IRC log of swd on 2007-10-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:53:26 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #swd
14:53:26 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:53:32 [Ralph]
Meeting: SWD WG
14:53:39 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #swd
14:53:42 [Ralph]
zakim, this will be swd
14:53:42 [Zakim]
ok, Ralph; I see SW_SWD()11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
14:54:57 [Ralph]
-> previous 2007-10-23
14:55:09 [Ralph]
14:55:23 [Ralph]
Ralph has changed the topic to: SWD 30-Oct agenda
14:55:50 [Tom]
Tom has joined #swd
14:56:03 [Tom]
i will be a few minutes late today...!
14:58:40 [edsu]
edsu has joined #swd
14:58:45 [Zakim]
SW_SWD()11:00AM has now started
14:58:54 [Zakim]
14:59:46 [Zakim]
14:59:49 [Elisa]
Elisa has joined #swd
14:59:54 [Tom]
do we have a scribe?
14:59:59 [Zakim]
15:00:20 [Ralph]
zakim, mute lc
15:00:23 [Zakim]
[LC] should now be muted
15:00:28 [Ralph]
zakim, unmute lc
15:00:34 [Ralph]
zakim, lc.a is Ed
15:00:35 [Zakim]
[LC] should no longer be muted
15:00:39 [Zakim]
+Ed; got it
15:00:39 [Ralph]
zakim, lc is Justin
15:00:41 [Zakim]
+Justin; got it
15:00:49 [Antoine]
Antoine has joined #swd
15:01:13 [seanb]
seanb has joined #swd
15:01:15 [Zakim]
15:01:36 [aliman]
aliman has joined #swd
15:02:14 [Zakim]
+ +1.317.031.aaaa
15:02:27 [Ralph]
zakim, aaaa is Antoine
15:02:27 [Zakim]
+Antoine; got it
15:02:46 [JonP]
JonP has joined #swd
15:03:05 [Zakim]
15:03:17 [Ralph]
zakim, ??p35 is Alistair
15:03:17 [Zakim]
+Alistair; got it
15:03:24 [Zakim]
15:03:37 [Ralph]
zakim, ??p36 is Sean
15:03:38 [Zakim]
15:03:42 [Zakim]
+Sean; got it
15:03:55 [aliman]
zakim, mute alistair
15:04:02 [Zakim]
Alistair should now be muted
15:04:23 [berrueta]
berrueta has joined #swd
15:05:18 [GuusS]
[trouvle calling in]
15:05:40 [Zakim]
15:05:59 [Zakim]
15:06:05 [berrueta]
zakim, [CTIC] is me
15:06:05 [Zakim]
+berrueta; got it
15:07:08 [GuusS]
zakim, who is here
15:07:08 [Zakim]
GuusS, you need to end that query with '?'
15:07:24 [GuusS]
zakim, who is here?
15:07:24 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Justin, Ed, Ralph, Elisa_Kendall, Antoine, Alistair (muted), Sean, JonP, Guus_Schreiber, berrueta
15:07:26 [Zakim]
On IRC I see berrueta, JonP, aliman, seanb, Antoine, Elisa, edsu, Tom, Zakim, RRSAgent, Ralph, GuusS
15:09:08 [seanb]
scribenick: seanb
15:09:22 [seanb]
Topic: Admin
15:11:54 [seanb]
Guus: PROPOSE to accept the minutes of the F2F with
15:12:17 [seanb]
...amendments from Antoine
15:12:25 [seanb]
15:12:30 [seanb]
15:12:39 [Tom]
...and from Tom
15:12:57 [Tom]
15:13:16 [seanb]
ACTION: Ralph to update face to face minutes to reflect the amendment
15:13:24 [aliman]
zakim, umute me
15:13:24 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'umute me', aliman
15:14:00 [Ralph]
zakim, nick aliman is alistair
15:14:04 [Zakim]
ok, Ralph, I now associate aliman with Alistair
15:14:25 [seanb]
Alistair: Would like to discuss this more in the SKOS section.
15:14:38 [Zakim]
15:14:54 [Tom]
zakim, ??P7 is Tom
15:14:54 [Zakim]
+Tom; got it
15:15:00 [seanb]
...Thought that third resolution was "skos:Concept" is not disjoint with owl:Class".
15:15:16 [seanb]
...Alistair recalled this as "we would say nothing".
15:15:42 [seanb]
...We should be explicit about the fact that we say nothing.
15:15:55 [seanb]
Guus: Discuss this in skos section
15:16:55 [aliman]
Alistair: I thought our resolution was to *say nothing* about disjointness between skos:Concept and owl:Class.
15:18:10 [Tom]
15:18:17 [Ralph]
PROPOSED: We explicitly say nothing about whether skos:Concept is not disjoint with owl:Class
15:18:28 [Ralph]
s/ not //
15:19:37 [Zakim]
15:19:48 [aliman]
s/is/is or is not/
15:19:50 [Ralph]
PROPOSED: We explicitly say nothing about whether skos:Concept is disjoint with owl:Class
15:19:53 [dlrubin]
dlrubin has joined #swd
15:20:24 [Ralph]
zakim, ??p19 is Daniel
15:20:24 [Zakim]
+Daniel; got it
15:21:24 [seanb]
PROPOSE to accept the minutes of the F2F with
15:21:24 [seanb]
...amendments from Antoine
15:21:25 [seanb]
15:21:25 [seanb]
15:21:25 [seanb]
...Additional amendment from Alistair
15:21:25 [seanb]
...We explicitly say nothing about whether skos:Concept is disjoint with owl:Class
15:21:27 [seanb]
...and from Tom
15:21:29 [seanb]
15:21:58 [Clay]
Clay has joined #swd
15:22:24 [Zakim]
15:23:29 [Clay]
zakim, LC is Clay
15:23:30 [Zakim]
+Clay; got it
15:23:37 [Zakim]
15:23:40 [Tom_]
Tom_ has joined #swd
15:23:56 [seanb]
PROPOSE to accept the minutes of the F2F with
15:23:56 [seanb]
...amendments from Antoine
15:23:57 [seanb]
15:23:57 [seanb]
15:23:57 [seanb]
...Additional amendment from Alistair
15:23:57 [seanb]
...We make no statement either way about whether skos:Concept is disjoint or not disjoint with owl:Class
15:23:59 [seanb]
...and from Tom
15:24:01 [seanb]
15:24:23 [berrueta_]
berrueta_ has joined #swd
15:24:23 [Zakim]
15:24:31 [seanb]
RESOLVED to accept the minutes with the above amendments
15:24:37 [Tom_]
zakim, ??P7 is Tom
15:24:37 [Zakim]
+Tom; got it
15:24:45 [seanb]
Ralph: did we capture the attendees?
15:25:29 [seanb]
PROPOSED to accept minutes of the Oct 23 telecon:
15:25:29 [seanb]
15:25:36 [seanb]
15:25:53 [seanb]
Topic: SWD review of "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web"
15:26:01 [seanb]
Guus: Nothing to track here for this telecon
15:26:10 [seanb]
...comments have gone to SWEO group. For the moment,
15:26:15 [seanb]
...we can be silent on this.
15:26:27 [seanb]
Ralph: We're done with that task. Can remove from agenda
15:26:35 [seanb]
Topic: SKOS
15:27:24 [Ralph]
15:27:32 [Antoine]
15:28:07 [seanb]
Guus: The minutes capture the interpretation.
15:28:29 [aliman]
15:29:11 [seanb]
Ralph: We're happy that it's not functional?
15:29:21 [seanb]
Guus: Yes, there may be examples where it's not.
15:29:38 [seanb]
Ralph: Context of that discussion were w.r.t the semantics of inScheme
15:29:59 [seanb]
...recently had a discussion in a separate group about semantics of isDefinedBy
15:30:09 [seanb]
...would be nice to have even stronger semantics for isDefinedBy
15:30:57 [aliman]
I remember TimBL saying something like that about isDefinedBy in the context of the tabulator
15:31:12 [seanb] this group interested in going further with this?
15:31:26 [seanb]
Guus: Can't do this -- we'd need to define our own property
15:32:11 [aliman]
TimBL wanted to avoid having to make unecessary HTTP requests
15:32:14 [seanb]
Ralph: WOuld be acceptable for this group to suggest what the semantics of
15:32:20 [seanb]
...isDefinedBy are.
15:32:27 [seanb]
...if they wished to
15:33:30 [aliman]
+1 possibly useful interpretation, especially for large vocabularies -- typical for SKOS
15:33:38 [seanb]
Guus: If this isn't inappropriate, it might be useful
15:34:05 [seanb]
ACTION: Ralph to reconstruct proposal for semantics of isDefinedBy
15:34:27 [seanb]
Alistair: Two separate issues
15:35:05 [seanb]
...stronger semantics for isDefinedBy could be useful to reduce HTTP call overhead
15:35:22 [seanb]
...also whether or not we think of inScheme as functional. Is it reasonable to think of concepts in
15:35:46 [seanb]
...more that one scheme. If so, forks discussion as inScheme and isDefinedBy go in different directions
15:36:37 [seanb]
Guus: propose we put this on the agenda once we have Ralph's message
15:36:50 [seanb]
Jon: Disagree with some of the decisions we're making.
15:37:05 [seanb]
...But don't have supporting evidence, but things "feel wrong".
15:37:25 [seanb]
Guus: We haven't actually made decisions yet.
15:37:47 [seanb]
Alistair: Jon refers to e.g. decision to deprecate inScheme and use isDefinedBY instead
15:37:49 [seanb]
Jon: Yes
15:38:14 [seanb]
Alistair: Justification is that copncepts get used in different schemes.
15:38:31 [seanb]
Guus: Discussion in Amsterdam are that current semantics of isDefinedBY are the same as inScheme
15:38:57 [seanb]
Alistair: What do we mean by Ralph's interpretation?
15:39:06 [seanb] we simply mean functional?
15:39:37 [seanb]
Guus: Rationale in going from inScheme to isDefinedBy was that semantics of
15:39:54 [seanb]
...inScheme seemed to be the same as isDefinedBy. So go for a general non-SKOS solution
15:40:26 [seanb]
Ralph: circular argument. isDefinedBy has such loose semantics, so such a claim seems unsatisfying
15:41:12 [seanb]
Quote was: sDefinedBy may be used to indicate an rdf vocab in which a resource is described
15:41:28 [seanb]
Jon: Is a concept secheme the same as an rdf vocabulary?
15:41:57 [seanb]
Guus: If we have evidence from use cases, we simply reopen the issue.
15:42:17 [seanb]
Jon: It's not whether or not it works, it's about concept scheme == rdf vocabulary
15:42:38 [seanb]
Alistair: Made a statement about SKOS concept schemes and OWL ontologies, but no
15:42:49 [seanb]
...statement about "RDF Vocabularies".
15:43:20 [seanb]
Guus: Is this different because it would allow linking to an OWL vocabluary rather than a concept scheme
15:43:41 [seanb]
Jon: WOrding of isDefinedBy talks about rdf vocabularies.
15:44:03 [seanb]
Antoine: Can see a problem. Original guide says that inscheme is a link bwteeen concept and concept
15:44:21 [aliman]
From ...
15:44:22 [aliman]
"The choice to leave the formal semantics of skos:ConceptScheme undefined has been made to allow different design patterns to be explored for using SKOS in combination with more formal languages such as OWL, and for using SKOS with query languages such as SPARQL.
15:44:24 [aliman]
For example, interpreting skos:ConceptScheme as a sub-class of owl:Ontology would be consistent with the SKOS semantics. This would also be consistent with using owl:imports to make logical import statements between SKOS Concept Schemes.
15:44:26 [aliman]
Interpreting skos:ConceptScheme as a sub-class of the class of named RDF graphs would also be consistent with the SKOS semantics. This would also be consistent with using the name (URI) of a SKOS Concept Scheme in SPARQL queries as the name of an RDF graph, to establish, for example, the provenance of a semantic relationship between two SKOS Conceptual Resources."
15:44:27 [seanb]
...scheme it's part of. No requirement that it has to give a meaning. isDefinedBy we'd expect
15:44:31 [seanb]
some *definition*
15:45:14 [aliman]
Except for the semantic condition stated above, the formal semantics of skos:ConceptScheme are undefined.
15:45:22 [Zakim]
15:46:13 [guus]
guus has joined #swd
15:46:26 [seanb]
Alistair: talks through definition
15:46:47 [seanb]
...this allows use of owl:imports rather than defining a new import mechanism
15:47:47 [seanb]
...wanted to find solutions to problems without trying to redefine or invent our own solutions
15:48:15 [Zakim]
15:48:16 [seanb]
Guus: We should reopen the issue regarding inScheme, but not w.r.t. containment,
15:48:30 [seanb]
...rather the choice of skos:inScheme and rdfs:isDefinedBy
15:48:58 [seanb]
Alistair: Several different flavours of inScheme.
15:49:32 [seanb]
Guus: Solution might be that someone proposes that we leave inScheme as a subproperty of isDefinedBy
15:49:47 [seanb]
Ralph: Don't see how that helps. What's the range?
15:50:13 [seanb]
...understand the range of isDefinedBy to be RDF vocabulary (whatever that is)
15:50:22 [seanb]
Guus: And range of inScheme is conceptSCheme?
15:51:08 [seanb]
Ralph: Concept scheme doesn't necessarily describe concets. It;s a grouping of con cepts.
15:51:35 [seanb]
Alistair: We never really got into this much detail.
15:52:01 [seanb]
...didn't get into the whether things were defined. Used language like concepts "participate" ina scheme
15:52:02 [Zakim]
15:52:13 [seanb]
Ralph: Where., as a user, should I find a definition for a concept?
15:52:37 [seanb]
Alistair: derefence the URI
15:53:42 [seanb]
Sean: confused now about derefencing URI and isDefinedBy
15:54:18 [Elisa]
If it's at all helpful, the "formal" definition of a "concept system" from ISO 1087 is "a set of concepts structured according to the relations among them". This doesn't necessarily say that a concept system is an ontology, but is somewhat stronger than a simple collection of concepts.
15:54:36 [seanb]
Alistair: If you're using slash namespace, get lots and lots of redirects.
15:54:51 [Zakim]
15:54:52 [Clay]
zakim, LC is Clay
15:54:52 [Zakim]
+Clay; got it
15:54:56 [seanb]
...if you have an isDefinedBy then you don't need to get it every time.
15:55:02 [guus]
[welcome back, Clay]
15:55:20 [seanb]
Ralph: That's an operational argument. Given a property URI, how do you find the namespace within which that
15:55:27 [seanb] is defined.
15:55:53 [seanb]
Alistair: Why can't you dereference a property URI?
15:56:13 [seanb]
Ralph: YOu can. Not clear where in a chain of redirects you encounter the namespace
15:56:31 [seanb]
...can make some guesses.
15:57:40 [seanb]
Jon: Can somebody explain why we're not defining a concept scheme as a collection?
15:57:53 [seanb]
...then use isMember
15:58:03 [seanb]
Ralph: Does that satisfy the use cases?
15:58:08 [seanb]
Jon: Not certain.
15:58:27 [seanb]
Alistair: Reason why we might not go there is that some people think of statements to be part of a concept scheme.
15:58:39 [seanb]
...included that in original wording.
15:58:56 [Ralph]
15:58:58 [seanb]
Guus: We have to round up this discussion.
15:59:22 [seanb]
...For OWL ontologies, we never explicitly defined containment.
15:59:49 [seanb]
...Reluctant to open a can of worms. However, we do need tio
16:00:06 [seanb]
...continue this discussion. Will someone reopen the issue? Initially
16:00:16 [seanb]
...on inScheme vs isDefinedBy.
16:00:52 [aliman]
It would be great Jon could point to some use cases re. potential issues with inScheme
16:01:35 [seanb]
ACTION: Antoine to summarise inScheme vs isDefinedBy and decide whether or not to reopen the issue.
16:02:09 [seanb]
Guus: For next week would like to discuss Concept Schemes vs OWL Ontologies.
16:02:21 [Ralph]
[likely regrets from me for next week, due to W3C big meeting week]
16:03:14 [Zakim]
16:03:16 [seanb]
ACTION: Alistair and Guus to prepare material for next week on Concept Schemes vs OWL Ontologies
16:03:24 [seanb]
Topic: Vocabulary Management
16:03:27 [dlrubin]
dlrubin has left #swd
16:03:36 [seanb]
Elisa: Vit and Elise working on editors draft.
16:03:54 [aliman]
/me zakim, mute alistair
16:03:59 [seanb]
...trying to get front matter in and organise things.
16:04:19 [seanb]
...Have posted an editors draft that pulls together evetyhgin from the wiki
16:04:38 [seanb]
...but didn't pul in stuff from Best Practies WG.
16:05:05 [seanb]
...Have now posted a first editors draft that captures what was in the wiki, boiler plate things,
16:05:18 [seanb]
...italicised sections for comments.
16:05:45 [seanb]
...Want to go back to original idea for saying what we're going to talk about here
16:05:55 [seanb] identification of versions rather than version management.
16:06:09 [Ralph]
16:06:21 [Ralph]
-> Vocab Management editors' draft
16:06:43 [Ralph]
[I will add a citation to that on the WG home page]
16:06:47 [seanb]
...Additional food for thought in research items. Bottom line is that there is something up there
16:07:04 [seanb]
...fills in some of the blanks. Worth l;ooking at the oiutline to see if there are topics that should be
16:07:15 [seanb]
...addressed but are not, e.g. provenance.
16:07:34 [seanb]
...schedule is to iterate one more time over next couple of weeks and integrate feedback.
16:07:35 [Zakim]
16:07:51 [seanb]
...After that we'll be ready for internal review.
16:08:07 [seanb]
...Need another couple of weeks before internal review.
16:08:46 [seanb]
Guus: telecon next week, no telecon in two weeks.
16:08:47 [Zakim]
16:08:50 [Zakim]
16:08:53 [Zakim]
16:08:53 [Zakim]
16:08:53 [aliman]
/me bye :)
16:08:54 [Zakim]
16:08:55 [seanb]
Meeting adjourned
16:08:56 [Zakim]
16:08:58 [Zakim]
16:09:01 [edsu]
seeyas :)
16:09:03 [Zakim]
16:09:04 [Zakim]
16:09:07 [seanb]
zakim, list attendees
16:09:07 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Ralph, Ed, Justin, Elisa_Kendall, +1.317.031.aaaa, Antoine, Alistair, JonP, Sean, Guus_Schreiber, berrueta, Tom, Daniel, Clay
16:09:14 [Zakim]
16:09:24 [edsu]
edsu has left #swd
16:09:26 [seanb]
zakim, please draft minutes
16:09:26 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'please draft minutes', seanb
16:09:34 [seanb]
zakim, draft minutes
16:09:34 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'draft minutes', seanb
16:10:46 [Ralph]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
16:10:46 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Ralph
16:11:01 [Ralph]
rrsagent, please make record public
16:11:08 [seanb]
Doh! Thanks Ralph
16:11:43 [Zakim]
16:11:53 [Zakim]
SW_SWD()11:00AM has ended
16:11:54 [Zakim]
Attendees were Ralph, Ed, Justin, Elisa_Kendall, +1.317.031.aaaa, Antoine, Alistair, JonP, Sean, Guus_Schreiber, berrueta, Tom, Daniel, Clay
16:12:02 [Antoine]
Antoine has left #swd
16:12:22 [Ralph]
zakim, bye
16:12:22 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #swd
16:12:27 [Ralph]
chair: Guus
16:12:28 [Ralph]
rrsagent, please make record public
16:12:31 [Ralph]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
16:12:31 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Ralph
16:13:33 [Ralph]
Regrets: DanBri, Vit, Simone, Quentin
16:13:34 [Ralph]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
16:13:34 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Ralph
16:28:40 [JonP_]
JonP_ has joined #swd
16:38:06 [seanb]
Ralph -- any idea who +1.317.031.aaaa was??
16:43:27 [seanb]
seanb has left #swd
17:03:21 [Ralph]
rrsagent, bye
17:03:21 [RRSAgent]
I see 4 open action items saved in :
17:03:21 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ralph to update face to face minutes to reflect the amendment [1]
17:03:21 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
17:03:21 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ralph to reconstruct proposal for semantics of isDefinedBy [2]
17:03:21 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
17:03:21 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Antoine to summarise inScheme vs isDefinedBy and decide whether or not to reopen the issue. [3]
17:03:21 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
17:03:21 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Alistair and Guus to prepare material for next week on Concept Schemes vs OWL Ontologies [4]
17:03:21 [RRSAgent]
recorded in