30 Oct 2007


See also: IRC log, previous 2007-10-23


Ralph Swick, Ed Summers, Justin Thorp, Elisa Kendall, Antoine Isaac, Alistair Miles, Jon Phipps, Sean Bechhofer, Guus Schreiber, Deigo Berrueta, Tom Baker, Daniel Rubin, Clay Redding
Dan Brickley, Vit Novacek, Simone Onofri, Quentin Ruel



PROPOSE to accept the minutes of the F2F with

...amendments from Antoine
... Additional amendment from Alistair
... We make no statement either way about whether skos:Concept is disjoint or not disjoint with owl:Class
... and from Tom

RESOLVED to accept the minutes with the above amendments

<scribe> ACTION: Ralph to update face to face minutes to reflect the amendment and capture attendees[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/30-swd-minutes.html#action01]

PROPOSED to accept minutes of the Oct 23 telecon:



SWD review of "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web"

Guus: Nothing to track here for this telecon
... comments have gone to SWEO group. For the moment,
... we can be silent on this.

Ralph: We're done with that task. Can remove from agenda.


<Ralph> http://www.w3.org/2007/10/23-swd-minutes.html#action14

<Antoine> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Oct/0139.html

Guus: The minutes capture the interpretation.

<aliman> s/transitive/functional/

Ralph: We're happy that it's not functional?

Guus: Yes, there may be examples where it's not.

Ralph: Context of that discussion were w.r.t the semantics of inScheme
... recently had a discussion in a separate group about semantics of isDefinedBy
... would be nice to have even stronger semantics for isDefinedBy

<aliman> I remember TimBL saying something like that about isDefinedBy in the context of the tabulator

Ralph: is this group interested in going further with this?

Guus: Can't do this -- we'd need to define our own property

<aliman> TimBL wanted to avoid having to make unecessary HTTP requests

Ralph: Would be acceptable for this group to suggest what the semantics of
... isDefinedBy are.
... if they wished to

<aliman> +1 possibly useful interpretation, especially for large vocabularies -- typical for SKOS

Guus: If this isn't inappropriate, it might be useful

ACTION: Ralph to reconstruct proposal for semantics of isDefinedBy [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/30-swd-minutes.html#action02]

Alistair: Two separate issues
... stronger semantics for isDefinedBy could be useful to reduce HTTP call overhead
... also whether or not we think of inScheme as functional. Is it reasonable to think of concepts in
... more that one scheme. If so, forks discussion as inScheme and isDefinedBy go in different directions

Guus: propose we put this on the agenda once we have Ralph's message

Jon: Disagree with some of the decisions we're making.
... But don't have supporting evidence, but things "feel wrong".

Guus: We haven't actually made decisions yet.

Alistair: Jon refers to e.g. decision to deprecate inScheme and use isDefinedBy instead

Jon: Yes

Alistair: Justification is that copncepts get used in different schemes.

Guus: Discussion in Amsterdam are that current semantics of isDefinedBy are the same as inScheme

Alistair: What do we mean by Ralph's interpretation?
... do we simply mean functional?

Guus: Rationale in going from inScheme to isDefinedBy was that semantics of
... inScheme seemed to be the same as isDefinedBy. So go for a general non-SKOS solution

Ralph: circular argument. isDefinedBy has such loose semantics, so such a claim seems unsatisfying

Quote was: isDefinedBy may be used to indicate an rdf vocab in which a resource is described

Jon: Is a concept scheme the same as an rdf vocabulary?

Guus: If we have evidence from use cases, we simply reopen the issue.

Jon: It's not whether or not it works, it's about concept scheme == rdf vocabulary

Alistair: Made a statement about SKOS concept schemes and OWL ontologies, but no
... statement about "RDF Vocabularies".

Guus: Is this different because it would allow linking to an OWL vocabluary rather than a concept scheme

Jon: Wording of isDefinedBy talks about rdf vocabularies.

Antoine: Can see a problem. Original guide says that inScheme is a link between concept and concept scheme
... scheme it's part of. No requirement that it has to give a meaning. isDefinedBy we'd expect
... some *definition*

<aliman> From http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/Reference/ConceptSchemes ...

<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.

<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.

<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."

<aliman> Except for the semantic condition stated above, the formal semantics of skos:ConceptScheme are undefined.

Alistair: talks through definition
... this allows use of owl:imports rather than defining a new import mechanism
... wanted to find solutions to problems without trying to redefine or invent our own solutions

Guus: We should reopen the issue regarding inScheme, but not w.r.t. containment,
... rather the choice of skos:inScheme and rdfs:isDefinedBy

Alistair: Several different flavours of inScheme.

Guus: Solution might be that someone proposes that we leave inScheme as a subproperty of isDefinedBy

Ralph: Don't see how that helps. What's the range?
... understand the range of isDefinedBy to be RDF vocabulary (whatever that is)

Guus: And range of inScheme is conceptScheme?

Ralph: Concept scheme doesn't necessarily describe concepts. It's a grouping of concepts.

Alistair: We never really got into this much detail.
... didn't get into the whether things were defined. Used language like concepts "participate" ina scheme

Ralph: Where, as a user, should I find a definition for a concept?

Alistair: derefence the URI

Sean: confused now about derefencing URI and isDefinedBy

<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.

Alistair: If you're using slash namespace, get lots and lots of redirects.
... if you have an isDefinedBy then you don't need to get it every time.

Ralph: That's an operational argument. Given a property URI, how do you find the namespace within which that
... property is defined.

Alistair: Why can't you dereference a property URI?

Ralph: You can. Not clear where in a chain of redirects you encounter the namespace
... can make some guesses.

Jon: Can somebody explain why we're not defining a concept scheme as a collection?
... then use rdfs:member

Ralph: Does that satisfy the use cases?

Jon: Not certain.

Alistair: Reason why we might not go there is that some people think of statements to be part of a concept scheme.
... included that in original wording.

Guus: We have to round up this discussion.
... For OWL ontologies, we never explicitly defined containment.
... Reluctant to open a can of worms. However, we do need to
... continue this discussion. Will someone reopen the issue? Initially
... on inScheme vs isDefinedBy.

<aliman> It would be great Jon could point to some use cases re. potential issues with inScheme

ACTION: Antoine to summarise inScheme vs isDefinedBy and decide whether or not to reopen the issue. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/30-swd-minutes.html#action03]

Guus: For next week would like to discuss Concept Schemes vs OWL Ontologies.

<Ralph> [likely regrets from me for next week, due to W3C big meeting week]

ACTION: Alistair and Guus to prepare material for next week on Concept Schemes vs OWL Ontologies [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/30-swd-minutes.html#action04]

Vocabulary Management

Elisa: Vit and Elisa working on editors draft.

Elisa: trying to get front matter in and organise things.
... Have posted an editors draft that pulls together everything from the wiki
... but didn't pull in stuff from Best Practies WG.
... Have now posted a first editors draft that captures what was in the wiki, boiler plate things,
... italicised sections for comments.
... Want to go back to original idea for saying what we're going to talk about here
... is identification of versions rather than version management.

<Ralph> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/Vocab/principles

<Ralph> Vocab Management editors' draft

<Ralph> [I will add a citation to that on the WG home page]

Elisa: Additional food for thought in research items. Bottom line is that there is something up there
... fills in some of the blanks. Worth looking at the outline to see if there are topics that should be
... addressed but are not, e.g. provenance.
... schedule is to iterate one more time over next couple of weeks and integrate feedback.
... After that we'll be ready for internal review.
... Need another couple of weeks before internal review.

Guus: telecon next week, no telecon in two weeks.

Meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Alistair and Guus to prepare material for next week on Concept Schemes vs OWL Ontologies [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/30-swd-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Antoine to summarise inScheme vs isDefinedBy and decide whether or not to reopen the issue. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/30-swd-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Ralph to reconstruct proposal for semantics of isDefinedBy [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/30-swd-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Ralph to update face to face minutes to reflect the amendment [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/30-swd-minutes.html#action01]

[PENDING] ACTION: Ben to prepare draft implementation report for RDFa (with assistance from Michael) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html#action03]
[PENDING] ACTION: Tom to amend proposals to for accepting minimal relation labels [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/23-swd-minutes.html#action12]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ben and Michael to address comments by Tom [regarding maintenance of wiki document http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/RDFa] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html#action05]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ben to update RDFa schedule in wiki [http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/RDFa#RDFa_schedule] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html#action04]
[PENDING] ACTION: Dan to ask apache about conditional redirects [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html#action07]
[PENDING] ACTION: Diego to recast Recipe 6 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html#action02]
[PENDING] ACTION: Guus to post user experience reports for ISSUE-25 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-minutes.html#action05]
[PENDING] ACTION: Guus/Tom to propose joint decisions for reviews for major [RDFa] steps/transition requests. Informal agreement about working drafts. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html#action02]
[PENDING] ACTION: Guus/Tom to solicit reviewers for the Recipes document. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html#action08]
[PENDING] ACTION: Jon to add words that acknowledge the existence of RDFa as potential mechanisms, but it's out of scope here. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html#action06]
[PENDING] ACTION: Jon to make changes as proposed [with regard to Issue-23] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html#action05]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ralph propose resolution to ISSUE-16 "Default behavior" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14]
[PENDING] ACTION: Guus to write up the issue [of Label Resource] and add to the issue list. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html#action01]
[PENDING] ACTION: Alistair to update semantics document to listing ways in which SKOS diverges from OWL DL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html#action06]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ralph to come up with a URI for wiki page [for Recipes implementations] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html#action04]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html#action03]
[PENDING] ACTION: TF leaders to prepare a version of Recipes for review in December [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html#action09]
[PENDING] ACTION: 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 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html#action07]

[DONE] ACTION: Antoine to formulate 3 resolutions for Amsterdam topic Concept Semantics posted to the list. as a basis for amending meeting record. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/23-swd-minutes.html#action11]
[DONE] ACTION: Antoine to list decisions made about concept scheme [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/23-swd-minutes.html#action13]
[DONE] ACTION: Guus to post an interpretation of the Amsterdam discussion of isDefinedBy [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/23-swd-minutes.html#action14]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.128 (CVS log)
$Date: 2007/10/31 00:32:54 $