IRC log of swd on 2007-12-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:59:40 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #swd
15:59:40 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-swd-irc
15:59:44 [Zakim]: Zakim has joined #swd
16:00:02 [Simone]: Simone has joined #swd
16:00:42 [edsu]: edsu has joined #swd
16:01:58 [Ralph]: zakim, this is swd
16:01:58 [Zakim]: ok, Ralph; that matches SW_SWD()11:00AM
16:02:05 [Ralph]: zakim, who's on the call?
16:02:05 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Elisa_Kendall, [LC]
16:02:28 [Zakim]: +Rodrigo
16:02:34 [edsu]: Ralph: you on the phone?
16:02:36 [Zakim]: + +43.123.6aaaa
16:02:37 [Zakim]: +Ralph
16:02:43 [berrueta]: Zakim, Rodrigo is me
16:02:43 [Zakim]: sorry, berrueta, I do not recognize a party named 'Rodrigo'
16:02:53 [Clay]: Clay has joined #swd
16:02:54 [Ralph]: zakim, [lc] is Ed
16:02:54 [Zakim]: +Ed; got it
16:02:56 [cgi-irc]: cgi-irc has joined #swd
16:03:01 [Zakim]: +Antoine_Isaac
16:03:10 [Ralph]: Meeting: SemWeb Deployment WG
16:03:17 [JonP]: JonP has joined #swd
16:03:21 [Ralph]: zakim, aaaa is Guus
16:03:21 [Zakim]: +Guus; got it
16:03:22 [berrueta]: Zakim, Rodrigo is me
16:03:22 [Zakim]: sorry, berrueta, I do not recognize a party named 'Rodrigo'
16:03:24 [Zakim]: +[LC]
16:03:28 [aliman]: aliman has joined #swd
16:03:28 [Clay]: zakim, LC is Clay
16:03:28 [Zakim]: +Clay; got it
16:03:35 [Zakim]: +??P25
16:03:55 [Ralph]: zakim, ??p25 is Alistair
16:03:55 [Zakim]: +Alistair; got it
16:03:56 [Zakim]: + +012242aabb
16:04:10 [Ralph]: zakim, aabb is Quentin
16:04:10 [Zakim]: +Quentin; got it
16:04:23 [Ralph]: zakim, ctic is Diego
16:04:23 [Zakim]: +Diego; got it
16:04:43 [Zakim]: -Guus
16:04:54 [Zakim]: +Jon_Phipps
16:04:58 [Ralph]: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Dec/0003.html
16:05:13 [Ralph]: -> http://www.w3.org/2007/11/27-swd-minutes.html previous 2007-11-27
16:05:37 [JonP]: zakim, Jon_Phipps is me
16:05:37 [Zakim]: +JonP; got it
16:05:39 [Ralph]: Chair: Guus
16:05:48 [Ralph]: Scribe: Elisa
16:06:03 [Ralph]: scribenick: Elisa
16:06:03 [Zakim]: +??P31
16:06:10 [benadida]: benadida has joined #swd
16:06:16 [Ralph]: zakim, ??p31 is Daniel
16:06:16 [Zakim]: +Daniel; got it
16:06:19 [dlrubin]: dlrubin has joined #swd
16:06:32 [Zakim]: + +1.617.395.aacc
16:06:38 [benadida]: zakim, I am aacc
16:06:40 [Zakim]: +benadida; got it
16:06:46 [Zakim]: +Guus
16:07:18 [Ralph]: zakim, who's on the phone?
16:07:18 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Elisa_Kendall, Ed, Diego, Ralph, Antoine_Isaac, Clay, Alistair, Quentin, JonP, Daniel, benadida, +43.123.6aadd
16:07:24 [Simone]: Zakim, passcode?
16:07:24 [Zakim]: the conference code is 79394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), Simone
16:08:07 [Ralph]: zakim, aadd is probably Simone
16:08:07 [Zakim]: +Simone?; got it
16:08:46 [Ralph]: zakim, Simone is really Guus
16:08:46 [Zakim]: +Guus; got it
16:08:52 [Elisa]: agenda+ Admin
16:09:27 [Ralph]: Regrets: Vit, Justin, Sean
16:09:48 [Zakim]: +??P36
16:09:55 [Simone]: Zakim, ??P36 is me
16:09:55 [Zakim]: +Simone; got it
16:10:09 [Elisa]: PROPOSED: Accept minutes of the November 27th telecon (http://www.w3.org/2007/11/27-swd-minutes.html)
16:10:25 [TomB]: TomB has joined #swd
16:10:42 [Elisa]: RESOLVED: Minutes accepted
16:10:43 [Ralph]: zakim, mute simone
16:10:43 [Zakim]: Simone should now be muted
16:11:00 [Elisa]: Next telecon: 4 December 1600 UTC
16:11:04 [Elisa]: agenda+ SKOS
16:11:14 [Zakim]: +??P38
16:11:26 [TomB]: zakim, ??P38 is TomB
16:11:26 [Zakim]: +TomB; got it
16:12:36 [Elisa]: Review of Editor's draft - continued
16:12:44 [Elisa]: Review of primer - continued
16:12:49 [Elisa]: Issue 39 discussion
16:12:57 [Antoine]: http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptualMapping/ProposalTwo
16:13:47 [Elisa]: issue of mapping links, using existing relationships in SKOS to create mapping links was original approach
16:14:20 [Elisa]: this new proposal is much more conservative
16:14:56 [Elisa]: takes text from existing mapping vocabulary, and introduces two new concepts: related match and overlapping match
16:15:13 [Elisa]: deprecates major and minor match elements from current mapping vocabulary
16:15:37 [Elisa]: proposal is to delegate status of these elements to "concept coordination"
16:16:03 [Ralph]: rrsagent, please make record public
16:16:39 [Elisa]: SKOS mapping coordination constructs: and, or, not
16:16:59 [Elisa]: the proposal attempts to establish some formal semantics for these constructs
16:17:16 [Elisa]: including domain, range
16:17:38 [Elisa]: semantics are to be discussed, e.g., exact match is transitive
16:18:27 [Elisa]: section 3 covers other issues, includes example of animal ontologies, attempts to match them
16:18:52 [Elisa]: concludes with relation rules, intended semantics, issues leading to decisions in the proposal
16:19:10 [Guus]: q+
16:19:12 [Elisa]: for example replacing major, minor match with overlapping match
16:19:46 [Elisa]: raises issue on building mapping links between collections that are not SKOS vocabularies explicitly
16:20:17 [Elisa]: Guus: so, would like to have discussion on a few points in the proposal
16:20:35 [Elisa]: why to we need exact match, and why can't we use OWL same as
16:21:00 [Elisa]: Antoine: the problem is when you use OWL same as, you essentially merge the two schemes
16:21:13 [Elisa]: which the original author may not want to do
16:21:34 [Elisa]: Guus: the point is to have this rationale in the proposal for documentation purposes
16:21:57 [Elisa]: you could also point to why you can't use OWL different class
16:22:03 [Elisa]: both points can be made here
16:22:09 [Elisa]: Antoine: ok
16:22:37 [Elisa]: Guus: is it also possible to summarize the main point of the follow-up email discussion
16:23:55 [Elisa]: Antoine: issues raised - considered that there was a clear distinction between skos mapping relations
16:24:44 [Elisa]: between different concept schemes can still use standard concept relations between concept schemes
16:24:50 [Elisa]: but this would not be for mapping
16:25:20 [Elisa]: Guus: is it inconsistent to use one of the mapping relationships in the same scheme
16:25:41 [Elisa]: Antoine: no
16:26:02 [Elisa]: Guus: this is a borderline case, we should cover how someone might want to use the mapping concepts
16:26:20 [Elisa]: to do this -- the main point would be to make a statement about this
16:26:29 [Elisa]: this should hold for all of the mapping relations
16:26:38 [Elisa]: Antoine: fine
16:26:56 [Elisa]: Guus: what is the typical example of ... I don't really understand the overlapping match
16:27:17 [Elisa]: Antoine: the overlapping match more or less replaces the major and minor match
16:27:41 [Elisa]: this describes relations that are in a mapping - relationships that are common to two mappings
16:28:14 [Elisa]: you have relations with significant semantic load; if concepts are related in this way there are other concepts that a user should
16:28:16 [aliman]: q+ to represent Javier's point about related vs. overlapping
16:28:30 [Elisa]: consider
16:29:33 [Elisa]: it isn't 100% clear where you might use these - Emma McCulloch will provide additional examples
16:29:46 [Elisa]: Guus: do you think there are convincing use cases
16:30:01 [Elisa]: Alistair: I haven't seen use cases
16:30:10 [Elisa]: Guus: this seems rather arbitrary
16:30:23 [Zakim]: -Daniel
16:30:39 [Elisa]: The point came from Javier ... the general point was that the types of inexact or overlapping
16:31:00 [Elisa]: relations you might find are different in nature from associative relationships between thesauri
16:31:31 [Elisa]: so there might be for example overlaps between two thesauri that cover a common time period
16:31:52 [Elisa]: there is no precedent for this in the thesaurus community, and this seems to be
16:31:57 [Elisa]: limited to time and place
16:32:18 [aliman]: q-
16:32:28 [Elisa]: Guus: this seems a rather specific solution, not sufficient evidence to warrant includes
16:32:41 [Elisa]: perhaps we could keep it as a separate option
16:32:45 [aliman]: +1 on guus position regarding "overlapping" property
16:33:01 [Elisa]: if we go for a separate proposal for mapping terminology
16:33:24 [Elisa]: Antoine: we could keep this separate - I can be ok with that
16:33:45 [Elisa]: Guus: do you think, given the comments, this is sufficient to move this forward for next time
16:34:03 [Elisa]: Antoine: yes, but feedback under the specific semantics/axioms would be useful
16:34:24 [Elisa]: if people think there are useful axioms to have there, that would be good feedback
16:34:55 [Elisa]: Guus: so we can leave this action, and move it forward for next week
16:35:27 [Elisa]: -- ISSUE 39 Conceptual mapping links
16:35:27 [Elisa]: http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/39
16:35:52 [Elisa]: ACTION: Antoine to come up with a revised proposal based on the comments received
16:36:21 [Elisa]: SKOS Extension Module - no action
16:36:30 [Elisa]: Concept schemes - continued
16:36:41 [Antoine]: q+ on SKOS-XL
16:36:53 [Elisa]: no progress on isDefinedBy (continued)
16:37:06 [Elisa]: Statement on issue 44 from Alistair ...
16:37:47 [Elisa]: Alistair: Antoine raises concern about what might happen if we say nothing about the transitivity of SKOS broader
16:38:16 [Elisa]: if we allow people to make either choice, people will make conflicting decisions, which is a valid concern
16:39:28 [Elisa]: he proposes the notion of a locally transitive relationship, also see Alan Rector's comment in the SWBP note in simple part whole
16:39:45 [Elisa]: this is a serious concern that needs to be addressed
16:40:05 [Elisa]: Guus: ok with respect to producing a reference, when can we expect something?
16:40:17 [TomB]: [http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SimplePartWhole/ Simple part-whole relations in OWL Ontologies]
16:40:22 [Elisa]: Alistair: it depends on how far we want to get before putting out a first draft
16:40:52 [Elisa]: if we want something to be reviewed before Christmas, publishing something as an editor's draft before Christmas
16:41:15 [Elisa]: Guus: assuming that Antoine moves his proposal forward, it doesn't seem far fetched
16:41:40 [Elisa]: Alistair: we could, and then throw stones at it ... it certainly needs to go in there
16:42:00 [Elisa]: Guus: that would mean that we produce a new draft before Christmas, and use the Christmas period for review
16:42:10 [Elisa]: Alistair: work on what we've got more or less right now
16:42:22 [Elisa]: Guus: yes, and go forward with that
16:42:49 [Elisa]: Alistair: we talked about a rules of thumb appendix, to show examples of how to do something sensible,
16:42:56 [Elisa]: requires some of Sean's time, who is traveling
16:43:03 [Elisa]: agenda+ RDFa
16:43:50 [Elisa]: Ben: the central issue is related on exactly how we do chaining and how we deal with instance of
16:43:56 [aliman]: q+ what's chaining?
16:44:09 [Elisa]: we have agreement in the group that this is the last major issue to deal with
16:44:24 [Elisa]: assuming we don't hit any snags, and fix the use cases for the new proposal on chaining
16:44:37 [Guus]: zakim, who is here?
16:44:37 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Elisa_Kendall, Ed, Diego, Ralph, Antoine_Isaac, Clay, Alistair, Quentin, JonP, benadida, Guus, Simone (muted), TomB (muted)
16:44:39 [Zakim]: On IRC I see TomB, dlrubin, benadida, aliman, JonP, cgi-irc, Clay, edsu, Simone, Zakim, RRSAgent, Ralph, Antoine, berrueta, Elisa, Guus
16:44:55 [Elisa]: I've update the schedule, we're pushing hard to get the syntax with this new proposal in over the next 10 days
16:45:17 [Elisa]: it would be good to get people on the call to review the new syntax before Christmas
16:45:27 [Elisa]: Guus: didn't we have reviewers for the first working draft
16:45:48 [Elisa]: Ben: yes, we're just tweaking it for the latest changes, hoping this will go to last call
16:46:23 [Elisa]: Guus: we should use the same reviewers
16:46:30 [Elisa]: Antoine did the primer
16:46:39 [Elisa]: Diego: I did a review, the other one was Ed
16:46:59 [Elisa]: Ben: are you willing to review again, and if so, what would the schedule be
16:47:04 [Elisa]: Diego: yes
16:47:12 [Elisa]: Ed: yes I'd be willing to do this again
16:47:37 [Elisa]: Ben: in two weeks -- would you still have time to review this before the holidays
16:47:50 [Elisa]: Ed: yes if it hasn't changed substantially
16:48:02 [Elisa]: Ben: there is one notable change which we will explain
16:48:09 [Elisa]: Ed: yes this would be fine
16:48:15 [Elisa]: Diego: yes, ok
16:48:34 [Elisa]: Guus: will this be a working draft
16:49:01 [Elisa]: Ben: this would be a working draft leading to last call ... how does this work? you publish a working draft and then say it is going to last call?
16:49:16 [Elisa]: Guus: we agreed that the decision for last call would be taken by both groups
16:49:25 [Elisa]: we could make a decision on the first call in January
16:49:46 [Elisa]: we should check with Stephen if they can take a decision by the first call in Januar
16:50:33 [Elisa]: you need to send a proposal to the WG to promote the doc to last call (to both groups, pointing to responses to comments ...document precisely what has happened with the comments)
16:50:50 [Elisa]: then you have to set a last call period
16:51:02 [Elisa]: normally the comment period is between 4 and 6 weeks
16:51:15 [Elisa]: Ben: the commenting period starts after the WG is published, correct?
16:52:07 [Elisa]: it would be good to prepare a list that you want to send the last call to, also potentially track comments
16:52:15 [Elisa]: issue tracker would be fine
16:52:36 [Elisa]: Ralph -- what would your proposal be for tracking comments?
16:52:48 [Elisa]: Ralph: absolutely, the issue tracker
16:53:07 [Elisa]: Ben: ok, you'll most likely hear from me as I work through the process
16:53:17 [Elisa]: Guus: are there any potential sources of delay?
16:53:47 [Elisa]: Ben: the one potential issue is the one we're working on ... if we find things in the test process, then there are possibilities there
16:54:02 [Elisa]: we have 4-5 implementations that will signal an issue quickly at this point
16:54:22 [Elisa]: Guus: then you should prepare an implementation report during the last call period
16:54:34 [Elisa]: Ben: we are definitely prepared to do so
16:54:45 [Elisa]: Guus: agenda+ Recipes
16:55:00 [Elisa]: agenda+ Recipies
16:55:17 [Ralph]: -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Dec/0006.html Revised Recipes posted [Jon 3-Dec]
16:55:19 [Elisa]: Guus: I think I saw progress on the recipies as well
16:55:46 [dlrubin]: dlrubin has left #swd
16:55:53 [Ralph]: Topic: Recipes
16:56:02 [Elisa]: Jon: we've put up a new editor's draft - I think it covers all of the issues except that it's broken under certain circumstances
16:56:18 [Ralph]: -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/recipes/draft-20071203 Recipes Editor's Draft of 2007-12-03
16:56:41 [Elisa]: which has to do with Apache redirect (1st action under recipes, which is continued)
16:56:54 [Elisa]: Ralph: I think my action still needs to be addressed ...
16:57:17 [Elisa]: Jon: I think we've dealt with that but of course we have a new one for you, which is action 24, the next one
16:57:49 [Elisa]: ACTION: Dan to ask apache about conditional redirects [recorded in [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/20-swd-minutes.html#action18] CONTINUES
16:58:00 [Ralph]: -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/products/5 Open Issues on Recipes
16:58:01 [Elisa]: ACTION: Diego to recast Recipe 6 [recorded in [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/20-swd-minutes.html#action19]
16:58:09 [Elisa]: COMPLETED
16:58:21 [Elisa]: ACTION: Jon to add words that acknowledge the existence of RDFa as [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/20-swd-minutes.html#action21]
16:58:28 [Elisa]: COMPLETED
16:59:29 [Elisa]: DROPPED ACTION: Jon to make changes as proposed [with regard to Issue-23] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/20-swd-minutes.html#action22]
17:00:30 [Elisa]: ACTION 23 is being Dropped
17:00:39 [Elisa]: Action 24 continues
17:00:55 [Ralph]: s/DROPPED ACTION: Jon/DONE ACTION: Jon/
17:00:58 [Elisa]: Action 25 continues
17:01:23 [Elisa]: COMPLETED ACTION: TF leaders to prepare a version of Recipes for review in [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/20-swd-minutes.html#action26]
17:01:38 [Elisa]: COMPLETEDACTION: diego to update deliverables page w/r/t recipes document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/27-swd-minutes.html#action20]
17:02:16 [Elisa]: Guus: still need to solicit reviews for this -- when would reviewers be needed
17:02:45 [Elisa]: Jon: any time, I guess -- we're just missing that one piece, which I guess is fairly critical
17:03:02 [Elisa]: Guus: we should solicit reviews at this point, though
17:03:18 [Elisa]: Ralph: I'll certainly review it
17:04:36 [Elisa]: Guus: adjourn
17:04:39 [Zakim]: -Quentin
17:04:41 [Zakim]: -Alistair
17:04:43 [Zakim]: -Ed
17:04:44 [Zakim]: -Ralph
17:04:46 [Zakim]: -JonP
17:04:50 [Zakim]: -Diego
17:04:52 [Zakim]: -Guus
17:04:56 [Zakim]: -benadida
17:04:58 [Zakim]: -Clay
17:05:00 [Zakim]: -TomB
17:05:02 [edsu]: Antoine: were we going to chat about primer?
17:05:04 [Zakim]: -Simone
17:05:37 [Ralph]: zakim, list participants
17:05:37 [Zakim]: As of this point the attendees have been Elisa_Kendall, Rodrigo, +43.123.6aaaa, Ralph, Ed, Antoine_Isaac, Guus, Clay, Alistair, +012242aabb, Quentin, Diego, JonP, Daniel,
17:05:41 [Zakim]: ... +1.617.395.aacc, benadida, Simone?, Simone, TomB
17:05:50 [Ralph]: rrsagent, please draft minutes
17:05:50 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-swd-minutes.html Ralph
17:06:20 [edsu]: i'll call back, one sec
17:07:24 [edsu]: rats it says "conference restricted at this time"
17:07:42 [edsu]: i can call you direct
17:08:14 [edsu]: what number are you at?
17:08:17 [edsu]: got it
17:09:54 [edsu]: seeya
17:10:21 [Zakim]: -Antoine_Isaac
17:11:07 [edsu]: edsu has left #swd
17:11:40 [Antoine]: Antoine has left #swd
17:15:21 [Zakim]: disconnecting the lone participant, Elisa_Kendall, in SW_SWD()11:00AM
17:15:25 [Zakim]: -Elisa_Kendall
17:15:50 [Zakim]: SW_SWD()11:00AM has ended
17:15:52 [Zakim]: Attendees were Elisa_Kendall, Rodrigo, +43.123.6aaaa, Ralph, Ed, Antoine_Isaac, Guus, Clay, Alistair, +012242aabb, Quentin, Diego, JonP, Daniel, +1.617.395.aacc, benadida, Simone?,
17:15:54 [Zakim]: ... Simone, TomB
17:16:35 [Elisa]: ok -- will do, thanks
17:17:06 [Ralph]: zakim, bye\
17:17:06 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'bye\', Ralph
17:17:12 [Ralph]: rrsagent, bye
17:17:12 [RRSAgent]: I see 4 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-swd-actions.rdf :
17:17:12 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: Antoine to come up with a revised proposal based on the comments received [1]
17:17:12 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-swd-irc#T16-35-52
17:17:12 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: Dan to ask apache about conditional redirects [recorded in [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/20-swd-minutes.html#action18] CONTINUES [2]
17:17:12 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-swd-irc#T16-57-49
17:17:12 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: Diego to recast Recipe 6 [recorded in [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/20-swd-minutes.html#action19] [3]
17:17:12 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-swd-irc#T16-58-01
17:17:12 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: Jon to add words that acknowledge the existence of RDFa as [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/20-swd-minutes.html#action21] [4]
17:17:12 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-swd-irc#T16-58-21