15:00:23 RRSAgent has joined #swd 15:00:23 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/07/01-swd-irc 15:00:29 Zakim has joined #swd 15:00:33 zakim, this will be swd 15:00:33 ok, Ralph, I see SW_SWD()11:00AM already started 15:00:38 zakim, who's on the phone? 15:00:38 On the phone I see ??P15 15:00:45 Meeting: SemWeb Deployment WG 15:00:52 +Elisa_Kendall 15:00:57 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/0108.html 15:01:06 seanb has joined #swd 15:01:18 +Jon_Phipps 15:01:29 Previous: 2008-06-24 http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html 15:01:36 zakim, Jon_Phipps is me 15:01:36 +JonP; got it 15:01:38 +Ralph 15:01:53 aliman has joined #swd 15:01:56 Chair: Guus 15:02:05 ed has joined #swd 15:02:16 zakim, ??p15 is DLRubin 15:02:16 +DLRubin; got it 15:03:05 Scribe: Jon 15:03:12 +abel 15:03:17 zakim, abel is me 15:03:17 +berrueta; got it 15:03:25 +[LC] 15:03:30 zakim, LC is me 15:03:31 +ed; got it 15:03:37 +??P34 15:03:44 zakim, ??p34 is Aliman 15:03:44 +Aliman; got it 15:03:51 +[VrijeUni] 15:03:56 zakim, vrije is Guus 15:03:56 sorry, Ralph, I do not recognize a party named 'vrije' 15:04:01 zakim, vrijeuni is Guus 15:04:01 +Guus; got it 15:04:17 +??P37 15:04:25 Regrets: Simone 15:04:27 zakim, ??P37 is me 15:04:27 +seanb; got it 15:04:29 Antoine has joined #swd 15:04:35 +[LC] 15:04:52 zakim, lc is Clay 15:04:52 +Clay; got it 15:05:03 Guus has joined #swd 15:05:09 +Daniel_Maycock 15:05:26 +Antoine_Isaac 15:05:38 zakim, who is here? 15:05:38 On the phone I see DLRubin, Elisa_Kendall, JonP, Ralph, berrueta, ed, Aliman, Guus, seanb, Clay, Daniel_Maycock, Antoine_Isaac 15:05:41 On IRC I see Guus, Antoine, ed, aliman, seanb, Zakim, RRSAgent, JonP, dlrubin, Elisa, Ralph, berrueta 15:05:49 Regrets+ Tom 15:06:03 monarcho has joined #swd 15:06:09 Topic: ADMIN 15:06:45 Guus: This is the last scheduled telecon 15:07:34 PROPOSED to accept minutes of the last telecon: http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html 15:07:45 danimov has joined #swd 15:07:59 RESOLVED: to accept minutes of the last telecon 15:08:28 Topic: RDFa 15:08:55 Ralph: Nothing we particularly need to talk about 15:09:05 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/0100.html meeting record: 2008-06-26 RDFa telecon 15:09:11 Ralph: On schedule for August proposed rec 15:09:28 Guss: We need to schedule a meeting for about that time. 15:09:34 Topic: Recipes 15:09:37 scribenick: ralph 15:09:50 Guus: what's the progress on getting the Note published? 15:10:04 Jon: I have updated the Status paragraph but didn't get a chance to send the notification 15:10:10 ... Ralph should look at it 15:10:22 ... Diego found some additional errors in the example document, which I'll fix right after the meeting 15:10:41 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/AddingRDFaToTR 15:10:41 ACTION: Jon and Ralph to publish Recipes as Working Group Note [recorded 15:10:41 in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/10-swd-minutes.html#action03] 15:10:44 -- continues 15:10:51 [DONE] ACTION: Diego to propose minimum RDFa metadata set for WG deliverables. 15:10:51 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action16] 15:11:19 s|deliverables.|deliverables. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action16]| 15:11:42 Diego: see -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/0104.html "adding metadata with RDFa to W3C TR" [Diego 2008-06-29] 15:11:53 ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes 15:11:53 implementations] [recorded in 15:11:53 http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20] 15:11:59 action-2 15:12:00 +Ben_Adida 15:12:07 ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes implementations] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20] 15:12:11 scribenick: jon 15:12:18 Topic: Vocabulary Management 15:13:01 s|Note [recorded|Note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/10-swd-minutes.html#action03]| 15:13:09 rrsagent, please make record public 15:13:14 rrsagent, please draft minutes 15:13:14 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/07/01-swd-minutes.html Ralph 15:13:24 Guus: realistic timescale? 15:13:46 Elisa: almost done, just need to validate 15:14:10 ...should have by next week 15:14:35 Guus: we may start reviewing between telecons, but will have to see how that workds out 15:14:50 Elisa: several people have found the doc to be valuable 15:15:09 ... we were going to include some recommendation about the SKOS namespaces 15:15:24 .. but will figure that out once we've started reviewing 15:15:31 Topic: SKOS 15:15:56 Guus: Antoine sent email on ISSUE-84 15:16:12 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jul/0001.html "Proposal to postpone ISSUE-84 ConstructionOfSystematicDisplaysFromGroupings" [Antoine 2008-07-01] 15:16:59 Antoine: considering that issue-84 is too complex to deal with in the time available 15:17:28 ...issue-84 is borderline wrt SKOS application and I propose to postpone 15:17:36 i/Guus: This/scribenick: jonp 15:17:54 i/Topic: Vocab/scribenick: jonp 15:17:57 rrsagent, please draft minutes 15:17:57 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/07/01-swd-minutes.html Ralph 15:18:22 PROPSED: postpone ISSUE-84, reason given in message 0001 of July 2008 15:18:31 +1 15:18:47 s/PROPSED/PROPOSED 15:19:04 RESOLVED: postpone ISSUE-84, reason given in message 0001 of July 2008 15:19:27 Ralph: I'll update the issue list right now, no action needed 15:19:42 Guus: looking at ISSUE-86 15:20:27 SeanB: action on me and Alistair to compose some text, Alistair has seen 15:21:01 ...suggestion is to follow practices from CoolUris and include in Appendix 15:21:46 ...proposed resolution is to make no requirements but recommend authors should follow the recipes and CoolUris 15:23:26 Guus: ISSUE-73, ISSUE-74, ISSUE-75 15:23:42 Alistair: just sent a mail suggestion some positions for each 15:24:01 ...for issue-72, we make no statement 15:24:26 ...for issue-75 suggest that we don't assert any property chains for exact match 15:24:47 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/0097.html exactMatch issues: ISSUE-72 ISSUE-73 ISSUE-75 [Alistair 2008-06-24] 15:25:08 -berrueta 15:25:54 ...issue-73, when we say related, we're saying there's an associative relationship, and from that perspective it's worth stating that they're disjoint 15:26:07 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/0097.html -> suggestions for exactMatch issues 15:26:21 Antoine: from the pint that we've already asserted semantics for matching properties 15:26:36 ...I was afraid that Alistair's position was a step backward 15:27:55 ...I don't have a strong objection but am uncomfortable 15:28:00 -> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-skos-reference-20080609/#L4138 current specification of skos:exactMatch 15:28:22 ...I support exactMatch disjoiint with related but not broadertransitive 15:29:07 Alisttair: i could live with not saying that exactmatch is not disjoint with aby other property, but that users should check 15:29:27 edsu: no opinion about this 15:29:45 Alistair: one of the difficulaties is that we don't have any obvious use cases 15:30:02 Guus: that means we should follow the least commitment strategy 15:30:24 Alistair: that means that we should say nothing formally on any of these issues 15:30:43 Antoine: would really like to make exactmatch transitive 15:31:03 Daniel: What are the arguments against saying transitive 15:31:27 We currently say "[skos:exactMatch] s typically used to indicate that two concepts are sufficiently similar that they can be used interchangeably in an information retrieval application." 15:31:46 Alistair: making no statement allows people to draw their own conclusions 15:32:01 s/ s / is / 15:32:14 ...if we _sya_ that its transistive then we specify that you're drawing conclusions across mappings 15:32:33 Daniel: it would seem that you would wnat that to be transitive 15:33:02 Alistair: I've never looked at the data, so that was my reluctance 15:33:14 + +49.893.860.aaaa 15:33:21 q+ 15:33:44 Daniel: is there was another semantics for exactMatch then we should have another property 15:34:02 Ralph: I agree 15:34:34 edsu: but of course this may map across a number of concepts 15:34:46 ...if it's transitive then there's bound to be drift 15:35:21 Daniel: exactMatch has a specific semantics that would seem to require transitivity 15:37:06 SeanB: if you make the explicit statement that they're transitive, then you have the possibility of rendering errors 15:37:23 ...given the "sufficiently similar" wording 15:37:26 Alistair: exactMatch is more for a specific application to use rather than a general statement 15:37:47 Daniel: then we need a different property 15:37:59 ...exactmatch implies exact 15:38:26 Ralph: why don't we have a different property "similarMatch" 15:38:39 Alistair: I can see both points of view 15:39:05 Guus: I can see daniels point that it needs to be transitive 15:39:30 SeanB: but "sufficiently similar" isn't exact enough 15:39:54 Alistair: there may be assertions across mappings that requires careful checking of data 15:40:13 Daniel: exactmatch need to be exact 15:40:23 Alistair: but this isn't an exact world 15:40:44 Alistair: these shouldn't ever be used in concept schemes 15:40:54 Ralph why not similarMatch 15:41:10 Daniel: How about nearlyExactMatch 15:41:13 @@: "closeMatch" 15:41:15 Ralph: clesmatch 15:41:28 +1 with not changing the name 15:41:35 zakim, aaaa is Tom 15:41:35 +Tom; got it 15:41:39 s/@@/Tom 15:41:53 Guus: unless we have strong reasons I'd rather not change the name 15:41:57 s/Ralph: clesm/Tom: closeM 15:42:13 many variations bandied about 15:42:42 Ralph: ok with exactMatch as long as there's an addition that exact == close to 15:43:08 Guus: this is why we're not using owl:sameAs 15:43:34 Alistair: this is an issue of quality of exactness of match 15:45:08 Guus: propose to not change the name but add wording 15:45:42 PROPOSE: keep the name "exactMatch" but add a sentence saying that "exact" in this context means "sufficiently similar to" and not "identical to". 15:45:45 Alistair: transitivity is just one entailment 15:46:09 PROPOSE: keep the name "exactMatch" but add a sentence saying that "exact" in this context means "sufficiently similar to" and not "identical to" and this relation is not transitive. 15:46:58 SeanB: seems like there's an inconsistency when you say woolily similar, but then say it's transitive, then you introduce the opportunity to compound errors 15:47:14 Guus: reluctant to change the name becuase it's already been deployed 15:47:25 Ralph++ 15:47:59 Guus: who would be in favor of "closeMatch"? 15:48:23 Alistair: these things should be so similar that you can swap em 15:48:41 I prefer "closeMatch" but would not object to keeping the name with the fuller explanation 15:48:43 SeanB: do you have to qulaify the map 15:49:34 Guus: change the wording of exactmatch to say that it is sufficiently close and not transitive 15:50:10 Ralph: why would you feel that a transitive exact is better than owl:sameAs 15:50:24 ++1 for what Antoine is saying 15:50:31 ++1 15:50:43 Antoine: owl:sameAs comes with additional formal semantics that don't apply here 15:51:11 SeanB: what we're trying to reperesent here is application behavior, and very different from sameAs 15:51:33 Guus: straw poll 15:51:39 I don't feel a need for _both_ transitive exactMatch and also closeMatch 15:52:12 ...exactMatch is transitive 15:52:14 -1 to both transitive exactMatch and close 15:52:32 This appeals to me as a solution, but I'm not a system developer :-) 15:52:43 ...introduce closeMatch as subproperty of exactMatch that is not transitive 15:52:53 Ralph: not sure if there's a use case 15:53:02 s/case/case to have both 15:53:09 Guus: typically exactmatch would be 1 to 1 15:53:46 Alistair: we have no use cases for mapping across vocabularies 15:54:13 ...not sure if it's a lack of use case or lack of data 15:54:30 Alistair: I can live without exactMatch 15:54:42 Daniel: why can't we have both 15:54:54 ...wouldn't this represent a good compromise 15:55:18 Alistair: if we keep both then closeMatch can't be a subproperty 15:56:24 i was wrong, exactmatch could be a sub-prop of closeMatch 15:56:28 Alistair agrees with SeanB that this isn't necessarily so 15:56:42 I can live with both transitive exactMatch and closeMatch 15:56:58 Daniel: I can live with the last proposal of 2 properties, whether one is a subuproperty or not 15:57:24 all agree with 2 properties 15:59:10 PROPSED: ISSUE-72 is resolved by 1) adding to the skos data model a property "closeMatch" which is not transitive. 2) add to skos data model that exactMatch is not transitive 15:59:36 s/not tranisitve/transitive 15:59:56 s/not transitive/transitive 16:00:10 PROPOSED: ISSUE-72 is resolved by 1) adding to the skos data model a property "closeMatch" which is not transitive. 2) add to skos data model that exactMatch is transitive 16:00:26 +1 16:00:43 seconded Daniel 16:00:52 RESOLVED: ISSUE-72 is resolved by 1) adding to the skos data model a property "closeMatch" which is not transitive. 2) add to skos data model that exactMatch is transitive 16:01:08 Guus: reference editors please add wording for this 16:01:26 ...leave it to them to figure out subproperty relationship 16:01:36 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/07/01-swd-minutes.html Ralph 16:01:41 ...but first want to have it right in the reference 16:02:07 ACTION: Alistair and Sean to propose text to implement the resolution of issue-72 16:02:33 -Elisa_Kendall 16:02:37 -Daniel_Maycock 16:02:44 Guus: issue-73... 16:02:59 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/73 ISSUE-73 ExactMatchDisjoints 16:03:01 -DLRubin 16:03:04 -Ben_Adida 16:03:15 Alistair: think this changes now and we can take a stronger position 16:03:54 dlrubin has left #swd 16:04:27 PROPOSED: issue-73 is resolved by skos:exactMatch is disjoint with skos:broaderTransitive and skos:related 16:05:53 Alistair seconds 16:06:08 RESOLVED: issue-73 is resolved by skos:exactMatch is disjoint with skos:broaderTransitive and skos:related 16:06:27 Guus: last issue, issue-75 16:06:43 ...property chain actions 16:07:06 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/75 ExactMatchInclusions 16:07:45 SeanB: my inclination is to not do this, but culd go either way 16:08:02 Guus: don't see any need to define this here 16:08:22 ...I'm happy with the proposal that for the moment there are no property chain actions 16:08:32 Antoine: I could support this 16:09:17 Guus: Close this issue by asserting that there are no property chain actions until there is evidence to support such actions 16:09:32 s/actions/axioms/ 16:09:35 ...would be useful to include the rationale 16:10:35 PROPOSED: Close Issue-75 by asserting that there are no property chain axions until there is evidence to support them 16:10:53 s/axions/axioms/ 16:12:06 PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-75 by asserting that there are no property chain axioms as there is no evidence yet to support them 16:12:40 Antoine seconds 16:12:47 RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-75 by asserting that there are no property chain axioms as there is no evidence yet to support them 16:13:34 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/86 ISSUE-86 16:13:41 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jul/0004.html 16:13:45 SeanB: We haven't yet closed ISSUE-86 16:14:24 sean reads text of email 16:15:32 Ralph: "makes no requirement" is not as strong as "strongly suggests" 16:16:09 seanb: happy to strongly suggest 16:16:10 Ralph: I'd prefer "does not require but strongly recommends" 16:17:13 Ralph++ 16:18:21 PROPOSE: Close ISSUE-86 with and Appendix saying "URIs are used to identity resources of type skos:Concept and skos:ConceptScheme. The SKOS Reference does not require specific behaviour when dereferencing those URIs. It is, however, strongly recommended that publishers of vocabularies follow the guidelines for Best Practice Recipes [REF] and Cool URIS [REF]." 16:19:40 Daniel seconds 16:19:59 s/Daniel/sean 16:20:06 RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-86 with and Appendix saying "URIs are used to identity resources of type skos:Concept and skos:ConceptScheme. The SKOS Reference does not require specific behaviour when dereferencing those URIs. It is, however, strongly recommended that publishers of vocabularies follow the guidelines for Best Practice Recipes [REF] and Cool URIS [REF]." 16:20:34 Guus: planning of telecon: 22July and another a week later 16:21:03 ...22 July for SKOS candidate recommendation, the other for RDFa 16:21:21 I am definitely not here on the 22nd July 16:21:22 seanb: not available 22 July 16:21:31 -Antoine_Isaac 16:21:43 Alistair: one more week would be better 16:22:07 [I'm at risk during August] 16:23:08 Guus: like to have reviewers no, version available for review bu August 16:23:23 ...happy to review reference 16:24:06 Guus: chairs will look at this and be intouch 16:24:27 -Clay 16:24:29 ...editors please start implementing the changes 16:24:37 -ed 16:24:39 -seanb 16:24:41 -Aliman 16:24:41 ADJOURNED 16:24:43 -Guus 16:24:47 -Tom 16:24:49 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/07/01-swd-minutes.html Ralph 16:25:33 -Ralph 16:25:36 -JonP 16:25:39 SW_SWD()11:00AM has ended 16:25:40 Attendees were Elisa_Kendall, JonP, Ralph, DLRubin, berrueta, ed, Aliman, Guus, seanb, Clay, Daniel_Maycock, Antoine_Isaac, Ben_Adida, +49.893.860.aaaa, Tom 16:27:48 seanb has left #swd 17:23:48 berrueta has joined #swd 17:24:54 berrueta has left #swd 17:28:28 zakim, bye 17:28:28 Zakim has left #swd 17:28:30 rrsagent, bye 17:28:30 I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/01-swd-actions.rdf : 17:28:30 ACTION: Jon and Ralph to publish Recipes as Working Group Note [recorded [1] 17:28:30 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/01-swd-irc#T15-10-41-1 17:28:30 ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes implementations] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20] [3] 17:28:30 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/01-swd-irc#T15-12-07 17:28:30 ACTION: Alistair and Sean to propose text to implement the resolution of issue-72 [4] 17:28:30 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/01-swd-irc#T16-02-07