IRC log of swd on 2007-10-08

Timestamps are in UTC.

06:55:09 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #swd
06:55:09 [RRSAgent]
logging to
06:55:22 [RalphS]
Meeting: SWD WG Amsterdam F2F
06:55:28 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #swd
06:55:32 [RalphS]
zakim, this will be swd
06:55:32 [Zakim]
ok, RalphS; I see SW_SWD(f2f)3:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
06:59:46 [ShaneM]
ShaneM has joined #swd
07:00:19 [ShaneM]
remind me again why I thought this was a good idea?
07:00:29 [Zakim]
SW_SWD(f2f)3:00AM has now started
07:00:32 [Zakim]
07:01:08 [RalphS]
Shane :)
07:02:10 [RalphS]
07:06:29 [Zakim]
07:06:37 [benadida]
benadida has joined #swd
07:07:01 [RalphS]
zakim, ??p0 is Ben
07:07:01 [Zakim]
+Ben; got it
07:09:29 [ShaneM]
[off] we had a comment on xhtml-role that uses the word "complexify" - can i reject it just because that's not a word? ;-)
07:12:24 [ShaneM]
[off] all the more reason
07:13:07 [Zakim]
+ +043316aaaa
07:13:25 [mhausenblas]
zakim, aaaa is me
07:13:25 [Zakim]
+mhausenblas; got it
07:16:36 [ShaneM]
God's Country - but we don't like to spread that around. we have enough people here now
07:17:14 [RalphS]
Shane :)
07:19:36 [ShaneM]
FYI - as anticipated we got a last call objection to using scoped values in attributes (for xhtml-role). We will carefully prepare a reply that we can use when we get similar objections on RDFa
07:19:59 [Zakim]
07:20:13 [RalphS]
zakim, Guus is MeetingRoom
07:20:13 [Zakim]
+MeetingRoom; got it
07:20:29 [mhausenblas]
zakim, who is here?
07:20:29 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ralph, Ben, mhausenblas, MeetingRoom
07:20:30 [Zakim]
On IRC I see benadida, ShaneM, Zakim, RRSAgent, RalphS, mhausenblas
07:20:58 [RalphS]
zakim, MeetingRoom has Guus, Steven
07:20:58 [Zakim]
+Guus, Steven; got it
07:22:06 [Simone]
Simone has joined #swd
07:22:07 [Zakim]
07:22:23 [ShaneM]
zakim, ??p3 is ShaneM
07:22:23 [Zakim]
+ShaneM; got it
07:23:34 [mhausenblas]
mute me
07:23:39 [mhausenblas]
zakim, mute me
07:23:39 [Zakim]
mhausenblas should now be muted
07:23:41 [RalphS]
zakim, meetingroom also has Tom
07:23:41 [Zakim]
+Tom; got it
07:26:58 [RalphS]
zakim, meetingroom also has Ivan
07:26:58 [Zakim]
+Ivan; got it
07:27:20 [seanb]
seanb has joined #swd
07:27:30 [seanb]
07:27:36 [Steven]
Steven has joined #swd
07:27:40 [seanb]
We now have network in Amsterdam....
07:28:01 [ivan]
ivan has joined #swd
07:28:02 [Steven]
Hi there all
07:28:05 [seanb]
ralph -- is there some special scribing convention for f2f?
07:28:07 [Antoine]
Antoine has joined #swd
07:28:31 [mhausenblas]
Hi Steven, good to 'see' you again ...
07:28:41 [Steven]
Hi there Michael
07:29:03 [Steven]
rrsagent, pointer?
07:29:03 [RRSAgent]
07:29:06 [markbirbeck]
markbirbeck has joined #swd
07:29:10 [edsu]
edsu has joined #swd
07:29:40 [Steven]
rrsagent, make log public
07:30:19 [aliman]
aliman has joined #swd
07:30:22 [Steven]
rrsagent, make minutes
07:30:22 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Steven
07:31:45 [Steven]
Chair: Guus
07:32:06 [berrueta]
berrueta has joined #swd
07:33:31 [RalphS]
Sean, I've generally seen scribing f2f as pretty much like scribing a telecon
07:33:43 [RalphS]
zakim, meetingroom also has Sean, Alistair
07:33:43 [Zakim]
+Sean, Alistair; got it
07:33:53 [Steven]
scribenick: aliman
07:34:21 [Simone]
Zakim, passcode please?
07:34:21 [Zakim]
the conference code is 79394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), Simone
07:34:24 [aliman]
mark: follow agenda, put discussion of future to end
07:34:59 [aliman]
guus: come back to reviews later; first take on point, this group not decided on outcome status for RDFa; in charter, possibility to go rec track, not a decision yet.
07:35:50 [aliman]
...proposal from RDFa TF is to go REC track. My main concern, whether there is sufficient people to carry this through. For me, recent progress of TF and also importance of work, I'm no in favour of going rec track.
07:35:58 [aliman]
... Do we need to discuss this?
07:36:12 [Zakim]
07:36:16 [mhausenblas]
s/I'm no/I'm now
07:36:21 [Simone]
Zakim, IPcaller is me
07:36:21 [Zakim]
+Simone; got it
07:36:24 [Steven]
People who are not physically in the meeting, maybe you should say who you are and what your affiliations are
07:36:24 [aliman]
tom: no comment. there are these larger issues of overlap with XHTML 2, what did we decide to do about that?
07:36:33 [RalphS]
zakim, who's on the phone?
07:36:33 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ralph, Ben, mhausenblas (muted), MeetingRoom, ShaneM, Simone
07:36:35 [Zakim]
MeetingRoom has Guus, Steven, Tom, Ivan, Sean, Alistair
07:36:41 [aliman]
guus: we move that issue to end of discussion. it's in our charter, have to say about status, whether we move work or not.
07:36:45 [RalphS]
[Ralph Swick, SWD staff contact]
07:36:58 [Steven]
(There are 11 in the room)
07:37:01 [RalphS]
[Ralph Swick, SWD staff contact, calling today from Massachusetts]
07:37:16 [Simone]
Zakim, mute me please
07:37:16 [Zakim]
Simone should now be muted
07:37:26 [Steven]
zakim, markbirbeck is also in MeetingRoom
07:37:26 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'markbirbeck is also in MeetingRoom', Steven
07:37:33 [guus]
guus has joined #swd
07:37:41 [RalphS]
zakim, meetingroom also has Mark_Birbeck
07:37:41 [Zakim]
+Mark_Birbeck; got it
07:37:46 [Steven]
07:37:49 [aliman]
tom: need to be specific about which deliverables on which track. WG needs to agree to bring syntax to REC track; then approve publication of syntax as WD; then look at other deliverables, use cases, test cases, then figure out what is intended process for each of those, then figure out rough schedule. If we do that, and figure out overlap with XHTML 2, then we've done our duty for RDFa today.
07:38:10 [aliman]
guus: tom says, if it's clear what goes rec track and what doesn't, then OK to go for rec track.
07:39:22 [aliman]
ben: we discussed in group. focus on important normative docs, therefore only doc which needs to go rec track is XHTML 1.1 syntax. other docs are important, give supporting information. but only normative doc is syntax.
07:39:28 [aliman]
ralph: proposal for other docs?
07:39:42 [aliman]
ben: primer will be note; test cases as supporting documentation.
07:39:59 [Steven]
(interruption as someone enters room)
07:40:45 [aliman]
guus: I'm not going to make a point about this. happy with scheme in OWL WG, full set of docs goes rec track as one package, including test cases and guide/primer. but if TF proposes to have just syntax as REC track, don't think it will make a big difference in practice.
07:40:54 [aliman]
ivan: GRDDL published primer as NOTE.
07:41:12 [aliman]
... depends on what TF feels is achievable in time frame ... and time frame is not long.
07:41:36 [RalphS]
[I was going to make the same point Ivan just made; more SemWeb specs have had primers as REC but most recent chose to make primer a Note]
07:41:42 [aliman]
guus: any more discussion? [no] propose this WG agrees RDFa to go rec track, given that syntax doc will be rec track doc. Any objections?
07:41:49 [aliman]
... ben ralph?
07:42:20 [aliman]
ralph: I'm ok with that. preference was, to say primer might as well be rec track too, because going to be reviewed and published in sync with syntax. but am satisfied with primer not being rec.
07:42:30 [RalphS]
s/. pref/. My pref/
07:42:41 [benadida]
07:42:44 [mhausenblas]
07:42:47 [aliman]
guus: syntax doc go rec track, then at later stage another doc could become part of package. make minimal decision now. no objections.
07:42:58 [Simone]
+1 !!!
07:43:19 [Steven]
07:43:19 [aliman]
RESOLUTION: to put RDFa syntax on rec track, other RDFa docs to W3C Note.
07:43:54 [edsu]
07:43:54 [aliman]
guus: proposal no. 2 on table, that SWDWG approves publication of XHTML 1.1 RDFa Syntax as public WD.
07:43:56 [mhausenblas]
-> Ed
07:44:01 [mhausenblas]
-> Diego
07:44:10 [RalphS]
s/as public/as First Public/
07:44:30 [aliman]
... Usually have message with how comments of reviewers were handled. Let's have round with reviewers.
07:44:50 [mhausenblas]
zakim, unmute me
07:44:50 [Zakim]
mhausenblas should no longer be muted
07:44:56 [Steven]
Steven has changed the topic to: Agenda:
07:45:48 [RalphS]
[Ed summarizing his review]
07:45:55 [aliman]
Ed: In general, don't have a lot of DTD experience, so couldn't review that part. In general, this is great stuff, glad it's going to rec. Because I'm new to some of this, the CURIE I found some confusion as to whether CURIE defined here or in another syntax doc.
07:46:18 [aliman]
guus: what is status of CURIEs in this doc? part of this doc, or outside?
07:46:22 [ShaneM]
I think Mark can take this one
07:46:58 [Steven]
CURIE's are defined in the spec at:
07:47:10 [aliman]
mark: pragmatic approach, CURIEs is a concept we need elsewhere, e.g. in role document, which went to last call last friday. So idea of something which is qname but not qname, needed elsewhere.
07:47:11 [RalphS]
zakim, meetingroom also has Ed
07:47:11 [Zakim]
+Ed; got it
07:47:48 [mhausenblas]
rrsagent, make minutes
07:47:48 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate mhausenblas
07:47:56 [aliman]
... like to persuade other groups e.g. SPARQL to use CURIEs (longer term thing). In short term, confusion because hedging out bets. If CURIEs don't go further, it will be in the RDFa document. If CURIEs do advance, will refer to another document.
07:48:08 [aliman]
guus: so making sure CURIEs are not on your critical path.
07:48:13 [RalphS]
[do SWD folks in the room understand that Mark and Steven are here representing the XHTML 2 Working Group, as part of the RDFa Task Force?]
07:48:42 [aliman]
mark: Yes, and trying to keep in sync. Section on CURIEs in RDFa has got clearer since looking at other problems (e.g. with role in XHTML 2)
07:48:45 [Steven]
[They do now :-)]
07:49:06 [aliman]
ivan: what is realistic assumption of CURIEs becoming REC in its own right before April?
07:49:13 [aliman]
mark: what would stop it?
07:49:51 [aliman]
... in terms of document, what is says ... when we're happy with explanation of CURIEs in RDFa ... not a lot of work to do.
07:50:25 [RalphS]
[I support the XHTML 2 plan to keep RDFa independent of a *separate* document on CURIEs]
07:50:28 [aliman]
stephen: mark summed it up. we don't want it on critical path. but this work is developing concept to usable state. good to develop here, then pull out to another spec. but if can't then doesn't matter.
07:51:15 [aliman]
guus: go for now, assume we discuss planning, but planning will be tight. for next 6 months, at least in candidate rec. how realistic? from my perspective, seems very unlikely. last call document, in two or three months, chances are almost zero.
07:51:51 [aliman]
ivan: yes, except my timing would be tougher. my goal to have as rec before beijiing. even tho candidate rec very short, last call still needed this year.
07:52:52 [aliman]
... decision on CURIEs in or out is concrete. technical content in last call cannot be changed. (cannot remove section) ... so need to decide before december. I think should not do that, we should keep CURIE spec inside RDFa syntax.
07:53:01 [aliman]
stephen: not a problem.
07:53:09 [Steven]
07:53:52 [ShaneM]
I feel the CURIE rules are pretty simple, and had planned to send the CURIE spec to last call in the next few weeks. But I dont mind leaving the text in the RDFa spec. I can undertake to keep them in sync. I do it all the time.
07:54:01 [mhausenblas]
zakim, mute me please
07:54:01 [Zakim]
mhausenblas should now be muted
07:54:02 [aliman]
ralph: i think ivan said what i meant to say ... challenge to keep any future separate spec consistent with RDFa. but in future version of RDFa can rip out whatever duplicates separate curie spec; but for now, work without separate curie spec.
07:54:14 [aliman]
ivan: close the door to have separate spec, pragmatically.
07:54:22 [aliman]
mark: why?
07:54:46 [Zakim]
RalphS, you wanted to comment in case Steven doesn't clarify and to clarify non-dependency
07:55:20 [aliman]
... there is now one sentence which says, this may come out into separate spec. If we think CURIEs in RDFa is nailed, if we then updated separate spec, would there be any problem if we then refer to it?
07:55:28 [guus]
07:56:09 [aliman]
ivan: CURIE doc which you put out separately, would go to a number of other groups, not semweb groups, might have different requirements, could hold up RDFa for no good reason. can only refer to docs one step behind. let's say CURIE doc is delayed, then you are stuck with RDFa.
07:56:26 [aliman]
steven: if CURIE spec is causing aggravation, cannot move RDFa forward.
07:56:39 [aliman]
ivan: RDFa cannot be REC until CURIE is proposed REC.
07:56:50 [aliman]
steven: good for RDFa, good for CURIEs.
07:57:00 [RalphS]
07:57:05 [aliman]
mark: made it block which could be removed. works both ways.
07:57:32 [aliman]
ben: follow mark's lead on this, sounds good.
07:59:12 [aliman]
ralph: importatn to decouple these. could include in status of doc, section which says "if curie languag of following section is published separately, intent is that this section will cite that". Ivan made crucial point, if separate specification is dependent, has to be close to end of recommendation. we need to decouple them. easy for us to find language for proposed edited recommendation for RDFa to say, we've removed this section because now in separate spec
08:00:18 [aliman]
RESOLUTION: resolved that, in preparing last call doc for RDFa, decouple RDFa syntax document from any separate CURIE document.
08:00:34 [RalphS]
08:00:45 [Steven]
ack Ralph
08:00:57 [Steven]
08:01:03 [benadida]
08:01:05 [aliman]
ralph: support this resolutionm, will save us time over next few months. can change our minds later, if XHTML WG puts out separate CURIE doc.
08:01:26 [RalphS]
zakim, meetingroom also has Diego
08:01:26 [Zakim]
+Diego; got it
08:01:36 [edsu]
ShaneM: I was confused by that too, although isn't that just a draft?
08:01:50 [aliman]
diego: I think, if we keep CURIEs inside RDFa syntax doc, then think carefully where to place it. it was some work to read the document, because use curies, then later read what curies are.
08:02:21 [aliman]
guus: but this is editorial comment. objections to resolution to decouple? [no] resolved by consensus.
08:02:27 [RalphS]
08:02:43 [aliman]
ed: CURIE thing was my main comment. i had some trouble in steps of processing section.
08:02:58 [aliman]
guus: asked you as potential user of RDFa, whteher this is a description you could use?
08:03:07 [RalphS]
[Ed, Shane; I believe the XHTML 2 WG's intent is to update the CURIE WD after experience with RDFa]
08:03:39 [aliman]
ed: yes, thought it was very useful. diego's comments tightened up a few parts of it, but thought it veruy useful.
08:04:01 [aliman]
... made me want to dig into implementation, see how things were working.
08:04:25 [aliman]
guus: any points in review you consider critical, anything which needs to be answered, or only editorial discretion.
08:04:29 [aliman]
08:04:36 [aliman]
ed: nothing critical.
08:04:47 [mhausenblas]
-> Diego'S review
08:04:57 [aliman]
diego: comments on titles, request to move paragraphs to new section. Main comments are related with processing rule...
08:05:01 [mhausenblas]
08:06:09 [aliman]
... processing rules are clear, get the idea how to process, but some points e.g. we should make clear only elements are actually processed by the rules, not clear at the moment (text nodes, comments?). If you look at code of ivan's implementation, where it goes down in tree, has if element node, then go in [?]
08:06:34 [aliman]
mark: used to say meta - text - meta. in my implementation, bring text node up. but it's right [what diego said].
08:07:23 [aliman]
guus: going to decide now to publish new WD. doesn't need to be completely finished, just need considerable progress, and nothing there which will embarrass us. so focus on anything which could block publication as WD, and anything which can be left to editorial discretion.
08:08:18 [aliman]
diego: main point is processing rule 6, about how evaluation context is transmitted from parent to child. a mistake in rule, at least something which is not clear. have suggested some possible fixes, would be happy with any of them. would be happy to see doc go forward, if this comment is addressed, the rest are minor comments.
08:08:22 [guus]
08:09:01 [aliman]
ivan: let's separate two things. there are mistakes, things to change in the doc. Decision to publish should not depend on that level of techincal detail.
08:09:22 [aliman]
guus: but that is your opinion. if diego thinks that is serious, as a reviewer, that is his opinion.
08:09:53 [RalphS]
08:10:01 [aliman]
mark: both sets of comments were really useful, showed really good understanding. absolutely accept if there confusions, then genuine confusions. then both curies and stack issue need to be addressed.
08:10:13 [aliman]
guus: too much work to block quick publication?
08:10:16 [RalphS]
q+ to recommend proceeding
08:10:31 [aliman]
mark: no, irony is implementations are better than processing description.
08:10:54 [aliman]
guus: summarise for this minutes as the "stack issue" ... so diego main thing you want fixed before publication?
08:11:18 [aliman]
diego: if fix comment about stack, then happy to publish as WD
08:11:56 [RalphS]
[could the Chair or scribe clarify, please, how much fixing Diego is asking for]
08:12:08 [aliman]
guus: assume we have one more WD before last call. directly after this meeting publish new WD. give public change to comment. i.e. publish within 1-2 weeks. then in 1-2 months, go for last call.
08:12:44 [aliman]
ralph: which of diego's stack suggestions are critical? accept mark
08:13:09 [edsu]
RalphS: diego's concerns were specifically about the 'stack'
08:13:26 [aliman]
... long time since publish update to any RDFa spec. like to see us publish. hopefully can fix in next WD. looking for clarification from deigo on specific pieces of the stack section which he thinks are critical.
08:13:31 [guus]
08:13:42 [guus]
ack RalphS
08:13:42 [Zakim]
RalphS, you wanted to recommend proceeding
08:14:42 [aliman]
ivan: that was essence of my comment as well. try to be pragtmatic. hit publication moritorium in few weeks. if have to edit, hit moritoritum, then timing may go off. my preference is, even if there are mistakes, anything whiich can be fixed in 1-2 days should be fixed, otherwise publish, then try to get to last call in december. rather than get problems into doc now.
08:15:36 [aliman]
mark: split diego's comment into two parts: (1) idea of stack not good way to explain; (2) it's wrong. Suggest we follow your advice, still use idea of stack, but fix the error. before publication.
08:16:06 [RalphS]
[good; if we can tweak the words in the editors' draft to fix a bug, then consider a bigger rewrite in a future draft, that would be nice]
08:16:07 [aliman]
diego: agree with ivan's point. ok to publish as it is, if we document that there open issues on the document.
08:16:39 [seanb]
seanb has joined #swd
08:17:14 [aliman]
PROPOSED: to publish new version of RDFa syntax document at the earliest possible convenience, no later than moritorium, taking into account comments of reviewers as far as possible.
08:18:09 [Steven]
This will be the first PWD, so I will request a shortname
08:18:23 [aliman]
PROPOSED: to publish RDFa syntax document as First Public Working Draft at the earliest possible convenience, no later than moritorium, taking into account comments of reviewers as far as possible.
08:18:59 [aliman]
PROPOSED: to publish RDFa syntax document as First Public Working Draft at the earliest possible convenience, no later than moritorium, taking into account comments of reviewers as far as possible, adding notes where there are open issues.
08:19:17 [mhausenblas]
08:19:28 [RalphS]
-> October publication moratorium
08:19:33 [aliman]
08:19:46 [mhausenblas]
rrsagent, draft minutes
08:19:46 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate mhausenblas
08:19:57 [edsu]
benadida: coffee just arrived here funnily enough :)
08:19:59 [markbirbeck]
+1 Ben :)
08:20:21 [markbirbeck]
Just like to thanks the reviewers...very good work.
08:20:33 [aliman]
guus: move to next agenda item.
08:21:02 [aliman]
RESOLUTION: to publish RDFa syntax document as First Public Working Draft at the earliest possible convenience, no later than moritorium, taking into account comments of reviewers as far as possible, adding notes where there are open issues.
08:21:31 [aliman]
guus: next proposal, WG approves new version of primer for WD.
08:22:31 [mhausenblas]
-> RDFa Primer
08:23:03 [aliman]
ben: the primer has been updated to match the syntax, ??? has been updated to be less technical, more about events and contact information. now matches latest syntax. if don't have official reviews. do think pubolish new version soon is useful.
08:23:28 [aliman]
guus: first we need reviews, before publish again. postpone decision until we have two reviews from outside TF. is that a problem?
08:23:48 [RalphS]
[oops, Guus is right -- we forgot to ask for SWD reviewers for Primer]
08:23:54 [aliman]
ben: we did get at least review from ? although don't know if that counts. urgent to get new version out, so need volunteers today.
08:24:01 [benadida]
from Bob DuCharme
08:24:35 [markbirbeck]
s/, ???/. It has/
08:24:41 [aliman]
guus: volunteers? one review would be ok. antoine, would you be willing to do again?
08:25:09 [aliman]
... telecon in two weeks time. ben, proposal would be to have reviews by telecon in two weeks time.
08:25:22 [aliman]
ralph: october 31 is last day we can ask for publication.
08:25:35 [aliman]
guus: two weeks, ok with you [antoine]?
08:25:39 [aliman]
antoine: yes
08:26:04 [aliman]
guus: syntax doc, all changes are now at your discretion.
08:26:19 [aliman]
... back to the primer.
08:26:36 [aliman]
ben: ...
08:26:43 [RalphS]
[[31 October, 12pm ET: Deadline for publication request before moratorium ]] -
08:26:52 [aliman]
guus: ben is fine with decision on 31st, and will have edits in time for moritorium
08:27:00 [RalphS]
note, that's 9am Ben's time
08:27:06 [aliman]
ralph: that is 31 9am
08:27:12 [aliman]
ben: so 30th then
08:27:25 [aliman]
guus: we have a volunteer - antoine has volunteered.
08:27:50 [RalphS]
-> Primer ready for review
08:27:56 [aliman]
ACTION: antoine to review RDFa Primer before next telecon (within two weeks).
08:29:03 [aliman]
guus: next agenda item ... last three proposals all to do with status of documents.
08:29:28 [aliman]
... understand TF is in favour of publishing syntax as rec, rest as note. Timing will be, publish others as note once rec is finished?
08:29:33 [aliman]
ivan: or goes to proposal
08:30:11 [RalphS]
08:30:12 [aliman]
guus: note is end status. for the moment can stay as WD. notes only published once rec is final. e.g. if in rec process, need new test cases, then need to reopen note if published. note is end status in W3C.
08:30:15 [mhausenblas]
zakim, unmute me
08:30:15 [Zakim]
mhausenblas should no longer be muted
08:30:19 [RalphS]
q+ to speak to 'Note' status
08:30:21 [aliman]
ivan: GRDDL published like that
08:30:28 [benadida]
Test Cases are not a note
08:30:33 [mhausenblas]
08:30:37 [aliman]
mark: how does that affect our agreement timing?
08:30:57 [aliman]
guus: see proposal to publish primer as note, seems unlikely. minimum 6 months for rec, so also minimum timing for note.
08:31:56 [benadida]
I believe we meant to put on track to become a Note, not make it a note today
08:32:04 [mhausenblas]
-> Maturity Levels
08:32:23 [aliman]
ralph: I think guus is right. note status is something like last call for rec doc. WG believes it's done, and doesn't expect to change. We can issue a new version of a note, but publishing as a note is really a statement to public that WG is done, doesn't expect any more work. I think guus is right, we should leave as WD, until confident unlikely to change any more. Once syntax doc is proposed rec, then freeze primer as a note. proposed rec stage time for note.
08:32:35 [aliman]
guus: did we publish RDFa use cases as WD?
08:32:38 [aliman]
ben: yes
08:32:47 [mhausenblas]
08:32:58 [aliman]
guus: we can have updated versions if sufficient changes. las WD? [30 march]
08:33:16 [benadida]
we have not updated the use cases doc
08:33:17 [aliman]
... link on latest version doesn't go to previous WD
08:33:31 [aliman]
... document package: syntax doc, primer, use cases, test cases.
08:33:36 [aliman]
... has that been published?
08:33:45 [aliman]
ralph: TF has not proposed formal test cases doc.
08:33:51 [mhausenblas]
-> Test Suite
08:33:57 [aliman]
ivan: test cases on wiki. don't know about plan to turn into TR doc.
08:34:03 [aliman]
guus: no plan to make test cases a WD?
08:34:06 [aliman]
ivan: don't think so.
08:34:20 [mhausenblas]
-> TC approval
08:34:23 [aliman]
steven: test cases there to support going to CR. so not normal to take that to rec.
08:34:30 [mhausenblas]
q+ to note on the RDFa TC
08:34:41 [aliman]
ivan: some groups have done that, choice of the group. RDF, OWL like that, other groups not. group decision, there is no rule.
08:34:49 [aliman]
guus: discussion on test cases as WD or not.
08:35:19 [mhausenblas]
08:35:32 [aliman]
ralph: question of coverage and editorial time. if had the time, and test cases cover good part of spec, then should publish. TF didn't expect to do a test suite that would have enough coverage to justify editorial effort.
08:35:38 [aliman]
.... we have added tests over time.
08:35:53 [Zakim]
RalphS, you wanted to speak to 'Note' status
08:36:02 [mhausenblas]
ack me
08:36:02 [Zakim]
mhausenblas, you wanted to note on the RDFa TC
08:36:04 [aliman]
guus: for moment, package to publish is: syntax (rec); primer (note); use cases (note). test cases informal doc.
08:36:09 [mhausenblas]
08:36:51 [aliman]
michael: acknowledge raolph. test cases at link above ... ???
08:37:07 [mhausenblas]
-> Test Suite
08:37:09 [aliman]
guus: michael agreed, test cases on web site, not going to be a formal document
08:37:27 [aliman]
michael: doesn't need to be formal doc (W3C TR), no.
08:38:17 [aliman]
guus: consensus on this.
08:38:42 [aliman]
... proposal that RDFa primer be published as note, don't decide now.
08:38:51 [aliman]
ben: should agree that RDFa syntax will go rec.
08:39:10 [aliman]
guus: we have resolved that syntax will go to rec, haven't resolved that primer will go to note.
08:39:41 [aliman]
... up to TF ...
08:39:43 [Steven]
Yes we did
08:39:54 [mhausenblas]
08:39:55 [aliman]
ivan: guus wants to keep it open for TF to include other docs in rec
08:40:05 [aliman]
guus: ok to keep our resolution, other docs to note.
08:40:23 [aliman]
... then we should record our intention to publish primer as note
08:40:28 [RalphS]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
08:40:28 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate RalphS
08:40:46 [aliman]
ben: ok to leave open, but make sure it's ok for only syntax to be rec.
08:40:57 [aliman]
guus: yes, in earlier resolution.
08:41:04 [Steven]
08:41:45 [aliman]
PROPOSAL: that use cases and primer are published as WG notes around time that syntax reaches recommendation status
08:41:47 [RalphS]
i/follow agenda, put/Topic: RDFa/
08:41:55 [mhausenblas]
08:41:57 [RalphS]
08:42:00 [benadida]
08:42:05 [aliman]
guus: good to have syntax published without primer in final state.
08:42:17 [benadida]
+1 to proposed rec
08:42:22 [mhausenblas]
08:42:39 [aliman]
ralph: change to "proposed rec" rather than "rec"? do it when when WG asks for transistion to proposed rec, then should fix [other stuff]
08:42:52 [aliman]
... we should have everything done by proposed rec.
08:43:16 [RalphS]
s/fix /freeze /
08:43:20 [aliman]
PROPOSAL: that RDFa use cases and primer are published as WG notes not later that syntax reaches recommendation status
08:43:33 [benadida]
08:43:43 [benadida]
"post-it notes?"
08:43:43 [mhausenblas]
08:43:49 [RalphS]
s/notes /Notes /
08:44:06 [aliman]
steven: not yet asking for short names?
08:44:12 [aliman]
ralph: already have short names.
08:44:18 [aliman]
guus: published once already.
08:44:32 [aliman]
RESOLUTION: that RDFa use cases and primer are published as WG Notes not later that syntax reaches recommendation status
08:44:36 [RalphS]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
08:44:36 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate RalphS
08:45:00 [mhausenblas]
08:45:12 [aliman]
guus: proposal that test cases be used as supporting documentation...
08:45:18 [aliman]
michael: ???
08:45:31 [RalphS]
08:45:37 [RalphS]
q+ to clarify shortname
08:46:40 [aliman]
guus: test suite comment in RDFa syntax ...
08:47:20 [aliman]
guus: no "MUST" dependent on test cases I hope. If not the case, then i'm ok.
08:47:22 [Steven]
ack R
08:47:22 [Zakim]
RalphS, you wanted to clarify shortname
08:47:28 [RalphS]
Ralph: we already have approved shortnames the primer and use cases documents; our WG formal request to publish Syntax as First Public Working Draft will be when Syntax gets an approved shortname
08:48:10 [aliman]
ralph: wanted to clarify, we have three short names in our recent resolution. already have approved short names for firts two, when make request for syntax for third will get a short name.
08:48:12 [mhausenblas]
what is about ->
08:48:24 [aliman]
steven: no objection to request transition?
08:48:35 [aliman]
guus: I'm ok.
08:49:15 [ShaneM]
no it is not there....
08:49:48 [aliman]
guus: only item left on agenda, is thing we started with. any other issues?
08:50:17 [RalphS] is 404, so we can't say it's been approved. But I recommend that's the shortname we propose and I do not expect any disapproval
08:50:36 [Steven]
rrsagent, pointer?
08:50:36 [RRSAgent]
08:50:39 [aliman]
tom: two things. helful to set milestones, so we have targets to work towards. secondly, raise issue of wiki pages - there is comparison of charter milestones with progress in deliverables page, this should be kept up to date. [another thing?]
08:51:43 [benadida]
see you in 9 minutes
08:51:55 [Zakim]
08:51:56 [RalphS]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
08:51:56 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate RalphS
08:54:09 [Steven]
Request for publication sent
08:59:15 [Zakim]
09:04:45 [aliman]
guus: (1) swd vs. xhtml WG; (2) planning; (3) admin, wiki pages etc.
09:05:06 [seanb]
scribe: seanb
09:05:42 [Zakim]
09:05:53 [mhausenblas]
zakim, P1 is me
09:05:53 [Zakim]
sorry, mhausenblas, I do not recognize a party named 'P1'
09:06:03 [seanb]
Guus: personal inclination to go as before. Task force has two hosts. Need to think who then takes decisions
09:06:08 [mhausenblas]
zakim, ??P1 is me
09:06:08 [Zakim]
+mhausenblas; got it
09:06:25 [seanb]
Ivan: From activity POV, problem is messaging side.
09:06:34 [seanb]
...RDFa document should bear explicit SW activity stamp
09:06:57 [mhausenblas]
zakim, mute me
09:06:57 [Zakim]
mhausenblas should now be muted
09:07:11 [seanb]
...important for community acceptance
09:07:30 [seanb]
...pragmatically don't know consequences if document published jointly.
09:07:45 [seanb] both groups then have to issue the same resolutions?
09:07:58 [seanb]
...what if groups disagree??
09:08:04 [RalphS]
09:08:17 [markbirbeck]
09:08:34 [seanb]
Steven: If there's disagreement it's problematic anyway.
09:08:40 [seanb]
...happy with joint work
09:09:03 [seanb]
...preference to do it in two.
09:09:06 [Steven]
ack r
09:09:38 [seanb]
Ralph: No problem. If there's disagreement about spec, regardless
09:10:03 [seanb]
...then we have to react. Ivan's inventing a problem.
09:10:06 [Steven]
ack m
09:10:27 [seanb]
Mark: Task Force ok at collating and representing both communities.
09:10:32 [seanb]
...worked well so far.
09:11:01 [seanb]
Guus: Group started widely spread. Social consensus has appeared.
09:11:40 [RalphS]
[yes, the RDFa Task Force is the critical administrative thing that made this joint WG work practical]
09:11:52 [seanb]
Mark: Twin approach is good for a marketing POV.
09:12:06 [seanb]
...good to be seen as not coming from SW community
09:12:36 [seanb]
s/from/just from
09:13:05 [RalphS]
Ralph: the only real novel question I see in this joint REC-track work is in the Director's Decision on the relevant transition requests. Let's let W3C staff deal with that technicality and not worry about it as a WG.
09:13:13 [seanb]
Guus: See consensus here. Only need to see operational issues
09:13:46 [RalphS]
09:14:01 [Zakim]
09:14:07 [Simone]
Zakim, ??P4 is me
09:14:07 [Zakim]
+Simone; got it
09:14:10 [seanb]
...should have discussion with chairs and resolve among ourselves how to
09:14:14 [Simone]
Zakim, mute me please
09:14:14 [Zakim]
Simone should now be muted
09:14:48 [seanb]
...proceed. Critical points/formal steps should be decisions from
09:14:57 [seanb]
...both groups, but not for everything.
09:15:04 [RalphS]
09:15:54 [seanb]
Raph: WG chairs sync via email. Rely on the task force to ensure groups are
09:16:19 [edsu]
09:16:21 [seanb]
...coordinated. TF in place to do the sync.
09:16:35 [seanb]
...Rely on Mark, Steven and Shane to run things.
09:16:59 [RalphS]
s/run things/flag things that the XHTML 2 WG might disagree with/
09:18:31 [RalphS]
Ralph: I suggest that the only formal points where we explicitly look for dual resolutions is on transition requests, and otherwise rely on the Task Force to coordinate the two WGs
09:19:49 [RalphS]
09:20:14 [ShaneM]
[off] brb
09:21:09 [seanb]
Mark: How do arrive at resolutions from wo groups?
09:21:24 [seanb]
...TF co-ordinates receiving two requests
09:21:45 [RalphS]
09:21:47 [ShaneM]
[off] back
09:21:49 [Steven]
s/ wo/ two/
09:22:33 [RalphS]
09:23:25 [seanb]
Ralph: don't get overly concerned about procedural matters.
09:24:15 [RalphS]
Ralph: just a matter of how the SWD WG participants in the Task Force are coordinating with the SWD WG
09:24:23 [seanb]
ACTION: Guus/Tom to propose joint decisions for reviews for major steps/transition requests. Informal agreement about working drafts.
09:24:55 [seanb]
Guus: Planning
09:25:07 [RalphS]
(the task force coordination may be handled by XHTML 2 WG representatives in whatever way the XHTML 2 WG chooses)
09:25:35 [seanb]
Ivan: Ideal Rec by AC meeting in Beijing
09:25:52 [seanb]
...would be good to publish while WG is still inexistence
09:26:08 [seanb]
...Big surge in interest in RDFa. Good to ride on this wave.
09:26:50 [seanb]
...PR beginning of March. CR phase will bbe short. CR early feb, late jan
09:27:02 [seanb]
Steven: If we have the implementations, zero lenght CR
09:27:26 [seanb]
Ivan: Would prefer short (from messaging POV).
09:27:49 [seanb]
...ideal last call end of december
09:28:36 [seanb]
Guus: concerned that's not engough. Beginning december better
09:28:54 [seanb]
Steven: One more WD, then take that to Last Call.
09:29:20 [seanb]
Ivan: not many issues, and none are major.
09:29:48 [seanb]
Guus: Needs full review process from two groups
09:30:10 [seanb]
Ivan: Work has to be done mid-November
09:30:36 [seanb]
Guus: Need to have reviewers lined up and agreements with XHTML WG.
09:30:50 [seanb]
...documents need to be ready for review 16/17 November
09:31:16 [seanb]
Mark: This should be ok.
09:31:33 [seanb]
Ivan: But not to raise new issues!
09:33:12 [seanb]
Guus: Four weeks absolute minimum for LC
09:33:56 [seanb]
...if there is attention for RDFa, then may need to plan for lots of comments
09:33:56 [RalphS]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
09:33:56 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate RalphS
09:34:15 [seanb]
...need to convince ourselves that this is then just editorial.
09:34:35 [seanb]
...editing of last call comes to mid feb.
09:34:45 [seanb]
...then two weeks contingency for CR
09:35:07 [seanb]
Ivan: Meantime, need implementation report. Regardless of CR period.
09:35:17 [seanb]
Guus: Imp report mid feb.
09:35:39 [ShaneM]
Note that we can prepare an implementation report now - Ben, can you take an action item to do that?
09:35:55 [benadida]
yes, I can take an action to do that
09:36:21 [seanb]
Ivan: May get LC comments like "I want to do reification". Would cause problems
09:36:23 [RalphS]
09:36:32 [seanb]
Mark: Should we try and anticipate these.
09:36:55 [seanb]
Ivan: Perhaps. Include comments e.g., "we have decided not to include feature X".
09:37:20 [seanb]
...need to be prepared for this as LC comments come in.
09:38:02 [seanb]
Guus: TF need to plan time for editing. Don't expect that it won't be much work.
09:38:36 [seanb]
Ralph: Use UC documents as a guide.
09:39:55 [seanb]
Guus: TF has to have the frame of mind to not add new features or open issues.
09:39:59 [seanb]
...feature freeze
09:40:08 [RalphS]
Ralph: we should be in feature freeze in the next few weeks
09:40:40 [seanb]
Guus: Would like to record a draft schedule.
09:40:42 [seanb]
09:40:56 [seanb]
...Mid november documents for review
09:41:19 [seanb]
...Early december both WGs vote on pub of LC
09:41:33 [seanb]
...LC period ends second half of Jan
09:41:47 [seanb]
...Request for CR mid Feb
09:41:57 [benadida]
can we give someone (me?) an action to record this schedule?
09:41:58 [seanb]
...both WGs need to decide on this
09:42:07 [seanb]
...Two weeks CR
09:42:14 [seanb]
...Implementation report to be written
09:42:14 [Steven]
you can do it yourself Ben
09:42:24 [seanb]
...First week March, both WGs decide on request for PR
09:42:35 [seanb]
...Beijing (end April) RDFa REC
09:42:41 [mhausenblas]
Will be reflected in -> RDFa schedule
09:42:53 [ShaneM]
ACTION: Ben to prepare draft implementation report for RDFa (with assistance from Michael)
09:42:57 [benadida]
ACTION: Ben to update RDFa schedule in wiki
09:43:31 [seanb]
Ivan: AC Meeting 21/22 April. Publishing moratorium before that.
09:43:42 [seanb]
Tom: Adminstrative points
09:44:06 [seanb]
...Are all TF members considered to be in both XHTML and WG?
09:44:18 [seanb]
Ralph: one or other but not necessarily both
09:44:32 [seanb]
Tom: Deliverables page for SWD. Milestones from charter.
09:44:44 [seanb]
...Request that we update that page with current intentions/schedule
09:44:45 [mhausenblas] points to
09:45:03 [seanb]
...Request RDFa page be brought up to date in light of these decisions.
09:45:20 [seanb]
...Danger that things could get out of sync. Explicitly flag as something to discuss
09:45:36 [seanb]
...with XHTML. Would be good to have a central up to date page.
09:45:44 [edsu]
09:45:52 [seanb]
...don't want to maintain different pages in different WGs.
09:46:12 [mhausenblas]
IMHO is the main page
09:46:23 [seanb]
...wants someone from TF to have responsibility for this, so we know who to ping.
09:48:07 [Steven]
09:48:30 [RalphS]
q+ to comment on W3C site organization
09:48:31 [seanb]
Guus: Other technologies (e.g. OWL) had pages outside of WG
09:48:38 [ShaneM]
FWIW I do not believe the XHTML 2 Working Group has any RDFa pages we are maintaining (other than the draft documents of course).
09:48:39 [mhausenblas]
Note that there is for good reasons an RDFa page at -> ESW
09:48:49 [Antoine]
09:48:55 [RalphS]
q+ to followup on Tom's request
09:49:23 [seanb]
Ivan: Is this right?
09:49:27 [mhausenblas]
so eg. ?
09:49:39 [seanb]
Tom: Right now two pages. Ok for internal use, but doesn't look as polished
09:49:59 [seanb] outside world.
09:50:16 [Steven]
ack ed
09:50:33 [seanb]
Ed: domain should be updated
09:51:15 [benadida] is kept relatively up to date, with some holes of course.
09:51:40 [edsu]
09:52:02 [seanb]
Ivan: not maintained anymore. Neither is 2004/OWL
09:52:19 [seanb]
Guus: Point from Tom is clear. leave it up to the TF to tackle this.
09:52:32 [Steven]
We should put a Specifications link on too
09:52:37 [seanb]
...Main point is up to date schedule. One point where main information is.
09:53:20 [seanb]
Ralph: As a WG can't decide on long term issues. Decisions about top level technology
09:53:27 [seanb]
...on w3c site is out of ourhands.
09:53:47 [seanb]
ACTION: TF to address comments by Tom
09:53:47 [RalphS]
s/technology/technology pages/
09:54:05 [benadida]
updating it now
09:54:46 [seanb]
Guus: Done with formal part
09:54:56 [ShaneM]
[off] I plan to sign off and go to the gym etc. if I am no longer needed?
09:55:05 [mhausenblas]
s/TF/Ben and Michael/
09:55:09 [Steven]
Thanks Shane
09:55:25 [ShaneM]
[off] good luck - nice work folks
09:55:34 [Zakim]
09:55:36 [edsu]
09:55:45 [mhausenblas]
f] will be back for 'Review of Cool URIs' some time before 15:00UTC
09:56:59 [RalphS]
[I don't expect scribing during Mark's informal presentation, but would appreciate URIs when feasible]
09:57:32 [RalphS]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
09:57:32 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate RalphS
09:57:40 [Zakim]
09:58:23 [edsu]
looking at;
10:01:18 [RalphS]
""If the slightest probability for an unpleasant event to happen exists, the event will take place, preferably during a demonstration." --
10:04:27 [seanb]
seanb has joined #swd
10:06:14 [Zakim]
10:08:47 [RalphS]
[I wonder why Ben's RDFa Highlight reports apparently two identical triples for the audio samples]
10:15:24 [RalphS]
[perhaps the apparently "identical" triples is really a rendering bug with two properties in the same @property attribute]
10:16:46 [RalphS]
[or, in the case of -- in the same @rel attribute]
10:17:05 [RalphS]
s/ --/,/
10:18:38 [edsu]
now looking at:
10:19:22 [benadida]
still there, but sounds great
10:22:42 [Zakim]
10:23:01 [benadida]
benadida has left #swd
10:25:01 [Simone]
Simone has joined #swd
10:40:47 [RalphS]
[I'd appreciate it if someone in the room -- Ivan perhaps -- would fill in the names of the others in the room]
10:40:51 [RalphS]
zakim, who's in meetingroom?
10:40:51 [Zakim]
MeetingRoom has Guus, Steven, Tom, Ivan, Sean, Alistair, Mark_Birbeck, Ed, Diego
10:41:22 [Steven]
+2 others
10:43:13 [Steven]
10:45:52 [Steven]
10:47:32 [RalphS]
Ed, are Justin and Jon also present?
10:56:30 [Zakim]
10:57:00 [RalphS]
zakim, who's still on the phone?
10:57:00 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ralph
11:00:35 [Zakim]
11:00:36 [Zakim]
SW_SWD(f2f)3:00AM has ended
11:00:37 [Zakim]
Attendees were Ralph, Ben, +043316aaaa, mhausenblas, Guus, Steven, ShaneM, Tom, Ivan, Sean, Alistair, Simone, Mark_Birbeck, Ed, Diego
11:04:19 [Zakim]
SW_SWD(f2f)3:00AM has now started
11:04:21 [Zakim]
11:05:16 [edsu]
Jon is here, Justin is not
11:07:23 [RalphS]
thanks, Ed
11:07:43 [RalphS]
maybe Vit was the other in the room, then?
11:08:16 [RalphS]
[I'll ask again when folks return from lunch]
11:08:17 [edsu]
Vit just got here about 1/2 an hour ago yeah
11:08:38 [RalphS]
ok. And you're aware in the room that you're no longer on the phone?
11:09:08 [edsu]
yes, i am at least ... i'll make sure it'a back online at least by when we resume
11:09:11 [RalphS]
11:09:24 [edsu]
unless you want to hear the clinking of plates and random chatter
11:39:22 [mhausenblas]
zakim, who's here
11:39:22 [Zakim]
mhausenblas, you need to end that query with '?'
11:39:31 [mhausenblas]
zakim, who's here?
11:39:31 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ralph
11:39:32 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Simone, seanb, aliman, edsu, Antoine, ivan, ShaneM, Zakim, RRSAgent, RalphS, mhausenblas
11:54:35 [guus]
guus has joined #swd
11:56:27 [Zakim]
11:59:00 [berrueta]
berrueta has joined #swd
12:00:22 [edsu]
TOPIC: Labelling properties
12:00:51 [edsu]
12:01:23 [edsu]
Tom: goals are to agree on the semantics for the 3 labelling properties, and then agree on how to specify those semantics
12:01:44 [edsu]
Tom: alistair can we jump into subtopic A?
12:02:02 [edsu]
aliman: if anyone wants any background, let me know
12:02:24 [Simone]
Simone has joined #swd
12:02:30 [edsu]
aliman: discussion is just about the three uris: prefLabel, altLabel, hiddenLabel
12:02:38 [edsu]
RalphS: can you hear us ok?
12:02:52 [edsu]
aliman: sub-topic A is about the ranges
12:03:53 [edsu]
aliman: the options are 1) rdf plain literal 2) allow the range to be open ended and say that it includes plain literals and perhaps other things
12:04:29 [edsu]
... i prefer the 1st option because i think there are valuable semantics like disjointness and cardinality that become difficult to state with option 2
12:05:09 [edsu]
Antoine: could we postpone given the relationship between labels topic?
12:05:38 [edsu]
aliman: i'd like us to consider this in isolation
12:06:03 [edsu]
Jon: can we back this decision out if we need to reconsider during labelling relations discussion?
12:06:20 [edsu]
aliman: I don't see why not
12:06:36 [edsu]
Tom: I agree this is a very dependent decision
12:06:47 [edsu]
... if the consequences are too painful we can revisit
12:07:01 [edsu]
... i'd like to get a sense of where we stand with these 2 options
12:07:37 [edsu]
ivan: in practice you could also use strings for the same purpose
12:08:17 [edsu]
... pretty hair to express the union of strings and literals too
12:09:02 [edsu]
Antoine: how about someone could creat their own type that includes strings and literals
12:09:12 [edsu]
... I don't see the point in restricting to plain literals
12:09:47 [edsu]
aliman: i know how to express the disjointness and cardinality using plain literals ...
12:09:59 [edsu]
Antoine: are you sure we can't do this with typed literals?
12:10:10 [edsu]
aliman: can we move on to the next two?
12:11:38 [edsu]
aliman: in dcmi there were more general consequences of using literals, and here the issues are specific to expressing cardinality and disjointness
12:11:55 [edsu]
s/there were/there was discussion of/
12:13:01 [gschreib]
gschreib has joined #swd
12:13:26 [edsu]
aliman just brought up
12:13:41 [edsu]
on the projector
12:14:24 [edsu]
seanb: what are you trying to express in option 2?
12:16:45 [edsu]
moving on to Sub-Topic B: Disjoint Properties
12:17:31 [edsu]
aliman: put examples in the document of things that we shouldn't be able to say
12:17:51 [edsu]
... we need to be able to say these are pair-wise disjoint
12:17:58 [edsu]
... do we need to consider any other options
12:18:02 [edsu]
... ?
12:18:22 [edsu]
ivan: was the disjointness from english prose in the text?
12:18:54 [edsu]
guus: you mean "must" be pairwise disjoint, instead of "are"
12:19:09 [edsu]
guus: i can't think of any use case that would object to this
12:19:21 [edsu]
Antoine: I agree
12:19:38 [edsu]
tom: do we have consensus?
12:21:41 [edsu]
RESOLVED (for subtopic B) The property extensions of skos:prefLabel, skos:altLabel and skos:hiddenLabel must be pairwise disjoint
12:22:11 [edsu]
Antoine: the 3rd point is the cardinality of skos:prefLabel
12:22:37 [edsu]
... implicit in the decision to have a prefLabel is that there is only one prefLabel
12:23:39 [edsu]
... the first example is where the same resource has two prefLabels in the same language -- do we agree that there is something wrong with that?
12:24:03 [edsu]
... there is a complication where a language is written in different regions, or with different scripts
12:24:53 [edsu]
guus: once the language code changes you're allowed a new prefLabel
12:25:01 [edsu]
aliman: to be pragmatic we only have one choice
12:26:06 [RalphS]
[apologies; I was 2 rooms over and didn't hear the meeting resume]
12:26:38 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate RalphS
12:26:57 [edsu]
aliman: i used rfc 4646 for the definition of language tag
12:27:24 [RalphS]
i/TOPIC: Labelling/scribenick: edsu
12:27:27 [edsu]
ivan: i am not sure i understand, what's the problem?
12:27:31 [edsu]
RalphS: thanks
12:27:31 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate RalphS
12:28:16 [RalphS]
s/RalphS: can you/can you/
12:28:18 [edsu]
guus: so this decision was dependent on subtopic a
12:29:29 [edsu]
aliman: i tried to think of this independent of the design patterns
12:29:40 [edsu]
... a resource can have a preferred literal and only one per language
12:29:55 [edsu]
... our idea of a language comes from RFC 4646
12:30:15 [RalphS]
s/RalphS: thanks//
12:30:33 [edsu]
tom: whether a rdf plain literal refers to rfc 4646
12:31:10 [edsu]
... in answer to ivan's question about the issue w/ rfc 4646
12:31:32 [RalphS]
zakim, who's on the phone?
12:31:32 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ralph, [VrijeUni]
12:32:34 [RalphS]
[I'm more in favor of SHOULD NOT rather than MUST NOT ]
12:32:45 [edsu]
guus: we might not be able to express it
12:33:40 [edsu]
... not sure we have the machinery, but happy to go with this, if natural language is sufficiently precise this will be clear for implementors
12:33:47 [ShaneM]
ShaneM has left #swd
12:34:35 [edsu]
RalphS: how strongly do we feel that constraints need to be in OWL? if i understood guus correctly leaving a little flexibility here is good since we're dealing with natural languages
12:34:53 [edsu]
... constraints like MUST NOT are much stronger than what we need for applications like SKOS
12:35:16 [edsu]
tom: we are trying to get consensus on what we intend, and later talk about the best way to do it formally
12:35:38 [edsu]
guus: the statement is intentionally vaugue
12:36:09 [edsu]
12:36:35 [RalphS]
[I just heard Guus say "... can not ..."; is that SHOULD NOT or MUST NOT?]
12:36:35 [edsu]
aliman: at this stage i was hoping we could agree on the sentences
12:37:22 [RalphS]
[I don't mind vagueness but the SHOULD [NOT] language seems to me to accommodate the necessary vagueness here]
12:38:04 [edsu]
[they are proposing to resolve with the text as is]
12:39:11 [edsu]
RESOLVED (for subtopic C) A resource cannot have more than one preferred lexical label per language (where it is assumed that each distinct tag allowed by RFC 4646 denotes a distinct "language").
12:40:40 [edsu]
aliman: here we are formally stating a semantic condition
12:41:07 [edsu]
seanb: i think the issue here is that this statement may not get expressed anywhere else
12:42:06 [edsu]
guus: skos is not the same thing as owl, we need to show developers what they should do
12:42:35 [edsu]
... they look for situations where they might find more than one prefLabel, and what should they do?
12:42:46 [RalphS]
[I'm not particularly in favor of telling apps what to do if they find a violation of a constraint]
12:43:12 [edsu]
sub-topic d: super property
12:43:26 [edsu]
aliman: at the moment they are all subclasses of rdfs:label
12:43:29 [RalphS]
[I'm confused -- did we change from "cannot" ? ]
12:43:34 [edsu]
... I can't see any reason to drop it
12:43:59 [edsu]
[RalphS we haven't ... maybe pipe up on phone to get them to go back]
12:44:29 [edsu]
aliman: we have resolved to build semantics on owl full, so i can't think of any reason to drop this
12:44:32 [RalphS]
[I'm not worried about OWL DL and think that more apps will usefully take advantage of rdfs:label
12:45:15 [edsu]
guus: it's a feature we often use, from the DL spec
12:45:23 [edsu]
seanb: i think that's fair enough
12:45:39 [edsu]
guus: won't hurt many people in the DL world
12:45:53 [RalphS]
[thanks, Ed; I'll let it pass for now. I would only object to a MUST NOT decision w.r.t. label disjointness constraints]
12:46:30 [edsu]
diego: i have concern about hiddenLabel because it might be get taken as a prefLabel
12:46:59 [edsu]
aliman: that's a good reason why you might drop it from being a subclass
12:47:27 [edsu]
guus: the problem with that distinction is the notion of authority
12:48:11 [edsu]
seanb: it seems strange to break the spec to cater to those who are not respecting the spec
12:48:39 [edsu]
guus: if a vocab owner wants to enforce it, they need some sort of authority set up, and that's outside the scope
12:48:59 [edsu]
... recurring theme, and we should deal w/ the issue as it is outside of scope
12:49:49 [edsu]
Antoine: is it worth noting that this is a problematic axiom?
12:50:36 [RalphS]
q+ to ask Alistair what sorts of free text searches this hiddenLabel semantics is meant to assist
12:50:49 [edsu]
guus: there are a few of these situations, would be useful to list carefully details about OWL DL
12:52:42 [edsu]
ACTION: alistair to update semantics document to listing ways in which ways SKOS diverges from OWL DL
12:53:03 [edsu]
RESOLVED skos:prefLabel, skos:altLabel and skos:hiddenLabel are all sub-properties of rdfs:label
12:53:16 [edsu]
ivan: would the list be kept with respect to owl 1.1?
12:53:37 [edsu]
guus: not going to make skos work dependent on newly formed working group
12:53:39 [RalphS]
12:53:56 [edsu]
sub topic e: Formally Stating the Range Semantics
12:54:23 [edsu]
aliman: if we choose the range to be plain literals then how do we state that?
12:54:50 [edsu]
... we could use rdf triples to state the range, but there's no URI for rdf plain literals
12:55:52 [edsu]
... or we could use normative prose
12:56:13 [edsu]
guus: is this a problem?
12:56:14 [RalphS]
q+ to ask Alistair why he doesn't believe there's value in minting a URI for the subClass of rdfs:Literal wanted by SKOS
12:56:41 [edsu]
aliman: the question is how are we going to express our intentions, a valid question is whether it is worthwhile stating it formally
12:57:40 [edsu]
RalphS: why would minting the uri not haven any value?
12:57:53 [Zakim]
RalphS, you wanted to ask Alistair why he doesn't believe there's value in minting a URI for the subClass of rdfs:Literal wanted by SKOS
12:58:30 [edsu]
aliman: i didn't know any applications that would need that expressed in triples
12:58:34 [TomB]
TomB has joined #swd
12:58:55 [edsu]
RalphS: how is that different from the disjointness inferencing
12:59:12 [edsu]
aliman: if there's a clash between a prefLabel and an altLabel then applications would break
12:59:25 [edsu]
... but i'm not sure they need to do the same with it being a plain literal
13:00:38 [edsu]
RalphS: i agree about the range semantics, but you do seem to want to put the constraints into other places, there seems to be a mental model that you have that i'm trying to understand better
13:01:21 [edsu]
aliman: we should probably state things formally: either as rdf triples, or as some sort of prose
13:01:42 [edsu]
guus: are you trying to solve something that even the owl community hasn't tried to solve?
13:02:46 [edsu]
aliman: lets move on to the next subtopic then
13:03:12 [edsu]
TomB: aren't we saying that we want to move normative prose and agree on option 2?
13:03:51 [RalphS]
[if we're trying to drive a generic editor from these constraints then I can understand wanting to formally specify an rdfs:range -- however, I doubt that will be as useful for SKOS. The benefit of the rdfs:range on inferring the type of an Object is pretty small for SKOS IMHO]
13:05:23 [RalphS]
q+ to propose an auxiliary triple set whose purpose is to suggest more thorough validation of a [merged] graph
13:06:16 [edsu]
RalphS: we can make some auxiliarly triples available
13:06:20 [Zakim]
RalphS, you wanted to propose an auxiliary triple set whose purpose is to suggest more thorough validation of a [merged] graph
13:08:10 [edsu]
guus: it means (w/r/t issue 26) if you would need separate property for labels that represent literals and labels that represent resources
13:09:17 [edsu]
guus: i'm tempted to go in the direction of explicit labels
13:10:30 [edsu]
... the semantic conditions for one language get more difficult to express
13:10:45 [edsu]
aliman: i think i can state the language constraint :)
13:11:42 [edsu]
guus: at some point we have to swallow this potato
13:12:07 [edsu]
aliman: why don't we swallow the potato with option 1, and see what we can do, and what we can't do
13:12:41 [JonP]
JonP has joined #swd
13:13:47 [edsu]
RESOLVED: The range of skos:prefLabel, skos:altLabel and skos:hiddenLabel is the class of RDF plain literals.
13:14:25 [edsu]
... (subtopic A)
13:14:31 [guuss]
guuss has joined #swd
13:14:32 [edsu]
antoine abstains
13:14:38 [RalphS]
(and that class needs a URI, which SWD might coin for this purpose?)
13:15:30 [seanb]
Depends on how this is stated though...
13:15:37 [RalphS]
(we can come back to the URI question when we decide how much to state formally in RDF)
13:16:39 [edsu]
guus: all semantic conditions for a prefLabel and a prefLabelResource would have to depend on a super-property
13:16:48 [edsu]
[guus is drawing on white board]
13:17:00 [edsu]
aliman: it's easier if you do two separate properties
13:17:37 [edsu]
guuss: prefLabel, altLabel and hiddenLabel also are dependent
13:17:51 [edsu]
... it's a potential issue
13:18:08 [edsu]
aliman: i don't see how it gets any easier if you have them all inherit from one property
13:18:49 [edsu]
Antoine: might make axioms easier to construct (sorry i missed details of that)
13:18:55 [edsu]
[short break]
13:19:35 [RalphS]
[is it the same people in the meeting room this afternoon as in the morning, with Vit's arrival? Perhaps Mark and Steven have departed?]
13:20:06 [edsu]
yes, both mark and stevan left
13:20:20 [RalphS]
thanks, Ed. And no one else has arrived, I gather
13:20:27 [edsu]
13:20:49 [edsu]
[do square brackets mean it's invisible to the minutes?]
13:21:13 [RalphS]
[no, it's just my notion for an administrative sort-of message]
13:21:21 [edsu]
[ok :)]
13:22:56 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate RalphS
13:24:59 [TomB]
TomB has joined #swd
13:25:05 [seanb]
scribe: seanb
13:25:28 [seanb]
Antoine: Problem with plain literal as range.
13:25:47 [seanb]
...Two issues.
13:25:55 [seanb]
...1) Concepts linked to literals
13:26:03 [seanb]
...2) Concepts linked to resources
13:26:48 [seanb]
...If we have
13:27:02 [seanb]
...c skos:prefLabel R
13:27:09 [seanb]
...R label "shrub"
13:27:23 [seanb]
... then we create a new triple
13:27:35 [seanb]
...c skos:prefLabel "shrub"
13:27:57 [seanb] any triple invovling the resource, would entail a triple invovling the literal.
13:28:42 [seanb]
...might actually be:
13:28:48 [seanb]
...c skos:prefLabelR R
13:29:33 [seanb]
...then can state conditions as "a concept can only have one prefLabel which is a literal".
13:29:59 [TomB]
scribe: edsu
13:30:36 [edsu]
RESOLVED (for subtopic e) # State in normative prose that the range of the SKOS lexical labelling properties is actually the class of RDF plain literals; retain the current declaration in RDF triples that the range of these properties is rdfs:Literal.
13:30:50 [edsu]
13:30:58 [edsu]
moving on to subtopic f
13:31:35 [edsu]
aliman: looking at ex:foo skos:prefLabel ex:bar
13:31:44 [edsu]
... all we get is ex:bar is a plain literal
13:31:50 [edsu]
... we could state a syntax constraint
13:32:23 [edsu]
... Firstly, do we want to state a syntax constraint? (yes/no)
13:32:30 [edsu]
... and if we do, how do we do it?
13:32:50 [edsu]
... we could use normative prose or sparql -- not much precedent for this
13:33:42 [edsu]
... and thirdly what do applications do with that constraint?
13:33:55 [edsu]
... does the application generate an error or quitely handle it?
13:34:15 [RalphS]
q+ to suggest that for purposes of SKOS we should not tell applications how to handle errors
13:34:37 [edsu]
TomB: i think you're making an assumption that if we do want to express contraints that we need to define application behavior
13:34:49 [edsu]
guuss: we can make a spec and say tools SHOULD ...
13:35:42 [edsu]
guuss: my proposal is that we have a general rule MUST, SHOULD or MAY and you might have some exceptions
13:36:49 [edsu]
aliman: what are the options for an application?
13:37:25 [edsu]
RalphS: i strongly think in this particular case we shouldn't advocate particular application behaviors
13:38:03 [edsu]
... don't want to madate the behavior of user interface
13:38:18 [edsu]
... do you want your cellphone to flag a warning when it encounters a skos error?
13:38:33 [edsu]
seanb: what's a skos application?
13:39:21 [edsu]
... we need to narrow down the applications that are consuming these things: vocabulary checker for example
13:39:32 [Zakim]
RalphS, you wanted to suggest that for purposes of SKOS we should not tell applications how to handle errors
13:39:42 [edsu]
aliman: what do we call this class of application?
13:39:50 [edsu]
seanb: it's a vocabulary checker
13:40:15 [edsu]
aliman: i'm happy to define a class of application and go from there
13:40:37 [edsu]
guus: i had vocabulary checker in my mind when we were talking about this
13:41:18 [edsu]
aliman: can we resolve that yes, we want to include contraints and a skos vocab checker must raise a warning
13:41:22 [RalphS]
if Guus:SKOSapplication is the subclass that is doing formal SKOS vocabulary checking, I'm more comfortable :)
13:43:47 [edsu]
RESOLVED that the application under discussion is a vocabulary checker, and what we're trying to decide is how a vocabulary checker should handle violations of constraints
13:45:23 [edsu]
RESOLVED where label properties are used as predicates the object must be a rdf plain literal
13:45:28 [RalphS]
as an editorial convention, then, for the benefit of our future readers I suggest we use a modifier term such as "validating application"
13:45:59 [edsu]
s/the application under/the validating application under/
13:46:05 [RalphS]
13:46:49 [edsu]
moving on to sub topic G
13:47:04 [RalphS]
(I'm suggesting "validating application" in the REC spec too :)
13:48:07 [edsu]
aliman: here we come back to disjointness, and how we formally state it
13:48:16 [edsu]
... one option is to use some prose
13:48:52 [edsu]
... we could use the conventions set out in rdf-semantics
13:48:54 [danbri]
danbri has joined #swd
13:49:13 [edsu]
guuss: if we follow the first approach there will be someone who writes a document for these formal semantics
13:49:38 [RalphS]
will any of our expected readers want to see the degree of formal semantic language used in [RDF-SEMANTICS] ?
13:49:48 [edsu]
guuss: i would be very happy w/ the first option
13:50:04 [Elisa]
Elisa has joined #swd
13:50:25 [edsu]
seanb: how do you expect it to be used? if you are doing vocab checking you will be ok w/ option 1
13:50:29 [RalphS]
q+ to suggest there's grave risk in making SKOS look complicated
13:50:42 [TomB]
Elisa, hi! Are you ready to start VM topic at the hour?
13:51:08 [TomB]
ack RalphS
13:51:48 [Steven]
Steven has joined #swd
13:52:04 [edsu]
RalphS: it seems to me the community of practice might be more comfortable with option 1
13:52:45 [edsu]
aliman: the idea would be the skos semantics would be rigorous, and the skos primer would have the less technical description
13:53:17 [Zakim]
Ralph, you wanted to suggest there's grave risk in making SKOS look complicated
13:56:16 [RalphS]
(actually, to clarify, I believe there's grave risk in making the principal SKOS Recommendation document look complicated]
13:56:22 [edsu]
guuss: there are advantages to unamgibuously stating things
13:56:28 [edsu]
seanb: it's a trade off
13:56:35 [Zakim]
13:56:50 [edsu]
TomB: we need to wrap up this subtopic and move on to vocab management
13:57:03 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate RalphS
13:58:53 [edsu]
RESOLVED (subtopic G) use normative prose to state a semantic condition on the interpretation of the three properties: prefLabel, altLabel and hiddenLabel
14:00:33 [Antoine]
14:00:46 [Antoine]
Topic: Vocabulary Management
14:06:07 [TomB_]
TomB_ has joined #swd
14:06:21 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate RalphS
14:08:30 [RalphS]
-> Vocabulary Management [Wiki] Draft
14:10:57 [Antoine]
Elisa: collect has been collected from different people...
14:11:21 [Antoine]
... overview of several topic area that we think are important
14:11:54 [Antoine]
... to give people pointers to work out there, best practices
14:12:07 [Antoine]
... not list of exact receipes
14:12:25 [Antoine]
... for a number of problems there is not necessarily one good way
14:12:43 [Antoine]
... this document tells what you should think about when creating your RDF voc
14:13:15 [Antoine]
... [listing of the different parts of the document]
14:14:19 [Antoine]
... the issue is very important for metadata mngt in general
14:14:35 [Antoine]
... linked to some documents released by OMG?
14:15:18 [Antoine]
... which has been using the term "ontology" for a while
14:15:58 [Antoine]
... OMG has issued a "document management scheme"
14:16:06 [Antoine]
... with issues that are of interest
14:17:48 [Antoine]
... the first thing I'm looking for from the group is to step back
14:18:04 [Antoine]
... considering briefly what exists eg with XML schema
14:18:30 [Antoine]
... and makes people comfortable
14:18:56 [Antoine]
... also commercial perspective, w/ vocabularies living a lot longer than imagined
14:20:26 [Antoine]
... also a standardisation aspect (government concerns, LoC)
14:21:42 [Antoine]
Guus: observation: given our resources, it would be wiser to focus on RDF vocs
14:22:02 [Antoine]
Tom: I'd be relunctant to extend the scope outside of RDF
14:22:27 [Antoine]
... but if we did have a well-formulated set of principles for RDF
14:22:37 [Antoine]
... it could be useful for other kinds of vocs
14:22:43 [Antoine]
Elisa: I agree
14:23:34 [Antoine]
Guus: question: current doc has 5 sections: are these the 5 that are adequate?
14:24:08 [Antoine]
Elisa: yes, but one more topic (perhaps under documentation): provenance
14:24:28 [Antoine]
... when developing your ontologies, pointing at sources
14:24:40 [Antoine]
... we should inclue that
14:25:02 [Antoine]
Guus: question about authority: which part of the vocabulary published on the web is yours
14:25:06 [Antoine]
... is it included?
14:25:20 [Antoine]
Elisa: not. It could be related to provenance, but is separate
14:25:52 [Antoine]
Guus: if you use broader link between 2 vocs: which triples do you sanction then?
14:25:55 [edsu]
Elisa: it seems somewhat related to "An RDF description of an RDF vocabulary should be published. Potential users should be clearly informed as to which is the 'authoritative' RDF description of an RDF vocabulary." in there
14:27:06 [Antoine]
Ralph: we just have the policy to put it in your namespace
14:27:29 [Antoine]
Guus: you can have a guideline on using ontologies and owl:import
14:27:34 [RalphS]
we'll want to do more trust statements eventually, but I don't think we want to try to tackle that in the current lifetime of this WG
14:28:22 [Antoine]
Elisa: first section on URI for naming with discussion on Cool URIs is in shape
14:28:32 [Antoine]
... needs perhaps a few URIs
14:28:44 [Antoine]
... and examples (bioportal?)
14:29:05 [Antoine]
... the second section could be added with information from the work of OMG
14:29:10 [danbri]
(to comment from sidelines ... I'd suggest "an" authoritative, rather than "the" authority. The word "the" is appropriate to indicate there is but one authority, ... but that authority might write various descriptions)
14:29:29 [Antoine]
... including DC and SKOS as considerations
14:29:34 [danbri]
(esp with xml-sig or pgp-signed statements, descriptions can be scattered)
14:29:41 [RalphS]
(there's clear overlap between the
14:29:46 [Antoine]
... the third section is an area that needs help
14:30:06 [RalphS]
"readable documentation" section and the SWEO URI note on content negotiation)
14:30:11 [Antoine]
... we should come with a short list
14:30:45 [Antoine]
... on what people have done
14:31:03 [RalphS]
q+ to comment on maintenance policies -- make or buy?
14:31:08 [Antoine]
... the fourth section could be added with pointers
14:31:32 [Antoine]
... finally publishing a formal schema section could be added with examples
14:31:39 [Antoine]
... and point back to the receipes doc
14:31:48 [Antoine]
... this section should not be very big
14:32:20 [Zakim]
14:33:19 [TomB]
RalphS you have a strong echo
14:33:23 [Antoine]
... Ralph: if we can point to examples of policies
14:33:31 [mhausenblas]
zakim, mute me
14:33:31 [Zakim]
sorry, mhausenblas, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
14:33:33 [TomB]
...hard to understand...
14:33:42 [RalphS]
zakim, mute michael
14:33:42 [Zakim]
Michael_Hausenblas should now be muted
14:34:27 [Antoine]
Ralph: useful contribution could be to suggest which parts of a voc are stable, which parts need development
14:35:36 [Antoine]
Elisa: agree with Ralph proposal
14:35:48 [Antoine]
... OMG stuff should bring useful info
14:36:03 [Antoine]
Ralph: in SKOS draft we have some notion of stable/unstable
14:36:08 [TomB]
14:36:21 [Zakim]
Ralph, you wanted to comment on maintenance policies -- make or buy?
14:36:45 [Antoine]
Vit: talk + input for discussion
14:37:04 [Antoine]
... 3 contributions from Knowledge Web
14:37:13 [Antoine]
... ontology version survey
14:37:21 [Antoine]
... ontology versioning impl
14:37:33 [Antoine]
... setting for inference in dynamics
14:38:13 [Antoine]
... Vocabulary mngt has a lot of synergies with ontology dynamics
14:38:44 [Antoine]
... 1: results of survey of key industry and academia players
14:39:05 [Antoine]
... intended as a requirement analysis for SemVersion
14:39:44 [Antoine]
... 3 main sections: background, approaches to versioning, required features fro versioning
14:40:02 [Antoine]
... observations: tools are needed
14:40:19 [RalphS]
[Vit is presenting from slides? Are those in the Web?]
14:41:06 [Antoine]
... dichotomic understanding of VM topic (repeated editing of one version vs. multiple releases)
14:41:42 [Antoine]
... agreement on basic metadata, importance of discussion
14:42:26 [Antoine]
... multi-version reasoning is welcome
14:43:04 [Antoine]
... (really academic, C-OWL)
14:43:32 [Antoine]
... [Presentation of SemVersion]
14:43:55 [Antoine]
14:44:52 [Antoine]
... not dependant on a store
14:45:02 [Antoine]
... there is a MD model for versioning
14:46:06 [Antoine]
... SemVersion can be called via API, for Java
14:46:19 [Antoine]
... Protégé plug-in
14:46:48 [Antoine]
... [inference in dynamic settings]
14:47:12 [Antoine]
... all this inference stuff is work in progress, mainly academic
14:48:38 [Antoine]
... bridging concepts accross different versions
14:48:54 [Antoine]
... [Suggested progress]
14:49:16 [Antoine]
... results of the survey could be reflected in the VM doc
14:49:52 [Antoine]
...introduction could reflect the multiple ways of voc maintenance
14:50:47 [Antoine]
... sec2 on doc can be extended by rec on change documentation and discussion process MarcOnt Portal, Protégé CHAO ontology)
14:51:25 [Antoine]
... sec3 on maintenance policies can benefit from change documentation
14:51:40 [Antoine]
... sec 4 with reference to versioning metadata
14:52:11 [Antoine]
... [SemVersion implementation can also be reflected in several parts]
14:52:44 [Antoine]
... [Inference: less sure what should be put in the document]
14:53:09 [Antoine]
... logical consequences of changes
14:54:02 [Antoine]
... for section 2
14:54:52 [Antoine]
Guus: How far are you from bridging this to the VM doc?
14:55:01 [Antoine]
... especially to the use cases
14:55:27 [Antoine]
Vit: it's tricky. Even SemVersion is a research prototype
14:55:51 [Antoine]
Guus: what are the elements that you have that would fit the draft. Examples of what people do?
14:56:09 [Antoine]
Vit: people use subversion, CVS, detecting the syntactic changes
14:56:43 [Antoine]
Guus: many vocabularies are reinventing the wheel
14:57:01 [Antoine]
Vit: the survey was meant as requirement analysis
14:57:14 [Antoine]
... not exactly in details e.g. on how people use CVS
14:58:21 [Antoine]
Guus: if people are real people with the same needs
14:58:33 [mhausenblas]
Zakim, unmute michael
14:58:33 [Zakim]
Michael_Hausenblas should no longer be muted
14:58:41 [Antoine]
Vit: they had almost the same requirements
14:59:07 [Antoine]
Ed: is this document on how people should do subversion?
14:59:18 [Antoine]
Jon: raw results survey?
14:59:28 [Antoine]
Vit: this was sent to the list
14:59:59 [Antoine]
... not the raw results. I can check if it is doable
15:00:06 [TomB]
mhausenblas, you are ready to discuss Cool URIs?
15:00:14 [Antoine]
Guus: about maintenance policies?
15:00:17 [TomB]
...or do you have a phone problem?
15:00:45 [Antoine]
Vit: some experience with Digital Library project
15:00:54 [Antoine]
... they are re-building their platform
15:01:14 [Antoine]
... it has been used for mediation between different library-related models
15:01:36 [Antoine]
... there was something done, by one group
15:01:48 [Antoine]
Guus: more on MD format than on vocabulary side
15:02:35 [Antoine]
Vit: example on how people interact when developing
15:02:46 [Antoine]
Guus: they're not vocabulary owners
15:03:04 [Antoine]
Vit: they cooperate with library people
15:03:20 [Antoine]
.. we are discussing with them
15:03:58 [Antoine]
Tom: step back, look at the charter
15:04:09 [Antoine]
... if we agree that the 5 heading are reasonible
15:04:20 [Antoine]
... I see a danger in going into too much detail
15:04:26 [Zakim]
15:04:34 [RalphS]
?? oops
15:04:40 [Antoine]
... it might be practical to keep to current length, even shorten it
15:05:05 [Antoine]
... if we go into more details, we'll run into problems
15:05:18 [Antoine]
... first would be editorial, with parts having more details
15:05:36 [Antoine]
... also we're at the border between what is good practice and what is experimental
15:06:06 [Antoine]
... the draft has not moved significantly in the past
15:06:16 [Zakim]
15:06:17 [Antoine]
... we need to know what the final product should be
15:06:57 [Antoine]
... I hesitate to suggest we can much beyond than identify versions
15:07:34 [Antoine]
Vit: maybe we don't have to go into detail and point references
15:07:50 [Antoine]
Guus: if we keep very short I'd like examples
15:08:15 [Antoine]
... based on Vit's survey which can provide good practices for version mngmt
15:08:41 [Antoine]
Tom: for sbdy who is approaching RDF vocabulary from outside, what do you need to think?
15:09:01 [Antoine]
... we have not questioned the headings of the text
15:09:24 [Antoine]
... we should keep it and provide footnotes in different directions
15:09:34 [Antoine]
... e.g. versioning policy for Dublin Core
15:09:52 [Antoine]
... but not to try to build up a substantial set of guidelines
15:10:30 [Antoine]
... would it be valueable to have such a document?
15:10:58 [Antoine]
Elisa: I agree with Tom
15:11:31 [Antoine]
... we could point to the result of the survey in a paragraph
15:12:34 [Antoine]
Guus: KW could contribute two sections for the documents, 1-2 pages
15:12:43 [Antoine]
... on version management, maintenance
15:12:46 [RalphS]
15:13:19 [Antoine]
... define 5 or 7 sections, allocate person for sections
15:13:26 [Antoine]
... compiling and gettting it out
15:14:00 [Antoine]
Ralph: suggestion for Vit: survey was anonymous, but identification of examples is possible
15:14:39 [Antoine]
Guus: we all agree on this. Vit and Elisa can come with annotated version of the document
15:14:49 [Antoine]
... with actions to be taken by persons
15:16:04 [Antoine]
ACTION: on Vit and Elisa to include in the document all the target sections plus an allocation of sections to people and potentially a standard structure for sections
15:17:06 [Antoine]
Tom: there is an issue about the document giving two definitions for a RDF vocabulary
15:17:24 [Antoine]
Alistair: I wrote the two ones!
15:19:10 [Antoine]
15:19:27 [mhausenblas]
-> Summary of Cool URI review
15:20:10 [mhausenblas]
-> Goal for SWD feedback
15:20:25 [Antoine]
Michael: Leo asked for feedback from SWD
15:21:10 [mhausenblas]
-> Possible solution to Vit's concern
15:21:41 [Antoine]
... Vit: indeed it is a kind of solution
15:21:53 [Antoine]
... I would like it to be mentioned more explicitly
15:23:33 [Antoine]
Michael: about readable content of triple
15:23:44 [RalphS]
Michael: ask SWEO to consider whether all the design recommendations still apply to GRDDL-able documents
15:24:25 [RalphS]
... or are they primarily for cases in which the HTML and RDF are in separate documents
15:25:07 [Antoine]
Michael: the minimal solution should be to put it in the scope
15:25:20 [Antoine]
... it needs to be mentioned
15:25:37 [RalphS]
"I say 'RDFa' because it's a lot easier to say than 'GRDDLable'"
15:25:47 [Antoine]
... I have volunteered for reformulating the Wiki page
15:26:47 [Antoine]
Ivan: I think Leo and Richard would not be happy to go into the complete RDFa/GRIDDL
15:26:58 [guuss]
ack ralph
15:27:03 [mhausenblas]
15:27:41 [Antoine]
Ralph: some of the rec they're making not apply in the case of RDFa/GRIDDL document
15:27:46 [mhausenblas]
+1 to Ralph
15:27:58 [Antoine]
... we can point to specific parts
15:28:05 [Antoine]
... they need quick feedback
15:28:33 [Antoine]
Tom: Michael, you suggested putting the editorial issues back, focusing on one/two issues
15:28:49 [Antoine]
... first: what we say about RDFa/GRIDDL docs
15:29:23 [Antoine]
... minimal solution is to acknowledge that they read the doc to see which design recs would not apply
15:29:33 [Antoine]
... and acknowledge in the scope these issues
15:29:52 [Antoine]
Michael: e.g. the redirect solution: we cannot do that with RDFa
15:30:38 [Antoine]
Tom: you're willing to take an action on making a specific recommendation?
15:30:42 [edsu]
15:31:10 [guuss]
ack edsu
15:31:30 [Antoine]
Ed: maybe we could provide an examples of how we see a RDFa doc feeting in the Cool URI doc
15:31:38 [Antoine]
15:31:38 [mhausenblas]
15:32:15 [Antoine]
... the core of the doc in on non-information resources
15:32:26 [Antoine]
... while RDFa is about information resources
15:32:55 [ivan]
15:33:04 [Antoine]
Tom: we need a well-formulated text
15:33:47 [Antoine]
Ivan: what is intended?
15:34:04 [Antoine]
... anything more than a mention is a scope is a grey area
15:34:28 [Antoine]
... they did document the current status, as provided by TAG and others
15:34:42 [Antoine]
... I would not like any additional technical work in the doc
15:34:59 [Antoine]
Tom: Michael can only recommend the mention in the scope
15:35:05 [Antoine]
Ivan: OK
15:36:25 [danbri]
danbri has joined #swd
15:37:08 [Antoine]
ACTION: Michael to summarize the discussion and the wiki page and formulate a scoping remark as a draft suggestion from SWD to the authors of Cool URIs
15:38:02 [Antoine]
Ivan: from the SWEO side we need to know where the document stops from your point of view
15:38:19 [mhausenblas]
15:38:19 [mhausenblas]
15:38:38 [ivan]
ack iv
15:38:55 [Antoine]
Tom: if we can get back to Leo within two weeks we're in his target
15:39:04 [mhausenblas]
ack me
15:39:50 [RalphS]
[I hope Michael will still post his editorial comments to Leo, if only as an individual contribution]
15:40:20 [Antoine]
Michael: we already discussed the issue raised by Vit
15:41:19 [RalphS]
q+ to ask Ivan about SWEO's intention to move the bits to
15:41:51 [Antoine]
Ivan: I have put a copy of the doc on the W3C site
15:42:14 [Antoine]
Guus: topic is closed
15:42:26 [ivan]
-> W3C URI for the Cool URI document
15:43:28 [Zakim]
15:43:30 [Zakim]
15:43:38 [RalphS]
[adjourned for day 1]
15:44:53 [Antoine]
rrsagent, please make minutes public
15:44:53 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'please make minutes public', Antoine. Try /msg RRSAgent help
15:45:05 [Antoine]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
15:45:05 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Antoine
15:45:06 [mhausenblas]
rrsagent. make logs public
15:46:06 [edsu]
15:46:13 [RalphS]
Ivan, could you ask Leo to correct the Status of this Document to say that it's an editors' draft of a future IG Note. Perhaps you're not ready to solicit public comments just yet, but ask readers to wait until it is published?
15:47:21 [edsu]
RalphS: ivan says for you to send mail on this, because he has disconnected
15:47:29 [RalphS]
roger, Ed; thanks
15:48:21 [edsu]
(from ivan) actually, I will edit; he does not have an access to this document, I just make a snapshot of it (we agreed with Leo)\
15:49:17 [edsu]
ok, time to leave ... seeyas
15:49:55 [Antoine]
Antoine has left #swd
15:53:19 [Zakim]
15:53:28 [Zakim]
15:53:29 [Zakim]
SW_SWD(f2f)3:00AM has ended
15:53:30 [Zakim]
Attendees were Ralph, MeetingRoom, Elisa_Kendall, Michael_Hausenblas
16:34:19 [seanb]
seanb has joined #swd
16:40:17 [RalphS]
zakim, bye
16:40:17 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #swd
16:40:48 [RalphS]
rrsagent, bye
16:40:48 [RRSAgent]
I see 8 open action items saved in :
16:40:48 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: antoine to review RDFa Primer before next telecon (within two weeks). [1]
16:40:48 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:40:48 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Guus/Tom to propose joint decisions for reviews for major steps/transition requests. Informal agreement about working drafts. [2]
16:40:48 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:40:48 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ben to prepare draft implementation report for RDFa (with assistance from Michael) [3]
16:40:48 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:40:48 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ben to update RDFa schedule in wiki [4]
16:40:48 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:40:48 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: TF to address comments by Tom [5]
16:40:48 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:40:48 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: alistair to update semantics document to listing ways in which ways SKOS diverges from OWL DL [6]
16:40:48 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:40:48 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: on Vit and Elisa to include in the document all the target sections plus an allocation of sections to people and potentially a standard structure for sections [7]
16:40:48 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:40:48 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Michael to summarize the discussion and the wiki page and formulate a scoping remark as a draft suggestion from SWD to the authors of Cool URIs [8]
16:40:48 [RRSAgent]
recorded in