SemWeb Deployment WG

<RalphS> Ralph: apologies for not being on irc at the start of last week's aborted meeting to explain the problem with the bridge

admin

No minutes from [March 27], as there were technical problems

PROPOSED to accept minutes of 20 March telecon:

http://www.w3.org/2007/03/20-swd-minutes.html

<mhausenblas> +1

Accepted without objection

Next tcon: Tom and Guus not available, so meeting next week will be cancelled

Next meeting: Apr 17

Spring F2F: Main item for discussion is SKOS, RDFa

All: Respond to poll regarding possible face-to-face meeting

in June - http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/39408/f2f2poll1/

Respond to poll regarding possible face-to-face meeting

in June - http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/39408/f2f2poll1/

There is a problem with the June date for most people

We likely need to postpone the meeting to Sept

No F2F in June

Another possibility is to meet at a meeting, like ISWC, but that is in Nov

<mhausenblas> possible events

vocabulary management

Elisa: intent is to ogranize material and find out where people can contribute ideas
... Learn how people are dealing with this today, and what people are doing (version management, etc)

Guus: Need to document current practices

Elisa: By next week will have an outline for people to contribute to

Guus: we need to invite contributions to particular practices.
... it would be useful to have overview of current practices

Elisa: There is additional capability...last week at OMG meeting, discussed possibility of OMG for hosting portal for ontologies that OMG people depend on, similar to bioportal
... there are RFPs for ontologies in specific domains, eg, insurance, request for ontology for vocabulary in this domain
... we hope to expand to cover insurance standards
... we need portal for publicizing these things, to follow best practices in vocabulary;
... Elisa writing document for this
... we may get contributions from OMG for vocabuarly management

Guus: any link to provide?

Elisa: not yet. As soon as there is a draft, will send link
... we can leverage work on this note and on getting things related to OMG together.
... There is much interest in OMG in doing this.
... The "O" word is now becoming in vogue.

<scribe> ACTION: Elisa to provide outline of work to be done by Apr 17 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/03-swd-minutes.html#action01]

SKOS

<scribe> DONE: Elisa to summarize state of Vocabulary Management draft, add comments, and coordinate work [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-swd-minutes.html#action06]

<RalphS> scribenick: ralphs

Daniel: any further comments on the draft use cases?

<dlrubin> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/UCRMaterial?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=ucr-20070306.html

^ SKOS Use Cases and Requirements

W3C Editors' Draft 06 March 2007

Daniel: this editors' draft is ready for review now
... there's a list of SKOS requirements at the bottom

-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/UCRMaterial?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=ucr-20070306.html#Accepted "Accepted Requirements"

Alistair: weren't Elisa and Sean agreeing to review this?
... each has already sent a (partial) review

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Mar/0131 [SKOS] Review of SKOS Use Cases and Requirements [Elisa]

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Mar/0128 Comments on Use Case document [Sean]

Guus: the editors are expected to look at the reviews and respond to them
... based on the reviews, you send a message to the WG summarizing the result and proposing to publish

Alistair: you don't have to agree with everything the reviewers propose, just justify your decision

Daniel: each editor could answer the review comments on the use cases they contributed

Guus: however the editors decide to divide the task of responding to the reviews will be fine
... the decision to publish should be determined on the basis of having sufficient new material to be useful to the Public

Jon: there have been a couple of new use cases submitted in the past couple of weeks
... they might provide some additional requirements after closer inspection

Guus: I suggest not holding the first WD

<aliman> +1 on publish quickly, lots of useful information

Guus: let's get our candidate requirements list published quickly
... it's OK to have to-dos in the document
... if you respond to a review citing material that is already in the document, please give a precise citation; sometimes you discover when looking for the citation that something you thought was in the document really isn't there

<scribe> ACTION: Antoine, Jon, Daniel respond to the SKOS Use Case reviews, target a decision to publish on 17 April [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/03-swd-minutes.html#action02]

<scribe> ACTION: Alan to write up the preferredLabel modelling issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action01] [CONTINUES]

<scribe> ACTION: Alan to write down the general documentation requirements, in particular to those that are related to literal values, and how to represent that in skos [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action09] [CONTINUES]

<scribe> ACTION: [DONE] Guus ping Antoine regarding status of SKOS Use Cases editors' draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/20-swd-minutes.html#action10]

<scribe> ACTION: [DONE] Elisa and Sean to review SKOS editor's draft http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/UCRMaterial?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=ucr-20070306.html by 27 March [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/20-swd-minutes.html#action03]

<scribe> ACTION: Guus revise his ISSUE-26 proposal to account for other options [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/20-swd-minutes.html#action07] [CONTINUES]

Alistair: I think it would be helpful if Guus would propose one or two detailed solutions

-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/33 ISSUE 33 GroupingConstructs

Guus: do you have an idea for how to resolve issue 33?

Alistair: we need a vocabulary for representing grouping constructs. Currently that is skos:Collection. We need to establish a practice for how to say something is a member of this grouping construct.

Guus: is this like skos:Concept?

Alistair: no, different
... milk and cowsMilk related by broader/narrower but both of these are related to [animal products] in some other way
... could be broader/narrower or associative relationship
... want to allow people to layer grouping constructs and generate an algorithm for producing hierarchical displays
... see -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/GroupingConstructs Grouping Constructs Wikit

Guus: I was surprised by the BOOKS / Operations example
... I am only accustomed to the use of Collections in the way the Aircraft example works

Alistair: ISO 723 permits the use of node labels to introduce new facets
... but they're clear that these are not necessarily narrower
... ANSI Z39.19 has a similar example to the ISO 2788 Operations example
... so this is in all three of the major thesaurus standards
... however, I've not actually seen it used

Guus: it is not harmful to leave Collection in there

Alistair: but there is a contradiction; currently the document says that Collections are not Concepts but later it uses them in narrower/broader relations

Jon: I agree -- a Collection should not be a Concept

Alistair: the thesaurus standards do talk about node labels in a very different way
... there is a simpler algorithm to determine where node labels "ought" to appear
... I feel there should be a vocabulary in SKOS to represent these grouping things and that should not be skos:Concept
... there's an unfortunate naming collision; in DublinCore, "Collection" refers to a library of documents and in RDF Core "Collection" is a very specific notion

Guus: milk & cows mail case requires saying cows milk is part of the collection "milk from animals" then also say cows milk is narrower than milk

Alistair: simpler than what Guus describes
... can say "if all members of a Collection are narrower then use the node label"

Jon: what is the value of Collections over having a named type that makes something appear
... e.g. by-payload is just a relationship between aircraft types and payload types

Alistair: we want a generic way to represent this pattern

Guus: consider 'chairs' in AAT
... need several ways to represent the groupings

Alistair: and you want to represent the groupings without requiring additional information to generate the transformation
... you don't want someone to have to disambiguate each type of relation

Jon: wouldn't it be better to disambiguate?

Alistair: it might be more useful but we want SKOS to be a target for such transformations

Guus: could define subproperties of broader/narrower that imply these Collections
... seems we have identified two alternatives

<scribe> ACTION: Alistair to write up two alternatives for representing Collections [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/03-swd-minutes.html#action08]

<dlrubin> scribenick: dlrubin

recipies

Ralph propose resolution to Recipe issue 1.3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14] --continues

<scribe> ACTION: Ralph propose resolution to Recipe issue 1.3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14] --continues

Jon: not progress on documents

RDFa - RDFa Overview document http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/

Michael: We're working on the test cases.
... Had discussion of XHTML to embed RDFa

<RalphS> XHTML 1.1 Module for RDFa discussion

Ralph: Progress in getting a DTD to validate HTML + RDFa documents

Guus: Any progress on Ben's publishing document on mailing lists?

Michael: still pending

<RalphS> Ben's Action progress report

<scribe> ACTION: Ben make sure http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/scenarios/20070305/ is pubrules compliant and hand to Ralph [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/20-swd-minutes.html#action13] --done

Ralph: Name change in HTML working groups
... on HTML side, the WG on joint task force is XHTML2 WG
... We should update name of this WG in necessary places.
... They are still in startup phase; no chairs appointed yet

There are 2 WG's that have HTML in their name. The XHTML2 WG is associated with RDFa

scribe: the second WG is the "HTML WG"

Guus: any chance to link to this wg?

Ralph: They are directed to do document validation that requires single DTDs. Their charter asks them to look at that

<mhausenblas> HTML WG

Ralph: They are also in the early formation process
... They have made it clear they have no resources to look at RDFa
... They are directed to consider the validation issue

<RalphS> scribenick: ralphs

Ralph: Michael and Wing are making good progress on RDFa test cases

[adjourned]

<scribe> ACTION: Ben to send mail to Semantic Web and HTML mailing lists publicizing and soliciting comments on RDFa Primer and RDFa Use Cases work [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/20-swd-minutes.html#action14] [CONTINUES]

<scribe> ACTION: [DONE] Elisa to summarize state of Vocabulary Management draft, add comments, and coordinate work [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-swd-minutes.html#action06]