SemWeb Deployment WG

 

 

<RalphS> previous 2007-08-21

<RalphS> Scribenick: benadida

<RalphS> Scribe: Ben

Admin

Guus: propose to accept minutes from last week

no objections, ACCEPTED

scribe: next telecons Sep 4 and 11
... f2f meeting logistics: http://www.few.vu.nl/~aisaac/swd/
... f2f meeting agenda: http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/AmsterdamAgenda
... registration: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/39408/swd-ftf-adam-registration/
... questions about f2f? seeing none, actions.

RDFa

<RalphS> scribenick: ralphs

Ben: the task force has been extremely busy resolving lots of issues over the past few weeks
... I've sent a few status updates on these
... we have a number of implementations, including one by Ivan Herman
... Ivan reported that he found it fairly easy to implement
... however the documents have not kept up with the issue resolution
... the implementations are now being updated to sync with the issue resolution
... and we're pushing forward on the documents
... hope to have new editors' drafts by the f2f

Guus: we owe revised drafts to the public

Ben: the good news is that we're getting increased interest from other communities and we're not really doing much outreach
... e.g. the hAudio community is providing useful feedback and implementations of RDFa sample data
... definitely we need to get the specifications up to date

Guus: I suppose you're not yet in Last Call state?

Ben: no, we're not. I don't have a precise schedule yet
... we're working on a revamped Primer and pushing forward on the Syntax spec
... the Syntax spec is the one Rec-track document
... hope to have a very solid editors' draft by the 3rd week of September

Guus: it makes sense to have RDFa on the f2f agenda if we have an editors' draft to review 2 weeks before
... it doesn't have to be the Last Call version

Ben: we really have resolved a lot of the issues so it's just a matter of getting it written down

Guus: do both WGs need to approve the publication?

Ralph: perhaps, but I certainly think SWD should review and consent to publish

Guus: yes, SWD should approve

Ben: the Syntax document will be the core document

Guus: we need reviewers from the WG who have not been part of the task force

Diego: I am willing to review the spec

Justin: I also am willing to review the spec

Ben: I will send a note when the editors' draft is ready for review
... will likely be in 3 weeks

<benadida> ACTION: Ben to bring up the HTML WG review of RDFa syntax with Steven [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/28-swd-minutes.html#action01]

Guus: we should formally decide at the face-to-face whether the RDFa Syntax document is Rec-track

Ben: I thought we'd decided this

Guus: we should proceed as if it is Rec-track but the WG hasn't formally decided yet
... hearing the implementation reports is, however, very encouraging

<scribe> ACTION: ralph to raise RDFa on f2f agenda question in RDFa telcon [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/21-swd-minutes.html#action07] [DONE]

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Aug/0034.html Ralph's report

Ben: Steven Pemberton and Mark Birbeck are likely to attend the f2f
... I will arrange to call in
... I expect at most 4 hours for RDFa
... 2 hours to discuss the spec, more if people want to see demos and discuss more

Guus: tentatively I suggest we schedule the afternoon of the second day
... and potentially reserve time to discuss issues in smaller groups
... I imagine that Tuesday morning may have breakouts to discuss SKOS issues from Monday, so it may be feasible to have a small RDFa breakout in parallel
... I'd also like a report on test cases for RDFa

Ben: yes, Michael Hausenblas has been working on test cases
... we've approved 35 tests already
... we expect to add more tests
... the test cases give the XHTML+RDFa input, a SPARQL query, and the expected results

<benadida> scribenick: benadida

SKOS

Guus: "drawing the pictures" --> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Aug/0016.html

<Antoine> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/36

<RalphS> issue 35; owned by Sean

<berrueta> Zakim: luis_polo is me

Guus: agreement last week was for Elisa to report a preliminary report for f2f, but no resolution

<RalphS> [[tomb: ideally progress on drawing pictures before meeting, but ideally done f2f. propose we put that first in the agenda, item on drawing the picture.]] -- http://www.w3.org/2007/08/21-swd-minutes.html

Guus: leave this for later
... ISSUE 36: ConceptSchemeContainment

--> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/35

scribe: reading up on SPARQL named graphs
... which parts of the graph have a particular authority, trust issues.
... you can make statements about graphs at a particular location
... can make statements about authority of graph
... most vocabularies will be spread over multiple RDF documents.
... need to declare that a vocab is multiple graphs, or use OWL import

Sean: haven't looked at this named graph piece
... are OWL import and vocab composed of multiple graphs same issue?

Guus: in SPARQL, you can have a named graph (by a URI)
... if you want one name / one graph, then it seems necessary to use OWL import

Antoine: something specific to deal with inScheme?

Guus: we can provide a guideline for using named graph, a dual solution.
... keep conceptscheme, inscheme, skosconcept. If you want to define which relationships, use named graphs

<RalphS> (Ed correctly notes that we're discussing issue 36 here; agenda had a typo)

Guus: not ideal, but it is a solution
... hope we can resolve this issue without changing current spec

<scribe> ACTION: Guus to email a proposal to the list about the issue of containment [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/24-swd-minutes.html#action01] [CONTINUES]

<scribe> ACTION: Guus to move ISSUE-26 forward [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-minutes.html#action04]. [CONTINUES]

<scribe> ACTION: Guus to post user experience reports for ISSUE-26 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-minutes.html#action05] [CONTINUES]

<scribe> ACTION: Alistair to state the difference between the two flavours of the SimpleExtension proposal for issue 26 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/17-swd-minutes.html#action05] [CONTINUES]

<RalphS> [draft] F2F Agenda

Antoine: on conceptsemantics, would like to browse mail on mailing list. Much discussion on mixing SKOS with OWL.
... would like to summarize at f2f, with possible solutions.

<scribe> ... no progress at moment.

(scribe missed some of this discussion.)

Guus: can you write this as a "guideline on how to handle this."
... reuse it for our spec

Sean: ISSUE-44, semantics of broader / narrower

<scribe> ACTION: Guus to update the f2f agenda [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/28-swd-minutes.html#action07]

Recipes

Guus: will recipes need f2f time?

Diego: yes

Guus: need updated editors' draft

Diego: not sure if update can be done in time for f2f.

Guus: discuss either bottleneck issues or updated editors' draft

Diego: one particularly tricky issue, no need to discuss editing.

<scribe> ACTION: Diego to prepare a f2f agenda topic for recipes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/28-swd-minutes.html#action08]

<scribe> ACTION: Ralph propose resolution to Recipe issue 1.3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/24-swd-minutes.html#action09] [CONTINUES]

Vocabulary Management

<vit> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Aug/0037.html

Vit: proposed topic for discussion

(scribe missed a bit of Vit's explanation)

Guus: reference implementation is important

Vit: still problems with semantic diff and versioning implementation

Guus: let's have an agenda 1-2 weeks before f2f, then we can make time for it.
... by 23 september

Ralph: also Elisa's draft, introduced last week. Worth spending some f2f time reviewing.

<RalphS> Elisa's draft of Basic Principles for Managing an RDF Vocabulary

Guus: willing to follow Vit and Elisa's lead. Come up with a proposal of what requires wg attention at f2f, and reading list.
... need not be complete, just sufficiently new for discussion.

<scribe> ACTION: Vit to prepare WG agenda for VM by 11 September. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/28-swd-minutes.html#action10]

<scribe> ACTION: elisa to ask for feedback on VM draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/21-swd-minutes.html#action06] [CONTINUES]

<Zakim> Antoine, you wanted to ask about call for comments for SKOS UCR

Antoine: question about SKOS UCR. Over past week, call for comments got stuck somewhere.
... may not be most important mailing lists, but number of comments is small.
... wondering if we may plan another call for comments

Guus: hopefully, at f2f, decide a number of issues on SKOS. Plan new WD release.
... will then trigger request for comments.
... if editors feel need to update the doc, then request for comments is appropriate.
... if no need, then wait likely until 6 weeks after f2f for new draft

Antoine: just wondering, given w3c rules on feedback, if not getting feedback is a problem.

Guus: let's see next round.

ADJOURNED