15:00:49 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #swd
15:00:49 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/10/14-swd-irc
15:00:57 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #swd
15:01:01 <Ralph> zakim, this is swd
15:01:06 <Zakim> Ralph, I see SW_SWD()11:00AM in the schedule but not yet started.  Perhaps you mean "this will be swd".
15:01:13 <Ralph> zakim, this will be swd
15:01:22 <Zakim> ok, Ralph; I see SW_SWD()11:00AM scheduled to start now
15:01:25 <Zakim> SW_SWD()11:00AM has now started
15:01:47 <Zakim> +Ralph
15:02:22 <Ralph> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0163.html
15:02:50 <Zakim> +Antoine_Isaac
15:03:04 <Ralph> regrets: Tom_Baker, Quentin_Reul, Elisa_Kendall, Jon_Phipps
15:03:17 <Ralph> regrets+ Ben_Adida
15:03:37 <Zakim> +??P42
15:03:53 <seanb> ??P42 is me
15:04:01 <seanb> zakim, ??P42 is me
15:04:01 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html previous 2008-10-07
15:04:02 <Zakim> +seanb; got it
15:04:06 <Zakim> +Guus_Schreiber
15:04:15 <Ralph> Meeting: SemWeb Deployment Working Group
15:04:19 <Ralph> Chair: Guus
15:04:28 <Ralph> rrsagent, please make record public
15:04:49 <Ralph> Ralph: regrets for next week
15:05:25 <aliman> aliman has joined #swd
15:05:36 <berrueta> berrueta has joined #swd
15:06:33 <Zakim> +abel
15:06:37 <berrueta> zakim, abel is me
15:06:41 <Zakim> +berrueta; got it
15:07:36 <Zakim> +??P5
15:08:00 <Ralph> zakim, ??p5 is Alistair
15:08:00 <Zakim> +Alistair; got it
15:08:24 <Zakim> +??P11
15:08:35 <Ralph> zakim, ??p11 is Daniel_Rubin
15:08:35 <Zakim> +Daniel_Rubin; got it
15:08:38 <marghe> marghe has joined #swd
15:08:40 <dlrubin> dlrubin has joined #swd
15:08:56 <Ralph> scribe: aliman
15:09:05 <aliman> TOPIC: ADMIN
15:09:13 <aliman> PROPOSED to accept minutes of the last telecon:
15:09:15 <aliman>    http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html
15:09:19 <aliman> no objections
15:09:29 <aliman> Proposed telecon: 21 October
15:09:34 <Zakim> +??P13
15:09:35 <aliman> guus: leave to editors
15:09:41 <aliman> sean: week after is iswc
15:09:49 <aliman> guus: next week is tech plenary
15:09:59 <aliman> ...nothing to prevent us next week
15:10:11 <aliman> sean: hopefully things to ratify next week
15:10:27 <aliman> antoine: i can make next week
15:10:33 <aliman> daniel: can't make next week
15:10:46 <Ralph> zakim, ??p13 is Margherita
15:10:46 <Zakim> +Margherita; got it
15:10:51 <aliman> guus: given 28 is iswc, prefer to meet next week
15:11:03 <aliman> ...propose meet next week
15:11:14 <aliman> [no objections]
15:11:21 <aliman> propose to cancel 28 telecon
15:11:38 <aliman> guus: next telecon 4 november
15:11:58 <aliman> ...after 21
15:12:19 <aliman> next telecon is 21, then 4 nov
15:12:29 <aliman> ben: week of 11 nov is amia
15:12:37 <aliman> ralph: also us holiday
15:12:52 <Ralph> s/also/11-Nov is also
15:13:07 <aliman> guus: from next week on, assume biweekly schedule more or less..
15:13:13 <Ralph> s/ben/Daniel
15:13:42 <aliman> TOPIC:RDFa
15:14:16 <aliman> ralph: hope everything on track for tomorrow. have updated primer, hoping both docs will be published. but don't yet have official directors decision.
15:14:42 <aliman> ...we were asked if we had demod grddl porcessors using namespace link, and haven't yet
15:15:02 <aliman> ...appears to be problem with existing grddl processor implementations, we don't depend on grddl
15:15:15 <aliman> guus: that's it wrt rdfa
15:15:20 <aliman> TOPIC: recipes
15:15:36 <aliman> ACTION: Diego to close recipe issues issue-16 through issue-23and 
15:15:38 <aliman> issue-58 citing email [recorded 
15:15:40 <aliman> inhttp://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#action04]
15:15:46 <berrueta> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0134.html Closing issues 16 to 23 and issue 58
15:15:49 <aliman> --done
15:16:15 <aliman> ralph: see only one issue, can cliam action done
15:16:29 <aliman> guus: if want to close subject, everything must be either closed or postponed state
15:16:38 <aliman> ...i see raised issues
15:16:45 <aliman> ralph: action was to close open issues
15:16:59 <Ralph> s/open/specific open/
15:17:07 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/raised raised issues
15:17:15 <aliman> guus: issue 30, 60, 98 are raised
15:17:27 <edsu> edsu has joined #swd
15:17:29 <aliman> ...i see more than one open issue
15:17:39 <aliman> ...actions sorry, not issues
15:17:53 <Ralph> issue 24 is open
15:17:57 <aliman> ...diego, can you take action to make sure all issues either closed or postponed?
15:18:21 <Zakim> +[LC]
15:18:37 <edsu> zakim, LC is edsu
15:18:37 <Zakim> +edsu; got it
15:18:56 <aliman> diego can you accept this action?
15:18:58 <Zakim> -berrueta
15:19:28 <aliman> TOPIC: SKOS 
15:19:35 <berrueta> berrueta has joined #swd
15:19:46 <aliman> guus: haven't listed all issues, because can get out of date quickly
15:19:52 <aliman> ...propose to go to issue list
15:19:53 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/raised raised [SKOS] isues
15:19:59 <aliman> sean: can we approach in particular way
15:20:20 <aliman> ...have identified issues which result in no change, good to get out of the way today, because then can respond to commenters
15:20:36 <aliman> ...if i post to list, proposing no change, then walk through, ok?
15:20:44 <aliman> alistair: sounds good
15:20:58 <aliman> sean: send in mail
15:21:19 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/132 issue 132
15:21:30 <Ralph> s/ 132/ 132 "error in section 1.7 example"
15:21:31 <aliman> ...first is issue 132, lots of these are minor, should ratify them.
15:21:48 <aliman> ...132 a typo, assume all happy.
15:21:50 <aliman> [assent]
15:22:08 <Ralph> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0182.html "Proposed resolution to No Change Issues" [Sean 2008-10-14]
15:22:27 <aliman> sean: next one, issue 129, in tracker responses and rational for why no change
15:22:42 <Zakim> +berrueta
15:22:55 <aliman> ... comment about concepts and schemes disjoint, our response is this separation aids clarity
15:22:59 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/129 issue 129; skos:ConceptScheme is disjoint with skos:Concept
15:23:04 <aliman> ...any comments about proposal to do nothing?
15:23:14 <aliman> guus: obvious way forward, i agree.
15:23:27 <aliman> ralph: 129 not in email you just posted
15:23:34 <aliman> sean: posted wrong email...
15:23:53 <aliman> antoine: i agree with resolution but not the reason... I know lourens' case, can be a bit misunderstood
15:24:06 <aliman> ralph: did send a draft response next week
15:24:06 <Ralph> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0084.html "ISSUE-129 draft response" [Sean 2008-10-06]
15:24:18 <aliman> sean: now posting correct list to mailing list
15:24:32 <aliman> TOPIC: recipes 
15:24:48 <aliman> guus: diego can you move all recipe issues to either closed or postponed?
15:24:50 <seanb> Sorry -- posted the wrong list. Correct one should be coming now....
15:25:10 <aliman> diego: 3 raised, 1 open ... need to discuss them, maybe with jon first, but can propose a resolution for all 4.
15:25:19 <aliman> guus: propose a resolution only if change document
15:25:27 <seanb> The real list is -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0183.html
15:25:41 <aliman> diego: we propose something, don't think make changes to document, most likely to postpone or close because already addressed in current doc
15:25:46 <aliman> guus: logical to postpone
15:25:51 <aliman> ralph: i like diego's proposal
15:26:07 <aliman> ACTION: diego propose resolutions to remaining recipes issues
15:26:24 <aliman> sean: now posted list
15:26:36 <aliman> ...issue 129, antoine?
15:27:21 <aliman> antoine: you say lourens uses topconcept as inclusion mechanism. not true, becuase has used inscheme... not just one inscheme statement, both present for all concepts, know in both schemes explicitly, not really overloading.
15:27:58 <Ralph> Alistair: the issue was that Lourens wanted to declare some things to be both Concepts and ConceptSchemes, right?
15:28:01 <Ralph> Antoine: yes
15:28:04 <aliman> alistair: we say better not to pun on concepts and schemes
15:28:17 <aliman> antoine: second part of your mail is less controversial
15:28:25 <aliman> sean: if we remove first para, respond to second?
15:28:29 <aliman> antoine: yes
15:28:57 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/131 issue 131; mappings with a boolean expression
15:29:51 <aliman> sean: next issue 131 ... mapping with boolean expression .. a
15:30:00 <aliman> guus: seems reasonable to me
15:30:03 <aliman> antoine: also agree
15:30:16 <aliman> .. on our todo list, would have been useful, but no time
15:30:46 <edsu> +1 for postpone
15:30:46 <aliman> guus: only alternative, if it belongs to our requirements, we could postpone instead of close, would be pointer of inclination of this group, should look at this
15:30:50 <aliman> alistair: fine with me
15:30:54 <aliman> sean: happy with that
15:31:07 <aliman> guus: if feel don't have technology or time, it's the proper thing
15:31:12 <aliman> ralph: is there a requirement?
15:31:32 <aliman> guus: i've written mappings, often required boolean expressions, but not formal requirement for SKOS
15:32:17 <aliman> margherita: originally in SKOS mapping, boolean expressions used. used them in fao, but realised if used, mapping is not symetric. if use narrow, broad, exact, can go from one scheme to another and back again.
15:32:57 <aliman> ... but if start to use boolean expressions, may be necessary to do mapping twice, so this was already discussed, this is why i think boolean expressions removed. don't know if should put them back.
15:33:29 <aliman> guus: postpone?
15:33:41 <aliman> antoine: have started to think about it, but no time to produce a document.
15:33:47 <aliman> guus: we should postpone.
15:34:07 <aliman> ralph: subsequent message from michael panzer in support of further work, so postpone better response
15:34:22 <aliman> sean: next is issue 136
15:34:28 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/136 issue 136; plain literal ranges and internationalisation
15:34:28 <Ralph> State:
15:34:33 <Ralph> s/State://
15:35:22 <aliman> guus: don't see how we can postpone this
15:35:46 <aliman> antoine: wasn't this one of main reasons why go for informal specifications for axioms?
15:35:51 <aliman> alistair: yes, one of them
15:36:15 <Zakim> -Daniel_Rubin
15:36:29 <aliman> ralph: sean's draft response does acknowledge other work in progress. feels if another skos wg in a couple of years, looking at this area would be useful
15:36:55 <aliman> sean: comments from peter on owl2 issues, lots of things we could capture with a more expressive language, not sure whether to treat as postponed or closed
15:37:23 <aliman> ralph: could be added to current skos model without causing compatibility issues, if might be, postpone, but if cannot be accomodated in current model then close
15:37:29 <aliman> guus: answer is we're not sure
15:38:02 <aliman> ralph: like guus' earlier criteria, if can leave breadcrumbs then good
15:38:10 <aliman> ...but if cannot be resolved, then close
15:38:26 <aliman> sean: should include in response that issue has been postponed?
15:38:29 <aliman> ralph: yes
15:38:55 <aliman> sean: issue 137 is next, same, property disjointness, we know expressable in owl 2, so postpone.
15:38:57 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/137 issue 137; property disjointness
15:38:58 <aliman> guus: clear cut
15:39:09 <aliman> sean: few of these are the same
15:39:22 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/138 issue 138; S14 skos:prefLabel
15:39:30 <aliman> ...138 is the same
15:39:51 <aliman> guus: yes
15:40:12 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/148 issue 148; Irreflexive and noncyclical hierarchies
15:41:22 <aliman> sean: issue 148 ... including different flavours of propertie,s or define subproperties of broader etc that are irreflexive, non cyclical, response is we made a call on where to stop, potentially a postponement?
15:41:33 <aliman> ralph: here we did make a decision, so reasonable to close.
15:42:00 <aliman> antoine: i agree with ralph, would be going in to many problems to do
15:42:31 <aliman> sean: response is appropriate? 
15:42:44 <aliman> ralph: prefer "community extensions" rather than "exercise"
15:42:53 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/152 issue 152; Prefix for extension labels
15:43:02 <aliman> sean: issue 152 already fixed
15:43:17 <aliman> guus: when I reviewed, i made this remark
15:43:38 <aliman> ...already fixed
15:43:40 <Ralph> Alistair: this email was in July; we've fixed this in the LC draft
15:44:05 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/155 issue 155; SKOS in OWL 2
15:44:07 <aliman> sean: 155 useful to publish owl2 version, no action required. we propose to response saying yes, nice idea
15:44:16 <aliman> ...treat as postponement.
15:44:36 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/176 issue 176; Mapping vocabulary constraints
15:45:01 <aliman> ...176 is next, comment from jeremy about working of at risk section of document, so doesn't require a change to reference, because at risk part will be removed.
15:45:20 <aliman> ...but he was pointing out, no harm in including further constraints not expressible in owl 1.
15:45:39 <aliman> ...but response is, left features out because we don't know what axioms should be, not because of limitations of owl
15:45:48 <aliman> ...so response is clarification, doesn't require change.
15:46:00 <aliman> ralph: there were things we let owl 2 question tip the balance.
15:46:22 <aliman> ...i have no objection to the example here. but would be inaccurate to say, in no case did we decide based on owl 2.
15:46:35 <aliman> sean: closed or postponed?
15:46:42 <aliman> antoine: no action, then closed?
15:47:33 <aliman> ralph: if we specifically say we decided based on lack of implementation experience, then we might decide...
15:47:42 <aliman> if there are specific constraints...
15:48:01 <aliman> sean: comment did list specific realtionships, e.g. property chain exactmatch broadmatch, so is a specific example.
15:48:18 <aliman> ...happy to go either way.
15:49:02 <aliman> ralph: rereading jeremy's original mail; "my opinion on at risk features" is how he begins... feels like a postponement, I vote postpone.
15:49:06 <aliman> guus: fine with me
15:49:25 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/177 issue 177; Labelling Normative Material
15:49:29 <aliman> sean: ok. 177 was jeremy's comment about whether material should be labeled normative or not.
15:49:53 <aliman> ...he says he wonders about labeling, read the document and decided it is ok as is. but wanted response saying we had at least considered this.
15:51:03 <aliman> ralph: answer is, yes we considered, distinctly recall alistair and sean and antoine say, can we demand this, or leave open... so we haven't explicitly tried to apply vocab of normative/informative, but have considered how strongly to enforce things.
15:51:24 <aliman> guus: everything in reference is meant as normative. all informative in primer.
15:51:30 <aliman> sean: happy to close?
15:51:33 <aliman> guus: yes
15:51:38 <Ralph> s/reference/the References section
15:52:14 <aliman> sean: 179, multiple preferred labels, why clash pref/alt etc.
15:52:31 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/179 issue 179; PFWG: Lexical Labels
15:52:48 <aliman> ...some mail from antoine on this.
15:53:12 <aliman> antoine: your answer is good
15:53:47 <aliman> guus: this comment suggests we need more explanation in reference? hoping for this comment, expect our response to contain, this is what we say in reference.
15:53:57 <aliman> ...assume not clear enough in text.
15:54:23 <aliman> alistair: any suggestions about what we might say [to make it clearer]?
15:55:21 <aliman> guus: i can volunteer to draft another response, similar spirit but would include proposal for changed text.
15:55:47 <aliman> ...rule from dan c, if people say not clear, try to convince with your own text. if not, document not clear enough.
15:56:03 <aliman> ACTION: guus to draft revised response to ISSUE-179
15:56:50 <aliman> guus: i will draft revised response, you have editorial discretion what you do with it. I will propose a slight change, if commenter argues he can live with it, we will make change later.
15:57:01 <Zakim> +??P24
15:57:28 <aliman> ralph: do we have general statement of what to do with our integrity conditions? another reading of al's comment is, failure to meet integrity conditions implies processor should die?
15:58:01 <aliman> ...i think al's comment could be satisfied by saying what we mean by integrity conditions, rather than explaining this particulary condition.
15:58:19 <seanb> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0171.html
15:58:51 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#L831 1.4 Consistency and Integrity
16:00:15 <Ralph> [[
16:00:16 <Ralph> These integrity conditions are included to promote interoperability, by defining the circumstances under which data are not consistent with respect to the SKOS data model. Tools can then be implemented which "check" whether some or all of these integrity conditions are met for given data, and therefore whether the data "fit" the SKOS data model.
16:00:17 <Ralph> ]]
16:00:40 <aliman> ralph: i think this language is sufficient, would point al to this
16:01:00 <aliman> ...all three paragraphs. (section 1.4)
16:01:39 <aliman> ...pointing at these three paragraphs is sufficient.
16:01:49 <aliman> guus: try to point to your own text.
16:01:59 <aliman> sean: for draft to 179, should include...
16:02:05 <aliman> guus: quote part of text
16:02:19 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#L831 1.4 Consistency and Integrity
16:02:20 <aliman> sean: so happy to close this issue along those lines?
16:02:22 <aliman> guus: yes
16:02:46 <aliman> sean: end of list of no changes
16:03:27 <aliman> guus: we are in good shape. realistic time, answer all last call comments, by 4 nov. telecon next week, keep email ongoing.
16:03:40 <aliman> sean: i would hope to have everything on table by 4.
16:04:20 <aliman> guus: think about transition request. no real showstoppers, sufficient comments. means we can plan for middle nov for transition request. is there moratorium?
16:04:36 <aliman> ralph: no, not aware of any issues. 
16:04:47 <aliman> guus: look at end of charter expires 1 jan
16:05:03 <aliman> ralph: will need charter extension, looking at early dec for CR
16:05:23 <Zakim> -??P24
16:05:30 <aliman> guus: have some real work to do on implementations, but will not be 1 feb before can ask for PR, but if get that far then on good track.
16:05:42 <aliman> ralph: so maybe not ready complete CR by 1 feb?
16:05:54 <aliman> guus: difficult to do much earlier. but plausible.
16:05:59 <aliman> ralph: seems good to me.
16:06:17 <aliman> guus: shouldn't slip too much. 
16:06:35 <aliman> ...ok. 
16:06:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/10/14-swd-minutes.html Ralph
16:06:52 <aliman> sean: can take it issues we've been through are ok, so can we get back to commenters?
16:06:55 <aliman> guus: yes.
16:07:22 <aliman> ACTION: sean & alistair to respond to commenters on all issues decided today.
16:07:37 <Ralph> [CONTINUES] ACTION: Guus and Jeremy to give concrete implementation examples of the use of rdfs:label w/ SKOS [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#action10]
16:07:43 <aliman> guus: thanks all for joining, we are adjourned.
16:07:45 <Ralph> [CONTINUES] ACTION: Ben review RDFa Use Cases and propose transition to Group Note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02]
16:07:52 <Zakim> -berrueta
16:07:57 <Zakim> -Margherita
16:08:01 <Ralph> [CONTINUES] ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes implementations] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]
16:08:07 <aliman> antoine: about michael panzer comments, have given some answers, would you prefer I rewrite as candidate answers?
16:08:22 <Ralph> zakim, list attendees
16:08:22 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Ralph, Antoine_Isaac, seanb, Guus_Schreiber, berrueta, Alistair, Daniel_Rubin, Margherita, edsu
16:08:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/10/14-swd-minutes.html Ralph
16:08:31 <aliman> sean: if you're happy to provide candidate responses, great.
16:08:44 <Zakim> -Guus_Schreiber
16:09:05 <Zakim> -edsu
16:09:07 <Zakim> -Antoine_Isaac
16:09:08 <Zakim> -seanb
16:09:13 <edsu> edsu has left #swd
16:09:16 <seanb> seanb has left #swd
16:09:26 <Zakim> -Ralph
16:09:28 <Zakim> -Alistair
16:09:44 <Zakim> SW_SWD()11:00AM has ended
16:09:46 <Zakim> Attendees were Ralph, Antoine_Isaac, seanb, Guus_Schreiber, berrueta, Alistair, Daniel_Rubin, Margherita, edsu
18:15:09 <Ralph> rrsagent, bye
18:15:09 <RRSAgent> I see 4 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/14-swd-actions.rdf :
18:15:09 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Diego to close recipe issues issue-16 through issue-23and  [1]
18:15:09 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/14-swd-irc#T15-15-36
18:15:09 <RRSAgent> ACTION: diego propose resolutions to remaining recipes issues [2]
18:15:09 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/14-swd-irc#T15-26-07
18:15:09 <RRSAgent> ACTION: guus to draft revised response to ISSUE-179 [3]
18:15:09 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/14-swd-irc#T15-56-03
18:15:09 <RRSAgent> ACTION: sean & alistair to respond to commenters on all issues decided today. [4]
18:15:09 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/14-swd-irc#T16-07-22