IRC log of swd on 2008-05-07

Timestamps are in UTC.

12:53:52 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #swd
12:53:52 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-irc
12:54:01 [RalphS]
rrsagent, please make record public
12:54:06 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #swd
12:54:11 [RalphS]
zakim, this will be swd
12:54:11 [Zakim]
ok, RalphS; I see SW_SWD()9:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
12:54:41 [RalphS]
Meeting: SWD F2F Day 2
12:54:47 [RalphS]
Chair: Guus, Tom
12:55:04 [RalphS]
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/WashingtonAgenda
12:55:13 [seanb]
seanb has joined #swd
12:55:34 [RalphS]
-> http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html Day 1 record
13:03:52 [Zakim]
SW_SWD()9:00AM has now started
13:03:58 [Zakim]
+??P0
13:04:01 [Zakim]
+[LC]
13:04:07 [aliman]
aliman has joined #swd
13:04:11 [seanb]
zakim, ??P0 is me
13:04:11 [Zakim]
+seanb; got it
13:04:23 [RalphS]
zakim, lc has Guus, Alistair, Clay, Antoine, Tom, Ralph
13:04:23 [Zakim]
+Guus, Alistair, Clay, Antoine, Tom, Ralph; got it
13:05:40 [Zakim]
+[CTIC]
13:05:40 [RalphS]
zakim, Ed just arrived in mit531
13:05:40 [Zakim]
sorry, RalphS, I do not recognize a party named 'mit531'
13:05:45 [RalphS]
zakim, Ed just arrived in lc
13:05:45 [Zakim]
+Ed; got it
13:05:52 [berrueta]
zakim, [CTIC] is me
13:06:20 [RalphS]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008May/0009.html conference room photos
13:06:24 [berrueta]
zakim, mute me
13:06:24 [Zakim]
berrueta should now be muted
13:06:30 [RalphS]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008May/0010.html flipchart images
13:08:46 [aliman]
aliman has joined #swd
13:10:40 [Antoine]
Antoine has joined #swd
13:12:43 [Clay]
Clay has joined #swd
13:13:31 [RalphS]
zakim, Jon just arrived in lc
13:13:31 [Zakim]
+Jon; got it
13:17:11 [RalphS]
scribenick: Clay
13:17:27 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'please draft minuites', RalphS. Try /msg RRSAgent help
13:17:30 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'please draft minuutes', RalphS. Try /msg RRSAgent help
13:17:32 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS
13:18:37 [cred]
cred has joined #swd
13:18:37 [JonP]
JonP has joined #swd
13:18:59 [RalphS]
scribenick: cred
13:19:51 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS
13:19:51 [Clay]
Topic: Notations
13:19:57 [RalphS]
scribenick: Clay
13:20:40 [Clay]
Guus: is notation the standard terminology?
13:20:56 [Clay]
... do we need explicit vocabulary for expressing relations?
13:21:02 [Clay]
aliman: yes
13:22:03 [RalphS]
zakim, list attendees
13:22:03 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been seanb, Guus, Alistair, Clay, Antoine, Tom, Ralph, Ed, berrueta, Jon
13:22:16 [Clay]
Guus: question to Sean, about user-defined datatypes in OWL 1
13:22:22 [RalphS]
Regrets: Quentin
13:22:27 [TomB]
TomB has joined #swd
13:22:57 [Clay]
Guus: you couldn't define URI and that what best practice was about
13:23:13 [Clay]
... alternative was whether to use/misuse language tag
13:23:50 [RalphS]
Guus: is it common to use artificial language codes in this way?
13:24:08 [RalphS]
Clay: ISO639-2 has ZXX code meaning "no linguistic content"
13:24:20 [Zakim]
-seanb
13:24:38 [edsu]
here's Jakob's paper: http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/0801.3908
13:24:53 [Zakim]
+??P0
13:25:02 [Clay]
Guus: problem indicating if the notation using language
13:25:04 [seanb]
zakim, ??P0 is me
13:25:04 [Zakim]
+seanb; got it
13:25:27 [Clay]
aliman: rfc 4646 private label "x-notation" is what Jakob proposed
13:25:36 [RalphS]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0211.html Jakob's proposal
13:26:40 [RalphS]
-> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4646.txt RFC 4646 Tags for Identifying Languages
13:26:43 [Clay]
-> http://memory.loc.gov:8081/exist/rest/db/registry/concepts/vocabulary/iso639/part2/alb.xml
13:27:37 [Clay]
(view source and look at @xml:lang attrs
13:27:45 [Guus]
Guus has joined #swd
13:28:08 [Clay]
Guus: if "x-" is reserved for private use and tools expect this then it might be okay
13:28:37 [RalphS]
See section 2.2.7 Private Use Subtags
13:28:39 [Clay]
Guus: that satisfies all my concerns, b/c one can use "x-iconclass", etc.
13:30:57 [RalphS]
Alistair: see Section 4.5. Considerations for Private Use Subtags
13:31:07 [RalphS]
... may disallow this proposed use
13:31:36 [Clay]
Antoine: it's more for displaying this information
13:31:43 [RalphS]
... "[Private use subtags[ SHOULD NOT be used where alternatives exist and SHOULD NOT be used in content or protocols intended for general use."
13:31:55 [Clay]
Guus: write it up and see if anyone has a problem with it.
13:34:11 [Clay]
aliman: explains the exposure of notations
13:34:16 [Clay]
ralph: this could be a URI
13:35:50 [RalphS]
<lexicalLabelSet>
13:35:50 [RalphS]
<preferredLabel xml:lang="x-notation">alb</preferredLabel>
13:35:50 [RalphS]
<alternateLabel xml:lang="en-Latn">Albanian</alternateLabel>
13:35:50 [RalphS]
<alternateLabel xml:lang="fr-Latn">albanais</alternateLabel>
13:35:50 [RalphS]
</lexicalLabelSet>
13:36:39 [RalphS]
Clay: politial issue -- objections to using either the English or the Latin label as the prefLable
13:38:02 [RalphS]
<membershipSet>
13:38:02 [RalphS]
<conceptSchemataMembership>
13:38:02 [RalphS]
<conceptScheme>
13:38:02 [RalphS]
<conceptSchemeURI>info:lc/vocabulary/iso639/part2</conceptSchemeURI>
13:38:02 [RalphS]
<isTopConcept>false</isTopConcept>
13:38:03 [RalphS]
</conceptScheme>
13:38:05 [RalphS]
</conceptSchemataMembership>
13:38:07 [RalphS]
<collectionsMembership>
13:38:09 [RalphS]
<collection>info:lc/vocabulary/iso639/part2/bibliography</collection>
13:38:11 [RalphS]
</collectionsMembership>
13:38:13 [RalphS]
</membershipSet>
13:38:21 [RalphS]
Clay: don't beat me up about the info: URIs
13:38:58 [Clay]
Ralph: so how do we know where a give notation is coming from? can we use "x-notation-???"
13:41:34 [Clay]
Ralph: are notations always used in conjunction with lexical labels?
13:42:12 [Clay]
aliman: notion of a label is unique to skos, beforehand that was a caption and a notation
13:42:54 [Clay]
Ralph: there's no restrictions on what can go into a literal
13:43:25 [seanb]
Are plain literals always going to be sufficient to capture the notation identifiers?
13:43:33 [Clay]
... now this is acting as a special sort of label, and with multiple classification schemes, it means this is a type of label coming from classification schemes
13:46:01 [seanb]
Do we need additional infrastructure in SKOS in order to deal with notations, or is it sufficient to allow the applications to handle it?
13:47:12 [Clay]
Ralph: Jakob's proposal is to fold the model of "type=notation" and "system=dewey" etc into a literal in lexical labels
13:47:56 [Clay]
Ralph: what is the justification for this for putting this in labels?
13:48:08 [Clay]
aliman: this keeps us in plain SKOS without XL
13:49:02 [Clay]
Antoine: what is nice about this proposal is that we don't expect users to know where the code is coming from, such as dewey.
13:49:13 [Clay]
Ralph: do i search using a dewey code, etc.
13:49:35 [Clay]
Antoine: they serve both as labels and identifiers as well
13:51:17 [Clay]
Ralph: would it be the case that there is a skos:Concept of "History of European Civilization", and then has a notation of dewey 3xxx
13:52:09 [Clay]
... why isn't the notation part of the properties of the skos:Concept instead of being in the label
13:52:34 [Clay]
aliman: my first proposal was to have a skos:notation property with a typed literal
13:53:20 [Clay]
aliman: there was a property called "external id"
13:53:43 [RalphS]
Clay: I used skos:notation earlier and it made perfect sense to me
13:53:58 [RalphS]
... it was @@ who wanted a mechanism for putting the code within the prefLabel
13:54:27 [RalphS]
Tom: DCMI has a URI for "the set of 3-letter codes listed in ISO 639-3" intended to be used as a datatype
13:54:49 [RalphS]
s/@@/SIL/
13:55:53 [RalphS]
Clay: there was a need for using codes in prefLabel that were not from a natural language, for political reasons
13:56:13 [Clay]
Guus: there seems to be a need for representing a notation as a label, and that we'd like to have a notation tied to the actual skos:Concept
13:58:01 [Clay]
Ralph: there could be a duplication of data between the label and the skos:notation propery
13:58:07 [Clay]
s/propery/property/
13:59:07 [Clay]
edsu: Jakob was bundling everything into the literal
14:00:23 [Clay]
Guus: suggests that we reintroduce skos:notation, and that if you want to use a notation as a prefLabel, that 'x-notation' is the preferred way to do this
14:01:38 [Clay]
aliman: the original skos:notation should coin a URI for the notation system, but didn't say what is should dereference to, and it was a typed literal
14:01:54 [Clay]
Tom: that's what OCLC does, a syntax encoding scheme
14:02:20 [aliman]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2006Feb/0035.html Alistair's original proposal for skos:notation
14:02:23 [Zakim]
-berrueta
14:02:44 [Clay]
aliman: looking up the original email re: skos:notation
14:03:41 [RalphS]
PROPOSE: introduce skos:notation a rdf:Property whose value is a typed literal. The datatype of the literal specifies a syntax encoding scheme and the value of the literal is the classification code from that encoding scheme
14:07:10 [Clay]
Tom: showing syntax encoding scheme for dcterms:language
14:07:44 [Clay]
:book dcterms:language "alb"^^x-notation
14:08:16 [RalphS]
s/x-notation/dcterm:iso639-3
14:08:46 [Clay]
Tom: we also have something for dewey
14:09:19 [Clay]
aliman: you need a uri for every dewey concept, the dewey concept scheme, and the dewey notation system
14:10:47 [Clay]
Guus: I think this works
14:10:58 [Clay]
... nice hook
14:13:32 [Clay]
Ralph: i think we could support the use of "fr-x-notation", "de-x-notation" , etc.
14:15:23 [Clay]
Guus: recommend in case there is a collison of multiple notations in different languages then we could use multiple notations
14:16:36 [Clay]
... such as "fr-x-notation" example that Ralph just suggested
14:17:48 [Clay]
... to Ralph: I don't expect tools will be able to do much with the lexical label w/the x-notation suggestion
14:19:31 [Clay]
Ralph: discussing if the notation as label matches on the notation property, and a tool could offer more functionality for learning about the classification
14:20:58 [Clay]
aliman: don't always have to use a prefLabel
14:21:26 [Clay]
Ralph: deduce prefLabel from notation?
14:21:32 [Clay]
aliman: not necessarily
14:22:26 [Clay]
... if a notation exists, a tool would render that, and labels would appear beneath
14:24:11 [Clay]
Ralph: skos:notation would be richer and could generate a label from the notation value
14:24:27 [Clay]
... one of prefLabel or notation is required
14:24:57 [Clay]
Clay: was asked if a skos:notation is used, then could it be possible to use altLabels without a prefLabel
14:25:12 [Clay]
Ralph: prefLabel is not required
14:25:18 [Clay]
Guus: this is a primer issue
14:25:26 [Clay]
... how you use it, that is
14:25:46 [Clay]
aliman: there's no requirement because of the open world assumption
14:26:27 [Clay]
...it's advisable to use a prefLabel, but not required
14:27:00 [Clay]
Ralph: i think it's fine to say some concepts won't have prefLabels
14:27:06 [Clay]
aliman: i do too
14:28:03 [JonP]
Tom's model sketch from 15 minutes ago... http://tinyurl.com/6kahut
14:28:33 [RalphS]
PROPOSE: introduce skos:notation a rdf:Property whose value is a typed literal. The datatype of the literal specifies a syntax encoding scheme and the value of the literal is the classification code from that encoding scheme.
14:29:27 [RalphS]
PROPOSE: introduce skos:notation a rdf:Property whose value is a typed literal. The datatype of the literal specifies a syntax encoding scheme and the value of the literal is the classification code from that encoding scheme. As prefLabel is optional, SKOS tools may want to display notations as labels.
14:37:47 [Clay]
RESOLVED: to introduce skos:notation a rdf:Property whose value is a typed literal. The datatype of the literal specifies a syntax encoding scheme and the value of the literal is the classification code from that encoding scheme. As prefLabel is optional, SKOS tools may want to display notations as labels.
14:39:14 [RalphS]
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/79 issue-79
14:39:26 [SGorse]
SGorse has joined #swd
14:39:56 [Clay]
ACTION: Clay will respond to Jakob about the resolution for notations and x-notation
14:40:01 [RalphS]
rrsagent, please draft minuts
14:40:01 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'please draft minuts', RalphS. Try /msg RRSAgent help
14:40:02 [RalphS]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
14:40:02 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS
14:41:07 [RalphS]
i/Guus: is notation/Topic: Notations
14:41:09 [RalphS]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
14:41:09 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS
14:41:25 [Clay]
Topic: Reference Semantic Relation Specialisations
14:41:36 [Clay]
scribenick: Clay
14:41:41 [Clay]
Topic: Reference Semantic Relation Specialisations
14:42:08 [SGorse]
SGorse has left #swd
14:42:20 [Clay]
Guus: this has to do with broaderTransitive, broaderPartitive, etc
14:42:45 [Clay]
...the specialization of broader
14:43:11 [seanb]
thanks that's much better!
14:44:56 [Clay]
Guus: if we want to include these speicialization as subproperties of broader, it won't work.
14:45:49 [Clay]
... would prefer not to include any pre-defined specializations
14:46:08 [Clay]
Sean: only concern is that if we don't include anything we might get ad-hoc implementaitons
14:46:26 [Clay]
Guus: I suggest writing text for the primer showing what a local specialization would look like
14:46:43 [Clay]
...broaderTransitive w: subproperty of broader, etc.
14:47:33 [RalphS]
-> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/thes/1.0/guide/20040504/#3.9 SWAD-Europ SKOS Core specification of broaderGeneric, etc.
14:47:50 [Clay]
Guus: how many of these specializations are used in the thesaurus community
14:47:57 [Clay]
aliman: seemingly sparingly
14:48:59 [Clay]
Sean: if we do what Guus suggests (i.e., nothing), the solution with the least ramifications...
14:49:07 [Clay]
Guus: postpone issue?
14:49:50 [Clay]
Tom: is this in scope? what kind of community follow-up will there be in the w3c context, or in other communities?
14:50:04 [RalphS]
-> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-spec-20051102/#deprecatedTitle 2005 SKOS WD deprecation of broaderGeneric
14:51:08 [Clay]
Ralph: the SW Interest Groups, incubator groups, etc. formalizing an extension could come from a report from these sorts of groups.
14:53:48 [Clay]
Tom: what happens if someone starts a SKOS discussion outside the context of W3C?
14:54:02 [Clay]
Ralph: we don't own the discussion but encourage them to work through us
14:54:25 [Clay]
... the locus of attention is not just through W3C
14:56:03 [Clay]
Tom: from August-December, should we draft something to determine what the options are regarding specialization?
14:57:42 [Clay]
... there probably should be a website with pointers to these efforts beyond the life of the core SKOS work
15:01:43 [Clay]
aliman: this community might be more comfortable with the notion of a registry
15:05:36 [Antoine]
Antoine has joined #swd
15:07:00 [RalphS]
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/56 issue-56
15:07:32 [Clay]
PROPOSED: To postpone Reference Semantic Relation Specialisations (ISSUE-56) becuase we do not yet have sufficient information on how to embed the specializations in the current SKOS model
15:08:24 [Clay]
s/the specializations/these specializations/
15:08:33 [RalphS]
+1
15:09:21 [Clay]
RESOLVED: To postpone Reference Semantic Relation Specialisations (ISSUE-56) becuase we do not yet have sufficient information on how to embed these specializations in the current SKOS model
15:09:57 [RalphS]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
15:09:57 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS
15:15:10 [Zakim]
-seanb
15:18:33 [RalphS]
Tom: names for the lineage of SKOS?
15:18:43 [RalphS]
Alistair: I'm calling the SWAD version "SKOS alpha"
15:18:51 [RalphS]
Tom: SKOS 2005 for the SWBPD WD
15:19:29 [RalphS]
... and SKOS 2008 and "Recommended SKOS"
15:22:34 [RalphS]
s/SWAD/SWAD-EU/
15:26:58 [Zakim]
+??P2
15:27:06 [seanb]
zakim, ??P2 is me
15:27:06 [Zakim]
+seanb; got it
15:30:39 [Clay]
Topic: Use of OWL Imports (ISSUE-119)
15:31:00 [RalphS]
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/119 issue 119
15:31:12 [Clay]
Sean: in reference or primer
15:31:17 [Clay]
...?
15:31:19 [Clay]
Tom: primer
15:31:29 [Clay]
scribenick: Clay
15:33:07 [Clay]
Sean: triples in the actual issue means that all triples are pulled in
15:33:16 [Zakim]
+berrueta
15:33:18 [berrueta]
zakim, mute me
15:33:18 [Zakim]
berrueta should now be muted
15:33:24 [Clay]
... in the reference there is the use of owl:imports
15:33:44 [Clay]
... use a mechanism to show provenance...external mechanism perhaps?
15:34:12 [Clay]
Guus: dictated by owl:import semantics
15:34:31 [Clay]
... it becomes an editorial issue, how do reflect these statements in the documents?
15:34:55 [Clay]
Antoine: be sure you are aware of the existence in the primer already
15:36:24 [Clay]
Guus: the answer in the issue is that ONT2 pulls in all of ONT1
15:37:00 [Clay]
Tom: we decided yesterday that skos imports are out of scope
15:38:21 [RalphS]
-> http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#owlimports day 1 OWL Imports discussion
15:38:30 [Clay]
PROPOSED: That SKOS does not have its own specific import mechanism and that documents will have appropriate text on how to use existing owl:import mechanisms (ISSUE-119)
15:38:53 [RalphS]
+1
15:39:06 [Clay]
RESOLVED: That SKOS does not have its own specific import mechanism and that documents will have appropriate text on how to use existing owl:import mechanisms (ISSUE-119)
15:39:31 [RalphS]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
15:39:31 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS
15:42:01 [Clay]
scribenick: Clay
15:42:14 [Clay]
Topic: Coordination (ISSUE-40)
15:43:02 [Clay]
aliman: is our goal to have a resolution for the issue
15:43:15 [Clay]
Sean: did we decide yesterday that this was out of scope?
15:44:47 [Clay]
Guus: we don't have sufficient time to do this
15:47:26 [RalphS]
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/40 issue 40 ConceptCoordination
15:48:52 [aliman]
PROPOSED: to postpone issue 40, due to lack of time, lack of implementation experience with tentative solutions, and unclear interaction between SKOS and OWL.
15:49:23 [seanb]
+1
15:49:31 [RalphS]
+1
15:49:36 [Clay]
RESOLVED: to postpone issue 40, due to lack of time, lack of implementation experience with tentative solutions, and unclear interaction between SKOS and OWL.
15:49:58 [RalphS]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
15:49:58 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS
15:50:52 [Zakim]
-seanb
15:51:22 [edsu]
seanb: will do
16:02:37 [Zakim]
-[LC]
16:04:39 [Zakim]
-berrueta
16:04:41 [Zakim]
SW_SWD()9:00AM has ended
16:04:45 [Zakim]
Attendees were seanb, Guus, Alistair, Clay, Antoine, Tom, Ralph, Ed, berrueta, Jon
16:40:16 [Zakim]
SW_SWD()9:00AM has now started
16:40:23 [Zakim]
+??P12
16:40:31 [seanb]
zakim, ??p12 is me
16:40:31 [Zakim]
+seanb; got it
16:47:24 [Zakim]
+[LC]
16:49:01 [Antoine]
Antoine has joined #swd
16:49:15 [Clay]
Clay has joined #swd
16:49:30 [Antoine]
Feature: subject indexing
16:49:37 [Antoine]
scribenick:Antoine
16:50:12 [Antoine]
Guus: I'd like to propose that indexing is more in the scope of other vocabularies
16:50:34 [Antoine]
... like Dublin Core, I propose to drop it from the vocabulary
16:51:20 [RalphS]
s/Feature/Topic/
16:51:21 [Antoine]
... Alistair can live with it
16:51:32 [RalphS]
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/Indexing Indexing properties in SKOS
16:51:48 [Antoine]
Antoine: favors keeping it in
16:52:43 [Antoine]
Guus: there are vocabularies that (will) propose such links
16:53:13 [Antoine]
Alistair: the only reason for having skos:subject was the variability of skos:subject
16:53:45 [Antoine]
... the question is for the skos:primarySubject
16:53:53 [Antoine]
... the main subject of the document
16:54:30 [Antoine]
Ralph: it seems even less in the scope of SKOS
16:54:49 [Antoine]
Alistair: my only concern is that people can start using SKOS now
16:55:14 [Antoine]
Tom: about primarySubjectOf
16:55:25 [Antoine]
Alistair: we don't really need it
16:56:30 [Antoine]
Guus: PROPOSE to drop the SKOS indexing properties because
16:56:57 [Antoine]
... 1) it's the role of SKOS to publish vocabularies and not to indicate how they should be used in annotations
16:57:35 [Antoine]
2) there appear to be enough support from existing metadata vocabularies
16:58:11 [Antoine]
... to handle links between resources and SKOS concepts
16:58:46 [Antoine]
s/appear/appears
16:59:14 [RalphS]
Ralph: "drop" or "not include"?
16:59:21 [RalphS]
Alistair: technically, "not include"
16:59:49 [Antoine]
s/in annotations/for indexing purposes
17:00:16 [berrueta]
berrueta has joined #swd
17:01:08 [Antoine]
RESOLVED: to drop the SKOS indexing properties because
17:01:49 [Antoine]
1) it's the role of SKOS to publish vocabularies and not to indicate how they should be used for indexing purposes 2) there appear to be enough support from existing metadata vocabularies to handle links between resources and SKOS concepts
17:02:21 [Antoine]
s/drop/not include
17:02:30 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS
17:03:19 [Antoine]
Guus (opeining the raised issues)
17:03:28 [Antoine]
s/opeining/opening
17:03:38 [Antoine]
Guus: there are 10 left that need to be open
17:05:55 [RalphS]
Topic: Open Issues
17:06:08 [RalphS]
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/26 issue 26
17:06:16 [RalphS]
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/27 issue 27
17:06:19 [Antoine]
Guus: ISSUE 26/27 we had resolutions yesterday
17:06:54 [RalphS]
-> http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html yesterday's minutes
17:08:00 [Antoine]
-> http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#item03 on labels
17:10:14 [Antoine]
Guus: both 26 and 27 are handled by the three resolutions there
17:11:48 [Antoine]
Guus: Sean, would you be happy with re-publishing Reference in two weeks?
17:11:51 [Antoine]
Sean: OK
17:11:57 [seanb]
Yes, that's fine.
17:12:28 [Zakim]
-seanb
17:14:30 [Antoine]
Guus (closing ISSUE-77)
17:15:11 [Antoine]
Guus (closing ISSUE-79)
17:16:53 [Antoine]
Guus (closing ISSUE-65)
17:17:08 [Antoine]
Ralph (closing ISSUE-71 and ISSUE-74)
17:19:43 [Antoine]
Guus (closing ISSUE-117)
17:22:33 [Antoine]
Guus: about issue on compatibility with DC
17:23:08 [TomB]
http://dublincore.org/documents/abstract-model/
17:23:44 [Antoine]
Guus: we still have not decided for exactMatch properties
17:24:22 [TomB]
http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-rdf/
17:24:33 [seanb]
seanb has left #swd
17:25:23 [RalphS]
-> http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-rdf/#sect-4 4. Representing DCAM constructs using the RDF Model
17:25:30 [Antoine]
Alistair: DC seems to use vocabulary encoding scheme in a way compatible with the use of SKOS concept scheme
17:26:40 [RalphS]
Alistair: the DCAM pattern appears to be the same as the SKOS pattern
17:26:53 [Antoine]
... dcam:memberOf looks like skos:inScheme
17:27:40 [Antoine]
Ralph: how feasible would it be to write some test cases?
17:28:32 [aliman]
-> http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-rdf/ Expressing Dublin Core in RDF, see e.g. example in section 4.3 for how DCAM notion of vocabulary encoding scheme maps to SKOS notion of concept scheme
17:29:26 [Antoine]
Antoine has joined #swd
17:29:41 [Antoine]
scribenick: Antoine
17:30:18 [Antoine]
Alistair: there is a wiki page for test suite
17:30:36 [aliman]
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/TestSuite SKOS test suite
17:30:39 [Antoine]
... with mapping stuff for the moment
17:31:22 [Antoine]
Tom: the notion of member of a vocabulary encoding scheme is not at the same level as a concept being a member of concept scheme
17:32:24 [Antoine]
Alistair: looking at the DCAM document...
17:33:09 [RalphS]
Alistair: in 4.3, if ex:ExampleSubjects was a skos:Concept, the right thing will happen
17:33:25 [RalphS]
Tom: but that would be redundant
17:33:32 [Antoine]
... to declare that it's a member of
17:35:31 [Antoine]
Alistair: it does not hurt, though
17:36:44 [Antoine]
Tom: PROPOSE the use of concept scheme URI in DC metadata as a vocabulary scheme URI does not raise compatibility issues
17:37:05 [Antoine]
s/Tom/Alistair
17:37:22 [Antoine]
RESOLVED: the use of concept scheme URI in DC metadata as a vocabulary scheme URI does not raise compatibility issues
17:37:25 [RalphS]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
17:37:25 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS
17:38:54 [RalphS]
Guus: what about issues 52 and 53?
17:39:01 [RalphS]
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/52 issue 52
17:39:09 [RalphS]
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/53 issue 53
17:39:36 [Antoine]
Guus: about compatibility with ISO standards
17:40:05 [RalphS]
s/issue 52/issue 52 Compatibility with ISO 2788
17:40:19 [RalphS]
s/issue 53/issue 53 Compatibility with ISO 5964
17:40:44 [Antoine]
Alistair: ISO 2788 is about monolingual thesauri, ISO 5964 for multilingual vocabularies
17:40:45 [Antoine]
Alistair: ISO 2788 is about monolingual thesauri, ISO 5964 for multilingual vocabularies
17:40:50 [Antoine]
Alistair: ISO 2788 is about monolingual thesauri, ISO 5964 for multilingual vocabularies
17:41:20 [Antoine]
Antoine has joined #swd
17:41:25 [Antoine]
scribenick: Antoine
17:41:27 [Antoine]
Alistair: ISO 2788 is about monolingual thesauri, ISO 5964 for multilingual vocabularies
17:41:40 [Antoine]
Guus: we could have tables in one of the documents
17:43:21 [Antoine]
Alistair: easy for ISO 2788, more difficult for ISO 5964
17:43:58 [Antoine]
Guus: ISO 11179
17:44:02 [RalphS]
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/51 issue 51 Compatibility with ISO 11179
17:44:27 [Antoine]
Tom: it has 6 parts, the third is about vocabularies
17:44:41 [Antoine]
... it defines principle for hierarchies and registries
17:45:49 [Antoine]
Ralph: problem with the 'compatibility' notion
17:46:02 [Antoine]
... easy to do with DC, less with ISO 11179
17:46:32 [RalphS]
Ralph: DC has an RDF encoding, 11179 doesn't
17:46:35 [Antoine]
Alistair: [XXX] has an ISO11179 implementation
17:46:57 [Antoine]
... with generation of SKOS from the ISO 11179 data
17:46:59 [aliman]
s/XXX/Steve Harris at Oxford Com Lab/
17:47:23 [RalphS]
Ralph: one sense of "compatibility" is "Can I write a single RDF document instance that uses properties (and classes) from both vocabularies?"
17:48:36 [Antoine]
Jon: there is a consensus that government agencies should comply with ISO 11179
17:48:43 [JonP]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO/IEC_11179
17:49:30 [Antoine]
Clay: it's hard to compare the two
17:49:45 [RalphS]
Jon: we're talking about _compatibility_, not _conformance_
17:49:50 [Antoine]
Guus: did anyone raised the issue?
17:56:17 [Elisa]
Elisa has joined #swd
17:57:02 [Antoine]
Antoine has joined #swd
17:57:05 [Antoine]
PROPOSE to close ISSUE-52 by adding a table to the Primer with correspondences between ISO-2788 and SKOS constructs
17:57:17 [RalphS]
zakim, LC has Antoine, Guus, Alistair, Clay, Jon, Tom, Ed, Ralph
17:57:17 [Zakim]
+Antoine, Guus, Alistair, Clay, Jon, Tom, Ed, Ralph; got it
17:58:01 [Antoine]
scribenick: Antoine
17:59:53 [Antoine]
Antoine has joined #swd
17:59:57 [Antoine]
RESOLVED to close ISSUE-52 by adding a table to the Primer with correspondences between ISO-2788 and SKOS constructs
18:00:06 [RalphS]
s/RESOLVED/RESOLVED:/
18:00:11 [Antoine]
scribenick: Antoine
18:00:13 [RalphS]
me rrsagent, please draft minutes
18:00:25 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS
18:00:40 [Antoine]
Guus: about ISSUE-53
18:01:43 [Antoine]
Alistair: it's about how to construct a multilingual vocabularies
18:01:57 [Antoine]
... and while building it, linking these terms from different languages
18:02:23 [Zakim]
+Elisa_Kendall
18:02:55 [Antoine]
Guus: I'd propose that with the representation of language-specific information
18:03:58 [Antoine]
... SKOS relies on the existing XML facilities for language tagging
18:04:12 [RalphS]
Antoine: ISO 5964 describes the process for defining labels in multiple languages and linking them
18:04:31 [Antoine]
Antoine: links between terms from different languages in 5964 can be represented
18:04:50 [Antoine]
... in SKOS by the fact that a same concept has labels in different languages
18:06:04 [Antoine]
Ralph: PROPOSE to close ISSU-53 by saying that we see no incompatibility between SKOS and ISO5964
18:06:15 [Antoine]
s/ISSU/ISSUE
18:07:16 [Antoine]
RESOLVED :to close ISSUE-53 by saying that we see no incompatibility between SKOS and ISO5964
18:07:24 [Antoine]
s/ :/:
18:08:51 [Antoine]
Antoine has joined #swd
18:09:06 [Antoine]
RESOLVED: to close ISSUE-51 by saying that we see no incompatibility between SKOS and ISO11179
18:09:26 [Antoine]
Symbol labels
18:09:46 [Antoine]
Guus: we have no resolution from the scoping discussion
18:10:13 [aliman]
For Clay, XML notes example at http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/XMLNotes
18:10:32 [Antoine]
Ralph: there was a message last night mentioning interest for symbols
18:11:35 [Antoine]
Guus: we can keep them
18:11:57 [Antoine]
Alistair: we could have a subproperty of skos:note
18:12:01 [RalphS]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0150.html Margherita's comments
18:12:56 [Antoine]
Antoine: I'd prefer to leave them out
18:15:46 [Antoine]
Antoine has joined #swd
18:15:50 [Antoine]
Tom: why would symbolic labels be in scope if we declared that XML code in notes was out of scope
18:15:55 [Antoine]
... ?
18:16:19 [RalphS]
Ralph: we shouldn't try to close issue 76 without Margherita
18:16:25 [Antoine]
Property naming
18:16:56 [Antoine]
ISSUE-82
18:17:15 [RalphS]
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/82 issue 82 Property Names
18:17:19 [Antoine]
Guus: raised after comments on the mailing list
18:18:24 [Antoine]
... I also find it very difficult
18:18:36 [Antoine]
... the simplest solution is to make an absolutely clear note
18:19:56 [Antoine]
... the other is to change the names of the properties
18:20:29 [Antoine]
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/DraftPrimer
18:21:19 [RalphS]
Antoine: see the 5 May "minor edit"
18:22:51 [RalphS]
Section 2.3.1
18:23:52 [RalphS]
Ralph: rather than "the label of the ... property" I'd say "the name of the property"
18:25:23 [Antoine]
Guus: PROPOSED to resolve ISSUE-82 by adding editorial changes to the documents highlighting the intended interpretation of broader and narrower
18:25:29 [RalphS]
+1
18:26:09 [Antoine]
RESOLVED: to close ISSUE-82 by adding editorial changes to the documents highlighting the intended interpretation of broader and narrower
18:27:02 [RalphS]
Tom: we could drop -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/81 issue 81
18:28:24 [Antoine]
Guus: maybe we could not include an unspecified label relationship property
18:29:45 [Antoine]
Antoine has joined #swd
18:30:41 [Antoine]
Alistair: the space of decision is tight. The only property is labelRelated
18:30:42 [RalphS]
Alistair: the only property that caused issue 81 is labelRelated, which we've dropped. So issue 81 is moot.
18:38:30 [TomB]
PROPOSED: ISSUE-81 is resolved because the property in question "labelRelated", has been dropped.
18:38:54 [RalphS]
Regrets+ Vit
18:39:13 [RalphS]
Regrets+ Margherita
18:41:45 [RalphS]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008May/att-0013/IMG_2943.jpg group photo
18:42:13 [RalphS]
left to right: Ralph, Clay, Jon, Alistair, Guus, Tom, Ed, Antoine
18:46:08 [RalphS]
zakim, Guus has left lc
18:46:08 [Zakim]
-Guus; got it
18:49:10 [Clay]
Clay has joined #swd
18:51:39 [RalphS]
Topic: Vocabulary Management
18:51:53 [RalphS]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008May/0023.html "collected notes from reviewers on March 16th Editor's draft" [Elisa 2008-05-07]
18:52:32 [aliman]
scribenick: aliman
18:52:43 [aliman]
tomb: i pasted resolution to ISSUE-81 into IRC
18:53:00 [aliman]
PROPOSED: ISSUE-81 is resolved because the property in question "labelRelated", has been dropped.
18:53:13 [RalphS]
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/Vocab/principles-20080316 VM 16 March Editor's Draft
18:53:17 [aliman]
RESOLVED: ISSUE-81 is resolved because the property in question "labelRelated", has been dropped.
18:53:45 [aliman]
elisa: helpful comments, general consensus that if fixed specific things, general agreement to move document forward
18:54:30 [aliman]
... in terms of structure of doc, a few comments on things to make it clearer, visually outlining/emphasising things e.g. list of topics. Couple of places, organising sections better & labelling sections with headings. i will do that.
18:55:14 [aliman]
... one comment, mark van assem, needed section to say intended audience/readership. I haven't seen this in many notes from W3C, appreciated guidance on who right audience is.
18:55:32 [aliman]
... People who author RDF/OWL schemas, people doing vocab management.
18:55:53 [aliman]
... Tension between the two. What are we addressing? Concept systems? OWL ontologies? What are we talking about?
18:56:42 [aliman]
... Could use some assistance from this group on that. One area where, comments in general, unclear what we're talking about, schemas? vocabularies? biggest issue generally in feedback.
18:57:23 [aliman]
... My sense of feedback was, tension between what a vocabulary is, relationship to concept systems, rdf graphs, owl ontologies. Having a section that teases that out, clear about what we're describing in the document, helpful to broad audience.
18:57:33 [aliman]
... That's the major issue to be addressed.
18:58:13 [aliman]
... Other comments on specific sections, e.g. describing URI schemes in section 2.1. I may need assistance on. Section 2.2, thanks Diego for comments on annotation properties. Tools for generating human-readable documentation.
18:58:31 [aliman]
... A few more comments on section in readable documentation.
18:59:16 [aliman]
... In section 2.3, some feedback on maintenance policies for SKOS. I think, this section is one where I need some input, based on what we've decided. What do you want to highlight? Reference from one of SKOS documents to this, to help connect the two.
18:59:41 [aliman]
... Then there were a few minor comments on research topics, tightening it up.
18:59:56 [aliman]
... That was majority of issues. Biggest one is, what's a vocabulary, graph, ontology etc.?
19:00:32 [aliman]
... That's the biggest issue, need help, Alistair made a good start in email he said. Might be a good idea to have a whole section in the document on this.
19:01:28 [aliman]
tomb: does seem to be a lot to do. In march, planned to publish on may1. in april, changed to publish on june 1 as a WD. but to publish as WD, need to have response to all of points raised, many can discuss now, identify which need further work.
19:02:05 [aliman]
... would need a draft. Moving the note beyond 1 june doesn't seem like a good idea. Feels like there's a lot that needs to be done.
19:02:22 [aliman]
... When could you get a revised draft to WG?
19:03:17 [aliman]
elisa: started on it last week, hoped to get it done this weekend, not possible. I have started addressing them, haven't sent any out yet. Lions share of small issues not hard. Things I need help with, definitions, ontology, graph etc. So much confusion out there.
19:03:24 [aliman]
... Even in the semantic wbe community.
19:03:39 [aliman]
ralph: Do you think there is a distinction we need to clarify for the purposes of this doc?
19:04:05 [aliman]
elisa: could say we're talking about pulishing schemas and their documentation. Not talking about concept systems or vocabularies. So if refocus, less to discuss.
19:04:45 [aliman]
... I think document right now, tries to do both. Maybe because of my misunderstanding of goal. If can corral it, state something up front, or eliminate by talking about schemas, maybe make document more readable.
19:05:35 [aliman]
tomb: I propose we have a discussion first about the meaning of "vocabulary". As I noted in my comments, there's the draft we started with, still reflects ambivalence/ambiguity about what a vocabulary is which was present in early wiki draft.
19:05:45 [aliman]
... whether RDF vocabulary is a set of resources or a set of URIs ...
19:06:01 [aliman]
... Alistair points to RDF semantics and the way that clearly says a vocabulary is a set of URIs, ...
19:06:41 [aliman]
... but on the other hand, alistair also points out, notion of OWL ontology is different from notion of vocabulary. In OWL semantics, closer to notion of RDF graph than "vocabulary".
19:07:20 [aliman]
.. I'd like to discuss, if we say an RDF vocabulary is a set of URIs, then sets of assertions around those URIs are out of scope? E.g. domain and range etc. Are they part of a vocabulary? Or is it just set of URIs?
19:07:51 [aliman]
... Or are we dealing with technical definition of a vocabulary, or information notion of vocabulary as set of resources denoted by URIs.
19:08:52 [aliman]
ralph: let me try my formulation. I hoped we could convey advice on how to manage things like SKOS. How to manage evolution of a specification of some set of things. I mixed together vocabulary, ontology, RDF namespace for purposes of managing whatever those things describe.
19:09:28 [aliman]
... If it would answer you're concerns to rename as "namespace management", telling people how to manage evolution of definitions of terms in the namespace, dated versions to old properties etc.
19:10:28 [aliman]
... that DC has dealt with, SKOS, OWL, FOAF stability vocabulary. For me, answer to the question is, if choosing either choice, e.g. domain and range constraints are not in "RDF vocabulary" ... all properties of a property are what need to be managed.
19:10:48 [aliman]
... We're talking about managing *the definition of SKOS* and the documents at the SKOS namespace.
19:11:06 [aliman]
Tomb: "namespace" is an overloaded term.
19:11:36 [aliman]
Ralph: It's not just the URIs that define the resources. Also other properties of resources. Elisa, do you have any clever terms from OMG?
19:12:27 [aliman]
elisa: they're confused. Maybe we could say up front, what we mean is, collection of things in some specifications, e.g. SKOS and all documentation a specification, then we're talking about managing a specification on the Web.
19:13:28 [aliman]
... Exactly what ralph said, conflated notions of OWL ontology, RDF vocabulary, concept system, publishing something which is specification of something at some place ...
19:13:38 [aliman]
... talking about managing evolution of those things.
19:14:25 [aliman]
ralph: so if we say our audience is, people who have to evolve contents of a namespace document, if that's our audience, then is it confusing to that audience to conflate schema ...
19:14:29 [aliman]
tomb: schema is a bad word
19:14:52 [aliman]
elisa: schema is a subset of that specification. OWL ontologists, everything explicit in the ontology.
19:15:03 [aliman]
... I would argue it's the whole specification.
19:16:43 [RalphS]
Alistair: I think we _can_ talk about managing "RDF vocabularies"
19:17:00 [RalphS]
... I raised the issue because the document seemed to define "RDF vocabulary" in 2 different ways
19:17:08 [RalphS]
Elisa: I'm happy to drop those definitions
19:17:25 [RalphS]
Alistair: defining and managing a Web vocabulary includes all the related documents
19:17:37 [aliman]
[from before] ralph: I wouldn't want to include in scope all documentation practices, out of scope.
19:18:23 [aliman]
ralph: hung up on, what exactly is RDF vocabulary. Found in RDF model and concepts, it had definition of RDF vocabulary. Authors didn't mean to exclude property of a property.
19:19:08 [RalphS]
Alistair: when you're managing a vocabulary, you're managing a set of URIs and a set of properties about those URIs
19:19:25 [RalphS]
... you're not managing at a syntax level
19:19:27 [RalphS]
s/not//
19:19:44 [RalphS]
... you're not managing a _class_; you're managing a _definition_ of a class
19:20:10 [RalphS]
... in a model-theoretic world there's what you say and the interpretation of what you say
19:20:19 [RalphS]
... be explicit that we're managing _documentation_
19:20:38 [RalphS]
Elisa: I can take a crack at writing a new paragraph describing this
19:21:19 [RalphS]
Alistair: you can't version a _class_ but you can version a _definition of a class_
19:21:24 [RalphS]
... you can't version the world :)
19:21:36 [RalphS]
Tom: that fits with DCMI usage
19:21:45 [RalphS]
... we have successive snapshots of a description of a term
19:21:55 [RalphS]
... the term and each snapshot have their own URIs
19:22:37 [aliman]
elisa: I can't try to write short paragraph in the introduction.
19:22:54 [aliman]
ralph: I think that will help, get to meat of what this practices is trying to describe, i.e. definitions
19:23:05 [aliman]
elisa: examples of multiple definitions of same terms?
19:23:05 [RalphS]
s/definitions/managing definitions/
19:23:13 [aliman]
tomb: i have an action to write a paragraph on that.
19:23:18 [aliman]
elisa: would fit nicely
19:23:18 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS
19:23:58 [aliman]
tomb: I wondering now about stuff in note which doesn't fit so well. Taking things out which are orthogonal.
19:24:04 [RalphS]
s/multiple managing/multiple
19:24:22 [RalphS]
s/i.e. definitions/i.e. managing definitions/
19:24:24 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS
19:24:32 [aliman]
... So e.g. in my comments on introduction 4th para ... this emphasis on repositories and portals, example of a repository ...
19:24:41 [aliman]
elisa: might go away, if you don't think useful
19:25:19 [aliman]
tomb: for reviews, respond point by point, take out or leave in, so then reviewers can check new version against comments.
19:25:45 [Antoine]
Antoine has joined #swd
19:25:46 [aliman]
... we need one more iteration, have a new version of the entire draft that we can read and discuss in light of response to reviews.
19:26:11 [aliman]
elisa: I will do that. The philosophical issue in reviews slowed me down, didn't know how to address that.
19:27:00 [aliman]
tomb: going down my comments, section 2.1 para 7, not clear what example of URI schemes, what the point was there. Because we have principle of URI opacity. Examples seem to say, one can construct URIs so embeds informaiton in strings ...
19:27:29 [aliman]
... assisting users in finding things, seemed to imply good practice to embed information in URIs. (A) did I read that right, and (B) do we want to recommend?
19:28:07 [aliman]
elisa: OMG do this. OASIS does this. So we can either take that out, not in keeping with notion of opacity, or leave it in and describe tradeoffs.
19:28:46 [aliman]
ralph: tension here, because value of this document will be to say, some stuff jon's doing with his registry, snapshots of sets of things which make sense, give snapshots a name with dates, have cognitive value to people.
19:29:04 [aliman]
.. so say, here's a reasonable practice for naming things, but URIs are supposed to be opaque. So not sure.
19:30:00 [aliman]
tomb: But either describe example in more detail, or drop. As it is, not clear what example is actually saying. Is this document about recommending something explicitly?
19:30:20 [aliman]
tomb: as it is, example doesn't provide enough information to understand what OMG is actually doing.
19:30:32 [aliman]
elisa: I can provide example, if want to keep it in and expand.
19:31:48 [aliman]
ralph: I'd either drop entirely, or expand into something like a cookbook. I perceive call for cookbook-type things. E.g. owner of the foobar vocabulary, if I do X Y Z nobody at W3C will have a problem. Current example has too many links.
19:31:58 [aliman]
elisa: I will expand to include examples at OMG, how it's working.
19:32:48 [aliman]
ralph: Before you do the work, in this para you say OMG has adopted practices, on the other side of complication. Specifications are sufficiently large and detailed that simple mechanisms aren't working. Rather restrict to simple cases.
19:33:03 [aliman]
elisa: I'll have a look at it.
19:33:32 [aliman]
tomb: My preference to drop it. Expanding it ideally would involve including simpler examples as well, e.g. datestemping in constyructing URI strings.
19:34:23 [aliman]
... we should be careful not to expand scope of what we have, try to narrow scope. We need to get out the door in a very short time. That would expand to whole set of issue which we don't have time for.
19:34:27 [aliman]
elisa: ok
19:35:20 [aliman]
tomb: Some detail about tools which could go. Maintenance policies, there was section about articulating policies, section 2.3 last para.
19:36:30 [aliman]
... policies for vocabularies, but list covers vocabularies and other stuff, things are more than just vocabularies. Not that many published policies, including SKOS. There was a published policy in SKOS 2005, but effectively that's been superseded by decisions taken here. Not clear to me that we have requirement and resources to formulate a policy per se.
19:37:36 [aliman]
... Although that would be desirable to do, but do we have now with tight human resources and focus on Recommendation documents in place before the summer, what that would mean to assign actions to write up maintenance policy for SKOS.
19:37:41 [RalphS]
Alistair: the thing that changed for SKOS was that it entered W3C Recommendation Track
19:37:50 [RalphS]
... which means that decisions are made within the W3C process
19:38:06 [RalphS]
... before that, we had this idea that SKOS was totally community-driven
19:38:54 [aliman]
ralph: Yeah, but W3C process ... Dan Brickley for FOAF had vocabulary for how well baked each vocabulary term is. W3C doesn't say anything about whether you SHOULD/MUST/MAY do fine-grained indication of maintenance.
19:39:23 [aliman]
... If we got to point 2 years ago, would like to say something about e.g. whether like FOAF vocabulary subset or not. But at this point, can't do more than cite example of what's been done.
19:40:13 [aliman]
... Alistair in 2005 SKOS had done similar sort of stability things, if you're point is we should drop aspiriations to deal with stability vocabulary in this note, we don't have time for that.
19:40:51 [RalphS]
Alistair: the SKOS stability terms don't really make sense now in the way SKOS is being managed
19:41:01 [RalphS]
... FOAF is managed on a shorter timescale
19:42:25 [aliman]
ralph: think of this the other way around, original SKOS example, FOAF example, DC example, important to say something to community about how much consensus around a term. Maybe encourage W3C to think about their process. Need to roll with evolution of definitions, maybe community knows something which W3C doesn't.
19:42:57 [RalphS]
s/which W3C doesn't/which W3C Process doesn't yet formalize
19:43:46 [aliman]
elisa: In terms of document, maybe put into two classes, vocabs like FOAF or DC with ongoing revision policy. Other class of things go through more formal review process within some kind of standards-based structure, e.g. W3C has REC-track, OMG structure for documents final then formal, then process in ISO WD, CD, FCD ... more informal community approach, more formal standards approach ......
19:43:48 [aliman]
...maybe that is enough?
19:45:15 [aliman]
tomb: There is a formal process with DCMI terms. Once they're published, DCMI policy is, we can deprecate URI but URIs are forever. The audience for this, we want to encourage people who develop vocabulary, if examples from standards processes, it points out of sync with general ideas to publish formal schema, identify versions ... these headings ...
19:46:26 [aliman]
... how they're formulated, aimed at audience to lower the barrier and encourage to create vocabularies. Focus on large complex ontologies and research topics, preference to completely cut. Doesn't fit with the message as I understand it of the note, to invite people to look at some example that they might reasonably follow.
19:47:16 [aliman]
ralph: You said something there, it's the case that standards orgs like OMG & W3C have formality that is above and beyond what we think the community ... we would like to encourage more community-develop vocabularies ... formal processes forced on us is not what we'd expect.
19:47:31 [aliman]
... The more we talk about formal processes, the more we scare off...
19:48:10 [aliman]
Tomb: selling semantic web in library world, perception that semweb is research, it's way out there and modeling things, we just want something that works, i'm exagerrating this.
19:48:54 [aliman]
... So I feel uncomfortable if group comes out with note that underlines researchy formal complex aspects, as opposed to lower barrier basic principles "use URIs" etc.
19:49:28 [edsu]
TomB++
19:49:39 [aliman]
... problem for semweb activity generally. As semweb deployment WG, we need to push on message which emphasises general principles as opposed to complexities, and doesn't emphasise how complex things can get, especially when look at advanced research issues.
19:51:20 [aliman]
elisa: Fine with me, my users in UML world would prefer that. My user community tends to be people wanting to share with each other, don't need all the baggage. So can happily refocus. If you have examples like FOAF that I can point to, that have been successful in broad community. FinnOnto community of folks doing what we descibre, community effort to retain cultural hertiage, ontologies...
19:51:21 [aliman]
...for art & literature.
19:52:00 [RalphS]
-> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=finonto&btnG=Google+Search FinONTO citatios
19:52:11 [RalphS]
s/tatios/tations/
19:52:15 [aliman]
... they're using SKOS. Only example I know of, national example, maybe audience we're targeting this for. I'm happy to lighten up and direct efforts to doing the simple things.
19:52:44 [aliman]
ralph: Jon do you have support for notions of stabillity of definitions?
19:53:35 [aliman]
jon: we assume definitions aren't going to be stable, so we've defined timeslices, so put stability in hands of consumers, editor's are then free to morph a vocabulary over time. Given users a mechanism to lock it down and trust over time.
19:53:47 [aliman]
ralph: is there explicity mechanisms to say this definition is in flux
19:54:05 [aliman]
jon: we have number of statuses we can assign from approved published to unstable at property level
19:54:12 [aliman]
ralph: analogous to SKOS and FOAF
19:54:27 [aliman]
jon: took our stability definition from those?
19:54:34 [aliman]
s/?/./
19:54:59 [aliman]
jon: we include stability mechanism at every level, can define at whole vocab level, or single property or concept, and can change over time.
19:55:27 [aliman]
tomb: write some sentences on this
19:55:44 [aliman]
... point out SKOS vocabulary falls under the maintenance procedures as defined by W3C process.
19:56:26 [aliman]
ralph: well but, in context of 2.3, (articulate maintenance policies) ... 2005 SKOS had fine grained stability descriptors a la FOAF & metadata registry .. would'nt want to lose that.
19:56:44 [aliman]
... that was in past when SKOS was community exercise. Now SKOS in standards process, have not retained.
19:56:53 [aliman]
tomb: interesting point, good place to capture it.
19:57:09 [aliman]
... can anyone take an action to write a paragraph about that?
19:57:16 [aliman]
ralph: IRC has it?
19:57:52 [aliman]
... I'm arguing against somet.hing I said earllier, maybe time to do a bit of case study exposition, but don't have time to do a vocabulary of stability.
19:58:44 [RalphS]
Alistair: what SKOS 2005 was an ideal
19:58:57 [RalphS]
... what we actually did in practice was less that this ideal
19:59:29 [RalphS]
... so the articulated SKOS 2005 maintenance policies may not be as useful as a working example
19:59:47 [aliman]
elisa: Can still point to it as ideal, in practice less idea?
19:59:56 [aliman]
ralph: propose we don't admit to that.
20:00:02 [aliman]
elisa: It could be a short paragraph.
20:00:29 [aliman]
ralph: didn't prove the model is broken
20:00:55 [aliman]
... similar in FOAF.
20:01:39 [aliman]
... interesting to see what happens with Jon's model, more open, people construct vocabularies by retrieving definitions from repository, so separation between benign dictators and users retrieving stability.
20:02:27 [aliman]
elisa: I have some direction, can poke people to send paragraphs. Can look to lighten up research side, emphasise practical approaches. Try to point to practical things you send me. Eliminate scary parts.
20:02:33 [Zakim]
-[LC]
20:02:58 [aliman]
tomb: suggest revised timetable, first to respond to comments as ...
20:04:11 [Zakim]
+[LC]
20:04:28 [aliman]
elisa: tomb talking about timetable?
20:06:14 [aliman]
tomb: revised timetable, suggest step 1 to respond to comments yes no maybe, there are a few issues e.g. wordsmitihing scopign statement (what we mean by a vocabulary) (also mark van assem, if use "vocabulary", many people associated that with controlled vocabularies) -- so handling scoping on mailing list would be good, if can do that in next 2 weeks, revised version by may 20, time to...
20:06:15 [aliman]
...iterate on mailing list, aim for publication decision on june 3 or june 10.
20:06:54 [aliman]
elisa: ok. I will get my responses out this week. perhaps get draft up towards end of next week. Following week is semantic technologies conference.
20:07:03 [aliman]
tomb: anyone have any further questions?
20:07:31 [aliman]
ralph: any other big things?
20:08:12 [aliman]
elisa: philosophilca discussion no so nasty. hadn't identified tension between practical light weight folks as opposed to heavy weight side. Occurs to me Jim hendler wrote article on this tension a while ago. Aside from that, most specifics ok.
20:09:08 [aliman]
tomb: propose short break, then hack away at skos issues.
20:16:09 [RalphS]
Topic: SKOS Issues
20:16:40 [RalphS]
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/37 issue 37 SKOS Specialization
20:16:59 [RalphS]
scribenick: edsu
20:18:26 [edsu]
PROPOSED: Section 4.8 of the SKOS Primer resolves ISSUE-37
20:18:55 [edsu]
RESOLVED: Section 4.8 of the SKOS Primer resolves ISSUE-37
20:19:25 [edsu]
Topic: ISSUE-45 NaryLinksBetweenDescriptorsAndNonDescriptors
20:19:44 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS
20:19:48 [edsu]
antoine: i think it should have the same fate as the coordination issue, since i believe the solution for one is the solution for the other
20:20:22 [edsu]
... and we postponed ISSUE-40
20:21:01 [RalphS]
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/45 issue 45 N-Ary Links between descriptors and non-descriptors
20:21:28 [RalphS]
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/40 issue 40
20:22:13 [edsu]
PROPOSED: to postpone issue 45, due to lack of time, lack of implementation experience with tentative solutions, and unclear interaction between SKOS and OWL.
20:22:56 [Antoine]
Antoine has joined #swd
20:23:21 [edsu]
RESOLVED: to postpone issue 45, due to lack of time, lack of implementation experience with tentative solutions, and unclear interaction between SKOS and OWL.
20:24:39 [edsu]
aliman: we are clear on the relation of SKOS and OWL
20:24:51 [RalphS]
Alistair: we are clear that SKOS is an OWL Full ontology
20:25:22 [edsu]
... what is yet unknown is what all the reasonable patterns are for using SKOS and OWL together, and becuase of our lack of knowledge, we don't know what the consequences of solutions for coordination are
20:25:44 [RalphS]
s/coordination are/coordination are on those patterns
20:26:04 [edsu]
Topic: ISSUE-46 Indexing and NonIndexing concepts
20:26:10 [RalphS]
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/46 issue 46
20:26:31 [edsu]
Antoine: i think we can drop this one
20:26:48 [edsu]
... i was involved in the raising of this issue
20:27:17 [edsu]
... the fact that skos:subject is removed makes it unclear if it's ok to put this in
20:27:26 [edsu]
aliman: yeah it seems to be out of scope
20:27:33 [RalphS]
Alistair: since we've said that indexing is out of scope then this also seems out of scope
20:28:33 [RalphS]
PROPOSE: Close issue 46 as we have decided that the indexing vocabulary is not part of SKOS
20:29:09 [edsu]
RESOLVED: Close issue 46 as we have decided that the indexing vocabulary is not part of SKOS
20:29:11 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS
20:29:42 [edsu]
TomB: going through these issues has a pretty clear overlap with finalizing the use case document as a note
20:30:20 [edsu]
... we should give an action to the editors of the use cases to report back on the consequences of the decisions for the final set of proposed and candidate requirements
20:30:39 [edsu]
Antoine: we should say which requirements are not met, i think that would do the trick
20:31:15 [edsu]
TomB: is there anything that needs to be revised?
20:31:39 [edsu]
Antoine: there is the issue of what to do with all the use cases ... is it ok to keep them on the wiki?
20:31:54 [edsu]
JonP: we've got use cases that came into the list and aren't documented
20:32:04 [edsu]
aliman: it's a nice repository of use cases
20:32:19 [edsu]
TomB: would be nice but we need to be careful about dividing our attention
20:32:31 [edsu]
RalphS: would it be ok to just point to the wiki from the Note?
20:32:44 [edsu]
Antoine: is it ok for w3c?
20:33:03 [edsu]
RalphS: sure, I'd treat it as a record of the design rationale for the Note
20:33:38 [edsu]
... for community relations reasons its worth putting the effort of editing the information in the wiki -- but we have better ways to spend our time right now
20:33:56 [edsu]
JonP: need to put up what we've decided not to do
20:34:24 [RalphS]
s/rationale for the Note/rationale for the Recommendation
20:34:25 [edsu]
ACTION: Editors of the Use Cases to clean up the lists of requirements in light of resolutions
20:34:49 [edsu]
Topic: Issue-47 MappingProvenanceInformation
20:34:50 [RalphS]
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/47 issue 47
20:35:09 [edsu]
aliman: antoine, you have a proposal for this?
20:35:44 [JonP]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0063.html
20:36:45 [edsu]
Antoine: proposing to create a mapping scheme that would be an RDF named graph, and provenance would be retrieved using the named graph
20:36:56 [aliman]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0017.html
20:37:21 [edsu]
aliman: this proposal has 2 solutions 1) mapping scheme 2) use n-ary relations
20:37:31 [edsu]
... was your proposal to go for the first of these?
20:37:34 [edsu]
Antoine: yes
20:38:38 [edsu]
Elisa: still there?
20:38:41 [RalphS]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0078.html proposed text to close issue 47
20:39:24 [edsu]
RalphS: we don't know what "standard RDF containment mechanisms" are
20:39:43 [edsu]
... I don't like us including vocabulary like Named Graphs in a REC
20:39:53 [edsu]
Antoine, aliman: we've done that already
20:40:02 [edsu]
TomB: maybe we have to stay till 5:15 :)
20:40:22 [edsu]
aliman: one thing we can say is that it's a general rdf problem, and it's not our problem
20:40:41 [edsu]
... we could point to possible options, such as the use of named graphs, sparql queries as a suggestion
20:41:05 [edsu]
RalphS: in the current working draft we use it in the appendix about patterns, and in a sideways reference to concept schemes and named graphs
20:41:22 [edsu]
... we're making no statements about something that does not exist yet
20:41:25 [edsu]
... so we're OK
20:41:43 [edsu]
... but this resolution is a step beyond to suggest someone use this even though it doesn't exist yet
20:41:48 [edsu]
aliman: what does sparql lack?
20:42:04 [edsu]
RalphS: sparql support is in query results right?
20:42:20 [edsu]
aliman: sparql is a recommendation as of january
20:42:32 [edsu]
... and it has 8.2.2 specifying named graphs
20:42:55 [Elisa]
Sparql has some limited support for mapping, but doesn't support nesting very well
20:43:27 [edsu]
-> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#namedGraphs 8.2.2 Specifying Named Graphs
20:43:47 [edsu]
RalphS: sparql is a query language that allows the query to be restricted to a particular set of triples
20:44:18 [edsu]
... antoine's proposed resolution is consistent with this
20:44:53 [RalphS]
zakim, mute elisa
20:44:53 [Zakim]
Elisa_Kendall should now be muted
20:44:55 [edsu]
... the problem i have is that in the context of sparql they can put in this source URI in a way that I don't think we have the luxury to do
20:45:01 [RalphS]
zakim, unmute elisa
20:45:01 [Zakim]
Elisa_Kendall should no longer be muted
20:45:07 [Zakim]
-[LC]
20:45:41 [Zakim]
+[LC]
20:46:36 [edsu]
aliman: can't we resolve this by saying it's out of scope for us, and we'll point to examples of other ways of doing this
20:47:02 [edsu]
RalphS: i'd be happy to point at what sparql does, but i'd be nervous about doing something that looks like a specification for something
20:47:24 [edsu]
Antoine: i would be ok with that as long as it's the same as the semantic relations solution
20:47:51 [edsu]
RalphS: maybe i'd be happy with a subset of Antoine's text
20:48:20 [edsu]
... is just the final sentence sufficient?
20:48:37 [RalphS]
Ralph: how about just the final sentence "Similar to what..." in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0078.html ?
20:49:19 [edsu]
aliman: can't we just resolve quickly and then work with this text?
20:49:40 [edsu]
RalphS: i'm ok with that
20:50:01 [aliman]
PROPOSED: Provenance of mappings is not handled by the introduction of specific SKOS vocabulary. In the SKOS reference documents (Reference and maybe Primer), SKOS users are instead pointed at other RDF containment mechanisms.
20:50:43 [edsu]
RalphS: as long as we don't point at stuff that doesn't exist
20:51:19 [edsu]
... The URI of the information source can be used in a query ... that part is not hypothetical
20:51:38 [aliman]
PROPOSED: Provenance of mappings is not handled by the introduction of specific SKOS vocabulary. In the SKOS reference documents (Reference and maybe Primer), SKOS users are instead pointed at other RDF containment mechanisms (E.g. the URI of a mapping information resource can be used as the name of a graph in a SPARQL query).
20:52:09 [edsu]
RalphS: the thing I'm trying to protect us against, is that in timbl's quoted graphs, the literal graph is not asserted
20:52:55 [edsu]
... if we use the term named graphs, then some future spec might not do what we need
20:53:04 [aliman]
PROPOSED: Provenance of mappings is not handled by the introduction of specific SKOS vocabulary. In the SKOS reference documents (Reference and maybe Primer), SKOS users are instead pointed at other RDF containment mechanisms (E.g. the URI of a mapping information source can be used in a SPARQL query).
20:53:30 [RalphS]
+1
20:53:41 [aliman]
RESOLVED: Provenance of mappings is not handled by the introduction of specific SKOS vocabulary. In the SKOS reference documents (Reference and maybe Primer), SKOS users are instead pointed at other RDF containment mechanisms (E.g. the URI of a mapping information source can be used in a SPARQL query).
20:53:54 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS
20:53:59 [edsu]
RESOLVED: Provenance of mappings is not handled by the introduction of specific SKOS vocabulary. In the SKOS reference documents (Reference and maybe Primer), SKOS users are instead pointed at other RDF containment mechanisms (E.g. the URI of a mapping information source can be used in a SPARQL query).
20:54:41 [edsu]
Topic: ISSUE-49 LexicalMappingLinks
20:54:57 [edsu]
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/49 LexicalMappingLinks
20:55:23 [edsu]
PROPOSED: the XL appendix provides a framework for asserting lexical mapping links
20:55:40 [edsu]
RESOLVED: the XL appendix provides a framework for asserting lexical mapping links
20:55:42 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html RalphS
20:56:29 [edsu]
Topic: ISSUE-64 TextualDescriptionsForConcepts
20:56:38 [RalphS]
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/64 issue 64
20:56:55 [edsu]
aliman: the primer has place holders for talking about these patterns
20:57:02 [edsu]
Antoine: yes but they are empty
20:57:19 [edsu]
JonP: do we continue to allow these design patterns, yes.
20:57:27 [edsu]
aliman: i don't see any reason not to
20:57:32 [edsu]
RalphS: let the community experiment
20:57:50 [edsu]
TomB: we left the range of description unspecified I believe
20:58:04 [edsu]
JonP: part of this issue is how should we formally specify it
20:58:14 [RalphS]
s/experiment/experiment. What was the DCMI experience in this sort of thing?
20:58:22 [edsu]
aliman: the SKOS reference has done this, so maybe we could use that
20:58:49 [edsu]
aliman: some people will want to keep things simple, and some people will want to use a bit of structure
20:59:14 [edsu]
Antoine: i like not closing the door to it
20:59:40 [edsu]
RalphS: you didn't think there were huge interoperability problems that arose? is it similar situation?
20:59:50 [edsu]
aliman: i think it is similar
21:00:10 [edsu]
... there isn't much that's not flat in dublin core data
21:00:23 [edsu]
antoine: the problem is how to decide whether these different patterns are optional or not
21:00:38 [edsu]
... i would feel uncofortable making skos tool developers to deal with all three patterns
21:00:47 [edsu]
RalphS: this is the question
21:01:15 [edsu]
aliman: communities of practice could emerge, and there are application profiles we could talk about
21:01:50 [edsu]
RalphS: i'm still comfortable with community experiments, some tools may encourage the adoption of a particular pattern
21:02:01 [edsu]
aliman: i imagine the literal pattern will predominate
21:02:45 [edsu]
TomB: we assumed in DC that there are some properties like description that have been so widely deployed, even when they can't be constrained, they'll just need to be special cases, we don't know what else to do with that ...
21:03:02 [edsu]
... in other cases we tried to make a clear decision between literal no-literal
21:03:19 [edsu]
RalphS: is it ok with you Antoine that whatever happens, happens?
21:04:04 [edsu]
Antoine: maybe?
21:04:57 [edsu]
aliman: pracitces may differ for different properties, so making a sweeping statement at a high level, because people might create different refinements with different characteristics
21:05:12 [edsu]
RalphS: it could be advice to the user that don't assume that the tools support each of these patterns
21:05:30 [edsu]
... it feels like an area where we are accomadating experimentation
21:05:41 [edsu]
aliman, Antoine, Tomb: yes
21:06:10 [edsu]
aliman: can we just let it happen and not say anything?
21:06:19 [edsu]
... hard to say without specific examples/tools
21:06:35 [edsu]
(ralph packing up laptop)
21:07:17 [edsu]
PROPOSED: SKOS will explicitly allow all 3 patterns for documentation properties
21:07:58 [edsu]
RESOLVED: SKOS will explicitly allow all 3 patterns for documentation properties
21:08:40 [edsu]
TomB: should we print out remaining Issues and take them to dinner?
21:08:45 [edsu]
.. laughter ..
21:09:37 [aliman]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
21:09:37 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html aliman
21:09:42 [edsu]
lets run down the list and say easy|medium|hard
21:10:05 [edsu]
ISSUE-72 ExactMatchTransitive
21:10:19 [edsu]
aliman: 72, 73, 75 medium to high
21:10:31 [edsu]
76, easy
21:10:34 [edsu]
78, easy
21:11:15 [edsu]
ISSUE-80
21:11:23 [edsu]
aliman: could be the subject of an interesting long note
21:11:33 [edsu]
... reluctant to squeeze in to the Primer
21:11:56 [edsu]
ISSUE-83
21:12:03 [edsu]
aliman: probably easy
21:12:26 [edsu]
ISSUE-84
21:12:50 [edsu]
aliman: the issue is to review the statement in the Primer
21:13:07 [edsu]
... if we are it's easy, if we're not it's hard
21:13:17 [edsu]
Antoine: diego sent something
21:14:18 [edsu]
TomB: so hopefully easy
21:14:22 [edsu]
ISSUE-86
21:14:24 [edsu]
aliman: medium
21:14:59 [edsu]
... this issue was triggered by the section of the primer that talks about extending concept schemes
21:15:23 [edsu]
... an application would need to know it can get a URI
21:15:40 [edsu]
... what do we expect to happen when a URI for a concept is resolved
21:16:01 [edsu]
... medium well
21:16:47 [edsu]
Elisa: i don't think it's overly hard, medium sounded ok
21:18:15 [edsu]
TomB: i think we are adjourning ... thanks Elisa
21:18:48 [edsu]
Elisa: looking forward to catching up with you next week
21:18:50 [Zakim]
-Elisa_Kendall
21:19:08 [edsu]
meeting adjourned
21:19:17 [edsu]
zakim, please draft minutes
21:19:17 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'please draft minutes', edsu
21:19:50 [edsu]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
21:19:50 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html edsu
21:21:03 [cred]
cred has left #swd
21:26:24 [Zakim]
-[LC]
21:26:26 [Zakim]
SW_SWD()9:00AM has ended
21:26:27 [Zakim]
Attendees were seanb, Antoine, Guus, Alistair, Clay, Jon, Tom, Ed, Ralph, Elisa_Kendall, [LC]