Zakim]
16:12:15 [ivan]
no tom
16:12:20 [FabienG]
Starting second morning session
16:12:22 [TomB]
16:12:42 [FabienG]
Guss: GRDDL use case and RDFa use cases
16:12:46 [Zakim]
16:13:02 [FabienG]
Ben: GRDDL agent have an RDFa parser
16:13:05 [Steven]
zakim, mute me
16:13:05 [Zakim]
Steven should now be muted
16:13:09 [Zakim]
16:13:46 [FabienG]
... other option hGRDDL e.g.: transform microformat into RDFa
16:13:48 [Zakim]
16:14:03 [FabienG]
... this would preserve the locality in a new HTML doc
16:14:22 [aliman]
q+ to ask aobut grddl and xslt
16:14:45 [FabienG]
Ivan: third option use the GRDDL mechanism to extract RDFa
16:14:56 [FabienG]
16:15:59 [FabienG]
Alistair: GRDDL agent: does it have to parse it (RDFa parser) or does it use a GRDDL transform?
16:16:52 [FabienG]
Guss: we must write down the relationship in the GRDDL doc and in the RDFa doc
16:17:40 [FabienG]
ACTION: Ben to write down the relation between GRDDL and RDFa
16:17:58 [ivan]
16:18:10 [aliman]
16:18:12 [FabienG]
Ben: RDFa would be a recommandation for an XHTML module
16:18:19 [ivan]
ack fabien
16:19:00 [RalphS]
Fabien: one problem is that RDFa is presented as a new syntax for RDf whereas GRDDL is presented as a way to extract RDF/XML from other XML syntaxes
16:19:24 [timbl]
q+ to talk about the ladder of authority
16:19:30 [RalphS]
... a GRDDL transformation from RDFa to RDF/XML doesn't make a lot of sense to me if RDFa is adopted as an alternate RDF syntax
16:19:58 [RalphS]
... an agent is either a GRDDL agent or an RDFa agent
16:20:23 [FabienG]
Ben: this should be an GRDDL working group decision
16:20:42 [RalphS]
q+ to add to Tim's ladder of authority
16:20:54 [ivan]
ack timbl
16:20:54 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to talk about the ladder of authority
16:21:12 [FabienG]
Tim: explains ladder of authority
16:21:45 [Zakim]
16:21:56 [FabienG]
... we must decide if its part of HTML or if we use the GRDDL way
16:21:56 [dlrubin]
dlrubin has joined #swd
16:22:09 [dlrubin]
Hello, sorry I'm late...
16:22:27 [FabienG]
Guss: back to REC discussion
16:23:16 [FabienG]
Ivan: if we produce an XHMTL modul REC, we would need a new DTD
16:23:35 [FabienG]
... module as a REC would not solve the validation problem
16:24:00 [Steven]
16:24:08 [FabienG]
... the XHTML WG owns these DTDs
16:24:13 [Guus]
Guus has joined #swd
16:24:20 [FabienG]
Ben : the validation would be separate
16:24:21 [Guus]
16:24:28 [Guus]
ack ivan
16:24:36 [FabienG]
Tim: yes but other validators would complain
16:24:56 [MarkB_]
q+ On xhtml m12n
16:24:58 [Steven]
anyone can create a driver
16:25:04 [MarkB_]
16:25:25 [FabienG]
Ivan: the driver in the XHTML 1.1, a change has to be made and it is something this WG can't do
16:25:31 [Steven]
ack me
16:25:50 [FabienG]
Steven: not such a big problem to make driver
16:26:20 [FabienG]
... a document that wants to be validated has to reference the modified DTD
16:26:41 [berrueta]
berrueta has joined #swd
16:26:47 [FabienG]
Ben: it would be could if we produce a validator as part of this WG output.
16:26:51 [Guus]
ack Mark
16:27:02 [Steven]
zakim, mute me
16:27:02 [Zakim]
Steven should now be muted
16:27:15 [FabienG]
Mark: we are not modifying XHTML 1.1 and we can't.
16:27:42 [FabienG]
... XHTML Modularization 1.1 is a different thing.
16:27:56 [Steven]
16:27:59 [timbl]
unless we change the XHTML 1.1 DTD
16:28:11 [Steven]
unless we create XHMTL 1.2
16:28:54 [Steven]
16:29:40 [FabienG]
Guss: issues wrt REC: ressources for test cases, resources for team contact.
16:30:08 [FabienG]
... two RECs may be too much work for this WG.
16:30:25 [FabienG]
... do we have sufficient people to set up tesst suite?
16:30:56 [ivan]
elias torres
16:31:27 [FabienG]
Ben: Elias Torres from IBM would be of great help for test suite
16:31:52 [FabienG]
... we have material for the tests we ha to assemble them
16:32:05 [Steven]
s/ha /have /
16:32:05 [FabienG]
Guss: set up a repository?
16:33:17 [FabienG]
Ben: not too worry about that several people can help (Ben, Mark, Elias, etc.)
16:33:52 [RalphS]
-> formal WG participants [Member-only link]
16:34:11 [FabienG]
Guss: I am concerned about not having enough resources to make significant progress.
16:34:34 [FabienG]
... is the schedule realistic.
16:34:56 [FabienG]
Ben: agressive but we must do it if we want to have this done.
16:35:07 [FabienG]
Ivan: what are the alternatives?
16:35:16 [JonP]
JonP has joined #swd
16:35:23 [FabienG]
Guss: not going for Rec would be one alternative.
16:35:44 [FabienG]
... then reconcider when we finish up
16:36:37 [FabienG]
Ivan: resource shortage is the plague of the whole SW activity.
16:37:52 [FabienG]
... Steven could help if he could spend some of his time on this issue.
16:38:19 [FabienG]
Ralph: a lot of the work is editorial
16:38:40 [Zakim]
16:38:52 [MarkB_]
dialling back.....
16:38:57 [benadida]
16:40:23 [Zakim]
16:40:27 [FabienG]
Tim: since there is no more resources should we reconcider if we want to go with this?
16:40:59 [FabienG]
Guss: we have to check internal depedencies, etc.
16:42:13 [FabienG]
Tim: we must identify what a new WG resource would be doing precisely. What exactly should be done?
16:42:41 [FabienG]
Ben: I prefer to take the risk to fail than to cancel it now.
16:43:52 [FabienG]
Ivan: we have to have relativley stable publications on a regular basis fo RDFa because there is a lot of controversy around it.
16:44:28 [FabienG]
Ben: even if we don't reach a Rec we could stabilize a version as a Note.
16:45:08 [FabienG]
Guss: that would be my proposal "go for REC track"
16:45:33 [FabienG]
ACTION: Guss to flag the issue of RDFa REC track on the coordination group
16:46:33 [RalphS]
zakim, AlanR just arrived in meetingroom
16:46:33 [Zakim]
+AlanR; got it
16:46:49 [FabienG]
ACTION: Ben to get the docs in good shape for next week
16:46:56 [Steven]
16:47:37 [FabienG]
Tim: I am concerned about the fact that RDFa attributes semantics to an HTML doc.
16:47:51 [RalphS]
Ralph: and I am on queue to respond to that concern
16:47:54 [FabienG]
Guss: break out sessions for this afternoon
16:48:20 [FabienG]
... SKOS integration of issues and requirement list
16:48:55 [FabienG]
... RDFa discussion on use cases, GRDDL relation, etc.
16:49:20 [FabienG]
... Recipes may be?
16:49:36 [FabienG]
Jon: no need for thirs break out session
16:49:54 [FabienG]
Guss: moving to voc management.
16:50:14 [MarkB_]
bye everyone
16:50:18 [Zakim]
16:50:22 [Zakim]
+ +49.551.39.aacc
16:50:25 [Zakim]
16:50:38 [FabienG]
... remaining outputs of the WG to be discussed "voc management" "semantic integration"
16:51:06 [FabienG]
Tom: About Voc Management Note
16:51:16 [FabienG]
... we don't have an editor
16:51:34 [RalphS]
Topic: Principles for Managing Vocabularies
16:52:00 [JonP]
16:52:02 [RalphS]
-> principles for managing an RDF vocabulary
16:52:25 [TomB]
16:52:46 [MarkB_]
I couldn't hear properly, but it sounded like there was a proposal for a discussion about whether an HTML document should 'flag up', whether it contains RDFa or not. I wrote a long email to the list about this, in response to Ivan, but didn't no-one has commented on it. I would therefore appreciate it if no *final* decisions were taken on this issue at this meeting, since I won't be able to participate.
16:52:47 [RalphS]
Tom: 20050705 is old, refer to the wiki version now
16:53:04 [FabienG]
Tom: motivation is to describe what's involved in publishing an RDF voc
16:53:07 [MarkB_]
s/didn't no-one/no-one/
16:53:33 [MarkB_]
s/able to participate/able to participate in the discussion/
16:53:56 [RalphS]
[I'll cite that mail, Mark, if you don't find it before you have to leave]
16:54:08 [FabienG]
... good to step back now and distinguish soft rec and hard rec
16:54:44 [FabienG]
... and use the cookbook
16:55:24 [alanr]
alanr has joined #swd
16:56:50 [RalphS]
Tom: principles of best practice may need to include very pragmatic things such as "remember to pay your domain registration fees", etc.
16:57:02 [RalphS]
... could include some really basic advice such as this
16:57:06 [FabienG]
... list and describe basic advice low hanging fruits.
16:57:48 [FabienG]
Tom: we should brainstorm on the list of 5 points to see if it is a good starting point.
16:58:09 [FabienG]
Guss: let's go through the five points.
16:58:33 [RalphS]
16:58:33 [RalphS]
1. Name Terms using URI References
16:58:33 [RalphS]
2. Provide readable documentation
16:58:33 [RalphS]
3. Articulate your Maintenance Policies
16:58:33 [RalphS]
4. Identify Versions
16:58:34 [RalphS]
5. Publish a Formal Schema
16:58:36 [RalphS]
16:58:38 [RalphS]
16:58:40 [RalphS]
-- 1. Name Terms using URI References
16:58:42 [TomB]
16:59:33 [FabienG]
Tom: DanC said we should identify terms with URIs ; this is a hard REC for publishing an RDF Voc
17:00:24 [FabienG]
Ralph: Dan's mail was more a terminology point than an architecture point.
17:01:03 [Zakim]
17:01:15 [RalphS]
zakim, ??p35 was DLRubin
17:01:15 [Zakim]
I don't understand '??p35 was DLRubin', RalphS
17:01:22 [RalphS]
present+ DLRubin
17:01:34 [FabienG]
Tom: naming convention could be moved to the cookbook
17:01:59 [FabienG]
Ralph: I wouldn't want to move it but there should be cross references.
17:02:46 [FabienG]
... good place to mention the domain registration problem.
17:03:22 [FabienG]
Guss: -- 2. Provide readable documentation
17:03:38 [RalphS]
17:05:00 [FabienG]
Tom: the whole documentation question could be grouped in one point with pointers to the cookbook
17:05:23 [jar]
join swd
17:05:29 [FabienG]
... not giving too much details on what web pages one has to create to publish a voc
17:06:46 [FabienG]
Ralph: considered best practice to have both human readable and machine readable doc
17:07:39 [FabienG]
... we should show examples of what we think are best pratices.
17:08:25 [FabienG]
Alistaire: web page issue is "what a doc web page should look like" and show examples.
17:08:33 [dlrubin]
dlrubin has left #swd
17:08:34 [RalphS]
-> Dublin Core documentation
17:08:49 [FabienG]
Tom: examples of different granularity in documenting
17:09:03 [TomB]
17:09:50 [FabienG]
Ralph: we could refer to DC example on how to document
17:09:58 [Guus]
17:10:56 [FabienG]
Alan: a way to make this point would be to pause a little query pb and let people discover what can be done and what can't be.
17:11:13 [FabienG]
--- 3. Articulate your Maintenance Policies
17:12:00 [FabienG]
17:12:51 [RalphS]
Ralph: seeAlso -> "URIs for W3C Namespaces" - W3C Namespace usage policies
17:12:53 [FabienG]
Tom: there should be example of different types of voc and the maintenance policies that they have.
17:13:06 [jar]
jar has joined #swd
17:13:45 [FabienG]
Ralph: section 3 in describes how namespace UI may change over time
17:14:46 [FabienG]
Guus: what about the versioning?
17:15:22 [FabienG]
Tom: we can show an example of URI used to identify snapshots of voc
17:15:57 [FabienG]
... Dan Brickley is interested in using Web CVS to explose different versions of voc
17:16:23 [FabienG]
17:16:47 [alanr]
17:17:29 [FabienG]
Ralph: it would be good if we did propose ways to identify versions
17:18:13 [FabienG]
Guus: I have pb to see diffeence between point 3 and point 4
17:18:21 [FabienG]
--- 4. Identify Versions
17:19:05 [JonP]
Cookbook-related suggestion postponed from yesterday:
17:19:26 [FabienG]
Tom: describing how versioning is done in large voc repositories and in SKOS is also relevant
17:20:52 [aliman]
q+ to ask about KWeb rdf versioning
17:20:56 [FabienG]
Alan: hard part of versioning is to identify the policy people are using
17:21:08 [TomB]
17:21:15 [RalphS]
Alan: term-level versioning vs. vocabulary-level versioning are choices people make
17:21:21 [FabienG]
... would be a good thing to identify the possible policies
17:22:21 [FabienG]
... ponters to implementation would also be interesting
17:22:25 [timbl]
17:22:27 [Elisa]
Another source for metadata and examples regarding versioning policies is the BioPortal (from the National Center for Biomedical Ontology), at
17:22:38 [Zakim]
aliman, you wanted to ask about KWeb rdf versioning
17:23:23 [FabienG]
Alistaire: on KnowledgeWeb there are pointers to RDF versionning tools
17:23:58 [FabienG]
Guus: that would be a possibility to have these people involved
17:24:10 [RalphS]
-> Knowledge Web Network of Excellence project
17:24:20 [alanr] starts a thread
17:24:33 [alanr]
about versioning.
17:24:58 [FabienG]
ACTION: Guus to contact persons working on versioning in KnowledgeWeb
17:25:43 [alanr]
17:25:47 [Guus]
ack tim
17:26:21 [FabienG]
Tim: when you introduce a new namespace you can use OWL to publish the relationship between the old version and the new one.
17:27:10 [RalphS]
yes, candidate Best Practice: use OWL [and some other vocabulary] to describe the relationship between any changes you make in your vocabulary to the previous version
17:27:35 [FabienG]
... I mean using sameAs, equivalent*, etc.
17:27:58 [alanr]
17:28:00 [FabienG]
... this is a real added value of RDF
17:28:14 [kjetilk]
17:29:08 [timbl]
The TAG has been trying to deal with XML versioning and there is much less one can do in general.
17:29:10 [FabienG]
Ralph: enumerating policies and examples of them would be a good added value already
17:29:26 [kjetilk]
17:30:34 [RalphS]
-> Jon's proposed COOKBOOK-I3.1 issue
17:30:41 [FabienG]
Jon: taking a very concrete example is teaching people how to cook the cake and not how to read the cookbook
17:30:57 [RalphS]
Jon: I believe this versioning discussion subsumes COOKBOOK-I3.1
17:32:24 [FabienG]
Guus: I'd like to see a practical of example e.g. in the medical domain
17:32:44 [FabienG]
--- 5. Publish a Formal Schema
17:33:19 [RalphS]
17:33:37 [kjetilk]
17:34:35 [Guus]
ack Ralph
17:34:35 [FabienG]
Tom: give good practice of how voc are being declared would be enough without going into too much details
17:35:40 [timbl]
17:35:46 [kjetilk]
17:35:57 [Guus]
ack kje
17:36:05 [timbl]
q+ to relate te last para tothe AWWW
17:36:26 [alanr]
versioning perhaps
17:36:31 [FabienG]
Kjetilk: don't we need a voc to describe our mainteannce policy?
17:36:57 [RalphS]
Ralph: we should say that it is best practice to publish an RDF/OWL document at the namespace URI. This may be obvious to us but evidently it's not obvious to everyone. Point back to Recipes document for "... and here's how"
17:37:44 [RalphS]
q+ to ask about serial v. parallel work
17:37:46 [FabienG]
Guus: it is a good idea in principle. But we are not doing new work here we just identify existing practices.
17:39:17 [FabienG]
Alistaire: what are the plans for the semantic interop note.
17:39:31 [FabienG]
Guus: subject for last section.
17:40:15 [FabienG]
Guus: looking fo an editor: Elisa ? Kjetik ? etc. ?
17:40:38 [FabienG]
17:40:39 [TomB]
I can contribute descriptions of how things are done with Dublin Core.
17:41:51 [FabienG]
Elisa: Daniel could also contribute with examples
17:44:27 [FabienG]
ACTION: Elisa to give first overview of what the status of the doc is and add comments and coordinate work on doc
17:45:22 [Zakim]
17:45:59 [TomB]
will there be a microphone for SKOS breakout?
17:46:45 [TomB]
17:47:40 [Zakim]
17:48:52 [Zakim]
18:07:20 [timbl]
timbl has joined #swd
18:33:02 [TomB]
TomB has joined #swd
18:34:09 [Zakim]
18:34:12 [Zakim]
18:34:13 [Zakim]
18:35:09 [Zakim]
18:36:09 [Zakim]
18:36:33 [Zakim]
18:42:52 [timbl]
timbl has joined #swd
18:46:31 [aliman]
aliman has joined #swd
18:46:47 [TomB]
aliman, is the discussion about to resume?
18:51:59 [alanr]
alanr has joined #swd
18:52:42 [aliman]
guus: revisit all issues we discussed, identify candidate requirements, bring us to position of having first complete list of requirements, useful?
18:52:47 [aliman]
aliman: yes
18:53:00 [TomB]
q+ to suggest someone edit this directly in the wiki
18:53:02 [aliman]
guus: finish quickly, can look at remaining use cases
18:53:11 [TomB]
18:53:41 [aliman]
antoine: jon updated requirements list yesterd, based on that I created a bullet list of the issues
18:54:51 [alanr]
18:54:52 [Guus]
ralph, is it possible for you to move to another irc channel?
18:55:33 [Antoine]
18:56:09 [aliman]
-> candidate requirements sandbox
18:56:59 [aliman]
-> issues sandbox
18:57:27 [aliman]
antoine: wanted to collect stuff from yesterday, from old issues etc. perhaps more issues than what we need
18:57:31 [aliman]
scribenick: aliman
18:58:50 [aliman]
guus: propose to split requirements into candidate and accepted
19:00:30 [aliman]
guus: have the notion of relations between string values
19:01:03 [aliman]
... in requirements, have notion of acronym, representation of realtionships between labels associated with concepts
19:01:35 [aliman]
... making statements about lexical labels? alan, boil down to ability to represent statements about lexical labels?
19:02:11 [aliman]
alan: yes. and the choice between boosting labels to individuals and using alistairs pattern (n-ary relations)
19:03:07 [aliman]
... real example from obi, this term is used by community x, this term was proposed by x, needs to be reviewd, was reviewd on x, this term was in use 200-500 b.c.
19:03:30 [aliman]
guus: statements that relate a lexical label to a resource, and to various data values, typed data values like timestamps.
19:03:51 [aliman]
alan: yes, the resource might be the container, depends on representation choice. other way is if lexical item is an individual, properties hang off it.
19:04:35 [aliman]
guus: one way to handle this is to reformulate requirement 3, or add new rewuirement. currently req 3 is acronym example. boils down to same thing, make statements about things ...
19:04:41 [aliman]
jon: talking about metadata?
19:05:04 [aliman]
guus: from representation perspective same problem, from use perspective it is differen.
19:05:24 [aliman]
alan: synonymy is relationship between terms, like acronym example. could be considered same issue.
19:05:45 [aliman]
guus: prefer to have separate requirements for now. name?
19:05:53 [aliman]
alan: annotations on lexical items, how to represent?
19:06:04 [aliman]
guus: requirement should be, the ability to represent annotations of lexical items.
19:06:16 [aliman]
19:07:30 [aliman]
antoine: want to control the actions, e.g. for this issue alan has two actions, one is to write dow the general documentation requriements and how to represent in SKOS, then another item to write up preferred label modelling issue
19:07:47 [aliman]
aliman: what is preferred label modelling issue?
19:08:11 [aliman]
antoine: for me it was this issue of lexical values and annotations
19:08:40 [aliman]
aliman: let's get rid of "prefLabel", misleadgin
19:08:41 [jar]
jar has joined #swd
19:08:45 [aliman]
antoine: i'll change
19:09:23 [aliman]
guus: next issue ... MappingToCombination
19:09:53 [aliman]
antoine: ia dded this one, but no referenc ein the minutes for action
19:10:51 [aliman]
guus: conjuecture, have separate req on compositionality, req 8th in list reflects the issue
19:11:26 [TomB]
q+ to ask if we are editing CandidateReqList directly? If so, request to save occasionally.
19:11:26 [aliman]
... issues are things where we have to propose a resolution on how to this, lead to test cases, if you can't find any req to which an issue refers there is something wrong. based on issues, are there any missing requirements?
19:11:44 [aliman]
ack tomb
19:11:44 [Zakim]
TomB, you wanted to ask if we are editing CandidateReqList directly? If so, request to save occasionally.
19:11:46 [TomB]
19:13:15 [aliman]
guus: specialisation of relationships, we have a req for this ... local specialization of SKOS vocabulary - so this is covered.
19:14:00 [aliman]
... relationships between labels, we have this one covered by the req mentioned before (number R3)
19:15:56 [aliman]
guus: next set of issues more tricky, because there should be use cases if we admit as requirement
19:16:13 [aliman]
... (now looking at issue SKOS-I-Rules)
19:16:23 [aliman]
... need to think of motivating use case where need rule
19:16:42 [aliman]
antoine: manuscripts use cases or any use case where propagate indexing up hierarhcy levels
19:17:02 [aliman]
aliman: SWED use case uses this rule
19:17:14 [aliman]
alan: can do in OWL 1.1 role inclusion
19:17:30 [aliman]
aliman: we're not waiting for owl 1.1
19:17:37 [aliman]
alan: yes but good to be aware
19:17:43 [aliman]
guus: same thing as checking consistency?
19:17:51 [aliman]
aliman: no, more about inferring new information
19:18:36 [aliman]
guus: SWRL document, first example has a rule like, relationships between artists and styles, can derive the relationship.
19:18:45 [alanr]
19:19:05 [aliman]
antoine: rule [from SWRL] more complicated than indexing example but similar
19:19:15 [aliman]
guus: have anumber of use cases, what is formulation of requirement?
19:23:06 [aliman]
... not talking about part of skos specification. what could be part of skos specification is bt and nt are inverse of each other, rt is symmetric, bt nt transitive?
19:23:27 [aliman]
... originally sean mentioned this issue because ruiles in skos
19:24:50 [aliman]
guus: doesn't currently give rise to requirement, might if we resolve this.
19:25:09 [aliman]
... 2.1.2. SKOS-I-ConceptSchemesContainment . ..
19:25:39 [aliman]
... the semantics of containment withing particular vocabulary./ontology is not clear.
19:26:20 [aliman]
steve: is this also strictly contains/is contained by, or is alan calculus, all different modalities of containment, connection, proximity, applies for temporailty and spatiality ...
19:26:51 [aliman]
alan: technical issue, can hook up a concept to a concept scheme via a property, but can't do the same for a triple
19:27:50 [aliman]
steve: problem is e.g. with gazetteers, often strict containment e.g. DC area overlaps with other areas
19:28:11 [aliman]
... so next step beyond strict containment that talks about whether things are next to each other.
19:28:32 [aliman]
antoine: more about reification, statements made in the context of specific concept scheme
19:28:37 [aliman]
aliman: concrete use case?
19:28:53 [aliman]
alan: case came up yesterday, equivalence from one point of view
19:29:48 [aliman]
guus: hesitant on this issue, goes beyond level of RDF OWL, e.g. look at RDF/OWL ontologies, containment is implied by containment in files, i.e. informally, but if RDF OWL didn't give any semantics to that, why do it in SKOS?
19:30:00 [aliman]
alan: because if needed in this domain then yes.
19:30:25 [aliman]
... reify, don't use RDF reification, promote relationships to individuals, can describe any properties of the relationship
19:31:44 [aliman]
... e.g. look at a mapping [draws on white board]
19:32:32 [aliman]
how do point a statement to the containing scheme
19:32:50 [aliman]
... something close to that RDF reification
19:33:37 [aliman]
guus: suggest we post a candidate req, have an explicit representation of the containment of concepts or relations
19:33:59 [aliman]
... any element of a concept scheme (could include concepts, relationships) ... rdf/owl soolution is implicit
19:34:09 [aliman]
... have to make this explicit
19:35:55 [aliman]
alan: requirement would be, relationships need to be explicitliy associated with scheme, also concepts
19:36:10 [aliman]
guus: also specify for concepts, for both there is a requirement
19:36:50 [aliman]
guus: good to know if it's part of original vocab, or if someone added it
19:37:19 [aliman]
alan: understanding was, asymettric equivalence, can't do without ???
19:38:01 [aliman]
guus: almost all tools have way to ask [SPAARQL] can ask the database question and the logical question, which is two different things
19:38:16 [aliman]
... e.g. can ask direct subclass of, does it eist, or has it been inferred?
19:38:39 [aliman]
alan: direct vs. indirect different from told vs. inverred
19:38:59 [aliman]
antoine: really close i think to asserted vs. inferred
19:39:12 [aliman]
guus: could be that this is solved at query level and not at representation level
19:39:28 [aliman]
alan: may have inferred intervening class, therefore problems are not quite same
19:39:56 [aliman]
antoine: at dutch library which has broader links which are redundant,
19:40:19 [aliman]
... e.g. asserted closure
19:40:34 [aliman]
steve: get from forward chaining ...
19:40:47 [aliman]
guus: candidate requirement for the moment, can always disregard
19:45:25 [aliman]
the ability to explicitly represent the containment of any individual which is an instance of a SKOS class (e.g. skos:Concept) or statement that uses SKOS property as predicate (e.g. skos:broader) within a concept scheme
19:45:36 [aliman]
the ability to explicitly represent the containment of any individual which is an instance of a SKOS class (e.g. skos:Concept) or statement that uses SKOS property as predicate (e.g. skos:broader) within a concept scheme
19:47:22 [aliman]
guus: understand by now then happy
19:48:12 [aliman]
... issues from previous KSOS issues list ... collections-5 ... fix expression of disjointness between concepts and collections
19:49:25 [aliman]
... doesn't generate representationrequirement
19:49:37 [kjetilk]
19:50:53 [aliman]
... do we have policy on using SKOS namespace for something not in SKOS ... issue in OWL, parsers should flag but otherwise continue as normally, triples using bad URIs get no semantics
19:50:56 [TomB] defines skos:ConceptScheme as a set of concepts, but not necessarily skos:Concepts... correct?
19:51:24 [aliman]
guus: allow people to use extensions that later on
19:51:27 [aliman]
ack tom
19:52:26 [aliman]
tomb: also ability to extend SKOS, e.g. other types of concept
19:52:52 [aliman]
... other class in other namespaces then are we covered?
19:52:58 [aliman]
aliman: always subclass skos:Concept
19:53:50 [aliman]
tomb: conflict between notion of defining containment of entities belonging to SKOS namespace, then have notion of extensibility then other namespaces used?
19:55:11 [aliman]
tomb: what can a concept scheme contain? limited by class skos:Concept? should that be stated somewhere?
19:57:45 [aliman]
... has implications for what is containable inside a skos concept scheme.
19:59:59 [aliman]
guus: raise general issue on how to represent SKOS semantics, not at all trivial, good feeling of what semantics should be, but how to represent is another thing
20:06:50 [aliman]
ACTION: alistair to raise a new issue about USE X + Y and USE X OR Y
20:06:59 [timbl]
timbl has joined #swd
20:08:55 [aliman]
guus: metaphor aliman jsut gave between descriptor and non-descriptor is excellent to help explain what these things mean, really from ... just want to have same term on a card.
20:10:00 [aliman]
alan: explain what indexing meant, explain descriptors and non-descriptors
20:10:23 [aliman]
... guus showed in demo groupings of terms that were not terms
20:11:00 [aliman]
.. in final session talk about scheduling
20:14:36 [aliman]
*message to other other group ralphs timbl ben to come back to main room in 5 minutes*
20:17:12 [RalphS]
*message being relayed*
20:26:24 [Zakim]
20:27:18 [Zakim]
20:29:25 [berrueta]
berrueta has joined #swd
20:31:40 [FabienG]
FabienG has joined #swd
20:31:58 [kjetilk]
ScribeNick: kjetilk
20:32:04 [kjetilk]
we resume now
20:32:25 [timbl]
timbl has joined #swd
20:32:56 [RalphS]
zakim, who's still on the phone?
20:32:56 [Zakim]
On the phone I see MeetingRoom, Elisa_Kendall, TomB
20:32:57 [Zakim]
MeetingRoom has JonP, IvanHerman, Ralph, Antoine, Guus, TimBL, Alistair, Diego, Ben, Kjetil, Fabien, Jonathan_Rees, Stephen_Williams, AlanR
20:33:27 [RalphS]
zakim, meetingroom no longer has Jonathan_Rees, AlanR
20:33:27 [Zakim]
-Jonathan_Rees, AlanR; got it
20:34:54 [benadida]
benadida has joined #SWD
20:35:48 [kjetilk]
The wiki is uptodate, but is being transferred to tracker
20:36:11 [benadida]
ACTION: Ben to update issues list with the @CLASS overload problem
20:36:33 [kjetilk]
did not get to the GRDDL issues
20:36:49 [kjetilk]
did not discuss planning
20:36:59 [kjetilk]
Guus: we should discuss it now
20:37:52 [TomB]
20:40:06 [alanr]
alanr has joined #swd
20:41:44 [kjetilk]
Guus: we should decide REC or NOTE in april
20:42:02 [RalphS]
zakim, AlanR has returned to meetingroom
20:42:02 [Zakim]
sorry, RalphS, I do not recognize a party named 'AlanR'
20:42:11 [kjetilk]
Guus: before the summer, we should have last call in the case of REC
20:42:19 [RalphS]
zakim, AlanR has arrived in meetingroom
20:42:19 [Zakim]
+AlanR; got it
20:42:41 [kjetilk]
Guus: we could ask for CR by october
20:43:06 [kjetilk]
Guus: that would get us to REC by the end of the charter
20:43:39 [kjetilk]
there should be one WD before the last call
20:44:03 [kjetilk]
benadida: we should have the WD just before the REC decision
20:45:15 [kjetilk]
Guus: we need to pay close attention to the outside world
20:45:31 [kjetilk]
RalphS: we don't know the status of a XHTML 2.0 WG
20:46:18 [benadida]
ACTION: Ben to update RDFa schedule on wiki to aim for last call on June 1
20:46:40 [kjetilk]
the other breakout session
20:46:55 [kjetilk]
aliman: we went through a sandbox list
20:47:35 [RalphS]
20:47:40 [kjetilk]
aliman: we also included some new requirements
20:49:04 [RalphS]
-> SKOS Requirements List Sandbox
20:50:23 [kjetilk]
aliman: we had a long and philosophical discussion of the wording of point 22
20:52:07 [kjetilk]
Guus: what would be a reasonable schedule for coming up with a first WD?
20:52:17 [kjetilk]
Guus: it doesn't need to be complete
20:52:25 [kjetilk]
Guus: just useful for review
20:53:02 [kjetilk]
Guus: by march would be realistic
20:53:14 [kjetilk]
Antoine: yes, it sounds doable
20:55:26 [kjetilk]
aliman: we just have a primer and a formal spec
20:55:36 [kjetilk]
and a reference overview document
20:57:16 [kjetilk]
aliman: the problem with the guide is that it does two things, like give an introduction to SKOS as well as defining some of the semantics
20:59:08 [alanr]
20:59:43 [RalphS]
Alistair: I used Z for the formal specification language for my thesis
21:00:23 [kjetilk]
ivan: I sweated a lot over Z
21:02:03 [Steven]
Steven has joined #swd
21:06:15 [kjetilk]
aliman: we have a few high-profile users of thesauri that are involved
21:06:26 [Zakim]
21:07:03 [kjetilk]
ACTION: aliman to update the schedule for SKOS documents
21:07:40 [aliman]
q+ to ask about iterations for skos
21:07:55 [timbl]
21:08:29 [kjetilk]
ack RalphS
21:08:29 [Zakim]
RalphS, you wanted to ask about serial v. parallel work
21:12:59 [kjetilk]
Guus: we have come to the end of the agenda
21:13:18 [kjetilk]
Guus: I think we should ajourn
21:13:31 [kjetilk]
Guus: it has been a very productive meeting
21:14:03 [kjetilk]
Guus: thanks to everyone for the participation, including those on the phone
21:14:14 [kjetilk]
Guus: next f2f around june?
21:15:32 [Zakim]
21:16:14 [Antoine]
Antoine has left #swd
21:16:20 [RalphS]
21:16:35 [TomB]
RalphS - next meeting could not be in Banff?
21:16:39 [berrueta]
berrueta has left #swd
21:18:27 [Zakim]
21:19:30 [Zakim]
21:21:40 [Zakim]
SW_SWD(f2f)8:30AM has ended
21:21:42 [Zakim]
Attendees were JonP, IvanHerman, Ralph, Michael_Hausenblas, Antoine, Guus, Steven, TimBL, Alistair, Diego, TomB, Ben, Mark_Birbeck, Kjetil, Fabien, +1.617.475.aaaa,
21:21:45 [Zakim]
... +1.617.475.aabb, Jonathan_Rees, Stephen_Williams, Elisa_Kendall, AlanR, +49.551.39.aacc, MeetingRoom
21:21:53 [RalphS]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
21:21:53 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate RalphS
21:22:32 [RalphS]
rrsagent, bye
21:22:32 [RRSAgent]
I see 10 open action items saved in :
21:22:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ben start a list of RDF/XML features that are not supported by RDFa [1]
21:22:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:22:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ben to write down the relation between GRDDL and RDFa [2]
21:22:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:22:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Guss to flag the issue of RDFa REC track on the coordination group [3]
21:22:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:22:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ben to get the docs in good shape for next week [4]
21:22:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:22:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Guus to contact persons working on versioning in KnowledgeWeb [5]
21:22:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:22:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Elisa to give first overview of what the status of the doc is and add comments and coordinate work on doc [6]
21:22:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:22:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: alistair to raise a new issue about USE X + Y and USE X OR Y [7]
21:22:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:22:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ben to update issues list with the @CLASS overload problem [8]
21:22:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:22:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ben to update RDFa schedule on wiki to aim for last call on June 1 [9]
21:22:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:22:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: aliman to update the schedule for SKOS documents [10]
21:22:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in