*SWD WG -- 11 Dec 2007

<Tom> Previous: http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-swd-minutes.html

<Ralph> Tom welcomes Margherita Sini from FAO

Tom: welcomes Margherita Sini

<Ralph> UN Food and Agriculture Organization

Margherita: From FAO, Food and Agriculture Org. of the UN

<Antoine> http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-ucr/#UC-Aims links to the AIMS project / Agrovoc

Margherita: looking at SKOS for services for their users

Admin

PROPOSED to accept minutes of the Dec 04 telecon:

http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-swd-minutes.html

RESOLVED: Minutes accepted.

Next telecon: 8 January 1600 UTC

SKOS

<scribe> ACTION: Quentin to review Editor's draft of SKOS Reference [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/20-swd-minutes.html#action02] [CONTINUES]

Alistair: hope to get caught up this week

<Antoine> or was it Sean?

<scribe> ACTION: Vit to review Editor's draft of SKOS Reference [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/20-swd-minutes.html#action03] [CONTINUES]

<scribe> ACTION: Alistair and Guus write draft section in primer on relationship between SKOS concepts and OWL classes for OWL DL users [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/06-swd-minutes.html#action05] [CONTINUES]

<scribe> ACTION: Antoine to come up with a revised Conceptual Mapping proposal based on the comments received [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-swd-minutes.html#action01] [DONE]

Antoine: (to Ed and Alistair) will handle integration of content

<Antoine> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Dec/0046.html

Antoine: there has been a formal proposal to postpone to later re: semantic axioms, etc.
... mapping links are restricted to skos:Concepts
... updated discussion section to account for skos:exactMatch and about using one concept scheme

<Zakim> Aliman, you wanted to ask Antoine to summarise recent discussion on mapping

Alistair: Antoine, can you summarize the points being raised re: modifications to the proposal?

Antoine: differences between overlapping match and relating match

Alistair: re: inexactMatch, what is difference between that and overlapping?

Alistair: Wants to confirm that in new proposal that overlapping and deprecating inexactMatch
... re: extension module
... has sketched out what the module what it would like. Might be able to continue on without addressing labels as resources
... extension might be published as another means later
... but could be done now
... possibly as a note by us or elsewhere
... Shall I take an action to sketch out the underlying issue for the WG to possibly consider as a resolution for inclusion?

Ed: Are open issues in issue tracker, do those have to be closed? (re: labels as resources)

Tom: Group needs to take a stand.

Ralph: We will be judged at the time we go to last call and at time to request candidate recommendation. Easiest way to track them is in the issues list, which is a combination of external comments and internal issues
... We should respond to external comments before proceeding to next level of maturity.

Ed: Alistair's proposal is good then.

Tom: Propose action on Alistair to write up a document on extension and labels
... not proposing a solution, but what is in scope for current work and an approach toward that which can be done later in an extension

<scribe> ACTION: Alistair to propose an approach to clarify which aspects of the extension module should be in scope for the candidate recommendation package. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/11-swd-minutes.html#action06]

Antoine: re: issue 39

<Zakim> aliman, you wanted to say something about breaking up issue 39

<Zakim> aliman, you wanted to say about breaking up the issue 39

<Ralph> scribenick: antoine

Tom: comments of formal status wrt ISSUE-39 proposal?

Guus: there seems to be enough consensus

Tom: we can have a discussion on this and close the issue on next call

<aliman> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Dec/0024.html

Alistair: I have something to say.
... 3 independent topics of discussion
... first is grouping constructs (39-A)

<marghe> yes i am in favor of that

Alistair: second is parallel vocabularies between semantic relations and mapping ones (39-B)
... third is relatedMatch versus overlappingMatch
... (39-C)

Tom: Antoine willing to send a message on the list saying that we will have discussion next week?

Antoine: OK

<scribe> ACTION: Antoine to send a msg proposing a resolution for next week telecon on ISSUE-39 considering Alisatir's 3 subtopics [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/11-swd-minutes.html#action07]

<scribe> 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] [CONTINUES]

Alistair: clarification on where we are?

Guus: no commitment on whether SKOS concepts can be instances of OWL class

Alstair: point was on containment and inScheme

Guus: We need to revisit our decision.

Alistair: We would need this as soon as possible
... We don't have much time before Christmas.

Tom: Which decision do we need to revisit?

Alistair: The one according to which we would deprecate inScheme, replaced by isDefinedBy
... there was discussion
... problems with respect to backward compatibility and isDefinedBy semantics.

<Ed: > I think this was Jon's email regarding inScheme? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Nov/0016.html.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Oct/0141.html

Tom: Would be helpful to have the reconstructed proposal

Antoine: I sent a mail about this, re-opening the issue

Alistair: We have to re-resolve it again

Tom: It would be nice to solve this next week

Alistair: Antoine's mail has a proposal in it
... could be good enough
... as a focus for decision

Tom: Does the action on Ralph fit this?

Ralph: I can't say how it interacts.

Alistair: Antoine's resolution does not prevent the use of isDefinedBy.

Ralph: what I hoped to do was to research RDF core's notion of isDefinedBy semantics

Tom: 2 questions:
... first consider Antoine's proposal
... then consider the use of isDefinedBy
... can someone take an action to propose to discuss this issue on next telecon?

<scribe> ACTION: Antoine to send a mail to the list so as to have a discussion on ISSUE-36 and isDefinedBy for next week's telecon [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/11-swd-minutes.html#action09]

<scribe> 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] [CONTINUES]

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