IRC log of swd on 2008-11-18

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:58:08 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #swd
15:58:08 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:58:11 [TomB]
rssagent, bookmark
15:58:17 [TomB]
zakim, this will be swd
15:58:17 [Zakim]
ok, TomB, I see SW_SWD()11:00AM already started
15:58:25 [TomB]
Meeting: SWD WG
15:58:28 [TomB]
Chair: Tom
15:58:35 [TomB]
zakim, ??p25 is TomB
15:58:35 [Zakim]
+TomB; got it
15:58:53 [TomB]
15:59:31 [TomB]
rrsagent, please make record public
16:00:57 [TomB]
16:01:03 [Zakim]
16:01:04 [Ralph]
zakim, who's on the call?
16:01:06 [Zakim]
On the phone I see TomB, Ralph
16:01:10 [Guus]
Guus has joined #swd
16:01:24 [marghe]
marghe has joined #swd
16:01:25 [Zakim]
16:01:28 [Zakim]
16:01:44 [Ralph]
zakim, lc is EdSu
16:01:44 [Zakim]
+EdSu; got it
16:01:45 [edsu]
edsu has joined #swd
16:01:49 [Guus]
zakim, VeroniqueM is Guus
16:01:49 [Zakim]
+Guus; got it
16:03:15 [Zakim]
16:03:17 [Antoine]
Antoine has joined #swd
16:03:42 [Zakim]
16:04:00 [seanb]
seanb has joined #swd
16:04:14 [benadida]
benadida has joined #swd
16:04:17 [seanb]
just dialing in....
16:04:42 [aliman]
aliman has joined #swd
16:05:37 [Zakim]
16:05:55 [berrueta]
berrueta has joined #swd
16:06:06 [Antoine]
zakim, Guus.a is me
16:06:07 [Zakim]
16:06:09 [Zakim]
+Antoine; got it
16:06:17 [aliman]
zakim, ??P50 is aliman
16:06:22 [Zakim]
+aliman; got it
16:06:35 [berrueta]
berrueta has joined #swd
16:06:46 [Zakim]
16:06:53 [seanb]
zakim, ??P10 is me
16:06:53 [Zakim]
+seanb; got it
16:07:33 [TomB]
scribe: edsu
16:07:38 [TomB]
scribenick: edsu
16:07:46 [edsu]
TOPIC: Admin
16:08:01 [edsu]
RESOLVED to accept minutes of the late telecon
16:08:22 [edsu]
Topic: RDFa
16:08:22 [berrueta_]
berrueta_ has joined #swd
16:09:04 [edsu]
ACTION: Ben review RDFa Use Cases and propose transition to Group Note [recorded in]
16:09:08 [edsu]
16:09:40 [edsu]
benadida: we're continuing on a bi-weekly basis -- life after rec
16:10:01 [edsu]
... the folks at drupal the cms, have prepared a timeline for rdfa in drupal
16:10:16 [edsu]
16:10:28 [edsu]
Topic: Recipes
16:10:51 [edsu]
TomB: you have proposed some resolutions to remaining issues?
16:10:53 [Ralph]
-> [Recipes] proposed resolution for remaing issues
16:10:59 [Zakim]
+ +34.98.419.aaaa
16:11:09 [Ralph]
zakim, aaaa is Diego
16:11:09 [Zakim]
+Diego; got it
16:11:09 [berrueta_]
zakim, aaaa is me
16:11:10 [Zakim]
sorry, berrueta_, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
16:11:25 [edsu]
16:12:02 [edsu]
berrueta_: should we go through them one by one?
16:12:19 [edsu]
TomB: i don't think so, unless there is discussion
16:12:29 [edsu]
Ralph: i concur with all 4 proposals
16:12:37 [edsu]
TomB: would anyone like to discuss?
16:12:54 [berrueta_]
zakim, +34.98.419.aaaa is me
16:12:54 [Zakim]
sorry, berrueta_, I do not recognize a party named '+34.98.419.aaaa'
16:13:48 [edsu]
PROPOSED to postpone issues 24, 30 and 98 and close 60 as per
16:15:55 [edsu]
RESOLVED to postpone issues 24, 30 and 98 and close 60 as per
16:16:38 [edsu]
Topic: RDFa Metadata Note
16:17:31 [edsu]
berrueta: might be helpful to get other people in the working group looking at it, not sure if the timing is right ... would like to discuss the document at some point
16:17:54 [edsu]
TomB: i agree we would need to assign reviewers to move this towards note status, but right now we have our hands full w/ skos
16:18:15 [edsu]
... lets move on with skos for now, and come back to it in a few weeks
16:18:29 [edsu]
seanb: is it right we can't add RDFa to REC documents?
16:18:45 [edsu]
Ralph: that is currently the state, pubrules don't allow it, i can revisit that
16:19:10 [edsu]
seanb: aliman and i discussed this, i figure it wouldn't take long to put this in our SKOS Reference, and i think it would send the right message
16:19:20 [edsu]
... would be willing to fold it in
16:19:25 [edsu]
Ralph: would be wonderful
16:20:29 [edsu]
TomB: Ralph could you check on the rdfa usage in the pubrules? is that within the scope of this working group?
16:20:52 [edsu]
Ralph: i can take an action for that
16:21:27 [edsu]
seanb: i tried to do this with my docs, and i had html entities which caused some problems with the rdfa dtd
16:21:46 [edsu]
berrueta: is this for existing html entities? I haven't seen it
16:22:12 [edsu]
Ralph: i remember danbri saying he used numeric entities ...
16:23:09 [edsu]
16:23:44 [TomB]
ACTION: Ralph to report on use of RDFa metadata in Recommendations.
16:23:55 [edsu]
ACTION: Guus to look at OWL documents for review [recorded in]
16:23:58 [edsu]
16:24:07 [edsu]
Topic: SKOS
16:24:37 [edsu]
TomB: lets start with the actions, and go back to discussion
16:24:39 [Ralph]
[for Sean; the message from DanBri that mentioned using numeric entity rather than   is ]
16:24:46 [JonP]
JonP has joined #swd
16:24:51 [edsu]
ACTION: Guus and Jeremy to give concrete implementation examples of the use of rdfs:label w/ SKOS [recorded in]
16:24:55 [edsu]
16:25:02 [edsu]
ACTION: Guus to propose answer for issue 186 [recorded in]
16:25:05 [edsu]
16:25:32 [Ralph]
-> "ISSUE 186 - draft response" [Guus]
16:25:58 [edsu]
TomB: ok lets start with ISSUE-135
16:26:17 [Ralph]
-> issue 135; rdfs:label
16:26:22 [edsu]
seanb: this is concerneing the subproperty relationship with rdfs:label
16:26:37 [edsu]
... and whether pushing out of owl DL is a good idea
16:26:50 [edsu]
... we already have things outside of owl DL so this isn't the issue
16:27:34 [edsu]
... one way of tackling this would be to assert that they are annotation properties
16:27:46 [edsu]
... might be easier to migrate to owl2
16:28:33 [edsu]
... i think of the labling properties as annotation properties, i'm not clear if this would constitute a substantial change, would be interested in what alistair and others have to say
16:28:47 [edsu]
Guus: rdfs:label is currently an annotation property?
16:29:02 [Ralph]
-> OWL Annnotations
16:29:03 [edsu]
seanb: pretty sure
16:29:32 [edsu]
Guus: i can't see a real reason against it
16:29:47 [edsu]
Antoine: would it have consequences with what we say about the range of the property?
16:30:28 [Ralph]
"The sets of object properties, datatype properties, annotation properties and ontology properties must be mutually disjoint. Thus, in OWL DL dc:creator cannot be at the same time a datatype property and an annotation property." --
16:30:53 [Ralph]
"The object of an annotation property must be either a data literal, a URI reference, or an individual."
16:31:03 [Ralph]
16:31:34 [edsu]
seanb: i believe that one can specify ranges of annotation properties in owl2
16:31:57 [edsu]
Guus: it only makes sense if we can specify value restrictions, cardinality and sub-properties
16:32:24 [edsu]
seanb: as i understood it we would be able to range/domain and sub-properties -- not sure about cardinality
16:32:36 [edsu]
Guus: the non-owl user will ignore this anyway
16:33:06 [edsu]
Ralph: i think it's pretty useful to have subproperty of relationship there, i think it doesn't make sense to have it any other way
16:34:14 [edsu]
seanb: i imagine most applications will be using sub-property anyway to get the behavior that they want
16:34:45 [edsu]
aliman: i don't know what's happening w/ owl2 --- just heard bits and pieces about annotations
16:38:12 [edsu]
seanb: i'm hearing that this is a potential solution to this issue
16:38:16 [edsu]
Guus: i support it
16:38:25 [edsu]
Ralph: +1
16:38:43 [edsu]
aliman: abstain
16:39:01 [aliman]
In I see nothing about annotation property axioms...
16:39:48 [edsu]
Guus: your question is then 'does this change our design' ... i consider it a small refinement
16:39:57 [aliman]
specifically ..
16:40:09 [edsu]
Ralph: it still is confornmant
16:40:22 [edsu]
... we've done due diligence to adding this to our issues list
16:41:32 [edsu]
seanb: we would be removing the assertion that it's a datatype property, and adding the new assertion
16:42:15 [edsu]
Guus: we can just say this was an error, and correct the error
16:42:21 [Ralph]
s/it still is conformant/any implementation that was conformant is still conformant
16:42:25 [edsu]
seanb: are you happy with that alistair?
16:42:29 [edsu]
aliman: i don't know
16:42:51 [edsu]
TomB: if it's a small refinement that's ok -- but could it be arguedthat this is a substantial change?
16:43:29 [edsu]
seanb: i'm uncomfortable with lableing it as an error ... it seemed like a more appropriate way of typing the property
16:43:39 [edsu]
16:44:05 [edsu]
TomB: if i can ask simple question, why is this not an rdf:property?
16:44:32 [edsu]
... an alternative would be just to remove the datatype assertion
16:45:20 [edsu]
aliman: i never had a strong preference one way or the other ... but others do rely on it
16:45:51 [edsu]
Guus: if owl people can add the triple we are fine
16:46:06 [edsu]
... if we remove the owl:datatype statement we are fine
16:46:58 [edsu]
... a less commmitting resolution
16:47:44 [Ralph]
-> skos:*Label Class & Property Definitions
16:47:59 [edsu]
seanb: but why don't we do that with *everything* ?
16:48:37 [aliman]
From SKOS Reference:
16:48:38 [aliman]
16:48:40 [aliman]
We can, therefore, use OWL to construct a data model for representing thesauri or classification schemes "as-is". This is exactly what SKOS does. Taking this approach, the "concepts" of a thesaurus or classification scheme are modeled as individuals in the SKOS data model, and the informal descriptions about and links between those "concepts" as given by the thesaurus or classification...
16:48:41 [aliman]
...scheme are modeled as facts about those individuals, never as class or property axioms. Note that these "facts" are facts about the thesaurus or classification scheme itself, such as "concept X has preferred label 'Y' and is part of thesaurus Z;
16:48:43 [aliman]
16:49:01 [edsu]
Ralph: seems we only used this with notations
16:50:33 [edsu]
aliman: early on we made a decision that skos would be an owl full ontology
16:51:13 [edsu]
Guus: maybe we should separate the issues? i don't think use of annotation model would change the design
16:51:21 [edsu]
16:51:21 [aliman]
16:51:53 [edsu]
seanb: it does open the can of worms: should perhaps other properties in skos be annotation properties
16:52:17 [Ralph]
[our RDF does in fact only explicitly state <owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:about="" />
16:52:42 [edsu]
aliman: if you are dealing with individuals you don't even need annotation properties ... the only use cases where you need annotations are when you start taking bits and pieces of skos and using them elsewhere
16:53:10 [edsu]
s/individuals/individuals in a KOS/
16:53:39 [edsu]
TomB: maybe we can take a decision on the next call, I would rather we not rush into this ... get a proposed resolution up on the list
16:54:29 [edsu]
Guus: are there other cases where skos properties where they are subproperties of owl annotation properties?
16:54:35 [edsu]
seanb: no
16:55:23 [edsu]
TomB: it would be good to have this proposal in writing, and to make clear it doesn't change conformance
16:55:38 [edsu]
... that we can consider in the next call
16:56:23 [edsu]
Ralph: we have declared everything in reference to owl, and not rdf -- so it requires owl reasoning ...
16:56:41 [edsu]
seanb: well it requires knowledge of the relationshiops to the owl schema
16:56:48 [edsu]
Guus: minimal amount of owl reasoning
16:57:23 [edsu]
... it would perfectly fine to add the rdf triples, can only be a gain
16:57:53 [edsu]
Ralph: if you have the rdfs schema loaded you'll be in good shape -- would be good enough
16:58:20 [Ralph]
s/the rdfs/RDFS reasoning and have the OWL
16:58:51 [aliman]
fine with me to at p rdf:type rdf:Property assertion to schema for all property p in SKOS vocabulary
16:58:53 [edsu]
ACTION: Sean to propose a resolution to ISSUE-135
16:58:58 [aliman]
16:59:19 [Ralph]
+1 to meeting next week to close issues
16:59:25 [edsu]
ACTION: Sean to add rdf:type and rdf:Property assertions to the skos schema
16:59:29 [aliman]
+1 to meet next week
17:00:21 [edsu]
RESOLVED to meet on November 25th
17:01:00 [edsu]
seanb: issue-147
17:01:11 [edsu]
17:01:28 [edsu]
aliman, Antoine, Guus : support
17:01:41 [Zakim]
17:01:51 [edsu]
PROPOSED close issue #147 per
17:02:01 [edsu]
RESOLVED close issue #147 per
17:02:04 [Ralph]
-> issue 147; Notations as plain literals
17:03:16 [edsu]
seanb: can anyone look at the current version of the reference where i stuck in some text as an appendix about the namespace change issue
17:03:31 [seanb]
17:03:43 [edsu]
seanb: it's the latest working version
17:03:50 [edsu]
TomB: any other business?
17:03:57 [Zakim]
17:03:59 [edsu]
nope, and byes :)
17:04:00 [Zakim]
17:04:01 [Zakim]
17:04:01 [Zakim]
17:04:02 [Zakim]
17:04:06 [Zakim]
17:04:17 [Ralph]
zakim, list attendees
17:04:17 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been TomB, Ralph, EdSu, Guus, Margherita_Sini, Ben_Adida, Antoine, aliman, seanb, +34.98.419.aaaa, Diego
17:04:23 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Ralph
17:04:30 [Zakim]
17:05:11 [Zakim]
17:05:12 [Zakim]
17:05:13 [Zakim]
SW_SWD()11:00AM has ended
17:05:15 [Zakim]
Attendees were TomB, Ralph, EdSu, Guus, Margherita_Sini, Ben_Adida, Antoine, aliman, seanb, +34.98.419.aaaa, Diego
17:05:21 [Ralph]
zakim, bye
17:05:21 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #swd
17:15:44 [seanb]
seanb has left #swd
18:13:42 [Ralph]
rrsagent, bye
18:13:42 [RRSAgent]
I see 7 open action items saved in :
18:13:42 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ben review RDFa Use Cases and propose transition to Group Note [recorded in] [1]
18:13:42 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
18:13:42 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ralph to report on use of RDFa metadata in Recommendations. [2]
18:13:42 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
18:13:42 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Guus to look at OWL documents for review [recorded in] [3]
18:13:42 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
18:13:42 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Guus and Jeremy to give concrete implementation examples of the use of rdfs:label w/ SKOS [recorded in] [4]
18:13:42 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
18:13:42 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Guus to propose answer for issue 186 [recorded in] [5]
18:13:42 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
18:13:42 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Sean to propose a resolution to ISSUE-135 [6]
18:13:42 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
18:13:42 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Sean to add rdf:type and rdf:Property assertions to the skos schema [7]
18:13:42 [RRSAgent]
recorded in