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 http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-irc
- 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]
- Previous: http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-swd-minutes.html
- 15:59:31 [TomB]
- rrsagent, please make record public
- 16:00:57 [TomB]
- Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0073.html
- 16:01:03 [Zakim]
- +Ralph
- 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]
- +[LC]
- 16:01:28 [Zakim]
- +VeroniqueM
- 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]
- +Margherita_Sini
- 16:03:17 [Antoine]
- Antoine has joined #swd
- 16:03:42 [Zakim]
- +Ben_Adida
- 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]
- +Guus.a
- 16:05:55 [berrueta]
- berrueta has joined #swd
- 16:06:06 [Antoine]
- zakim, Guus.a is me
- 16:06:07 [Zakim]
- +??P50
- 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]
- +??P10
- 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 http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-swd-minutes.html
- 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 http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02]
- 16:09:08 [edsu]
- --continues
- 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]
- http://groups.drupal.org/node/16597
- 16:10:28 [edsu]
- Topic: Recipes
- 16:10:51 [edsu]
- TomB: you have proposed some resolutions to remaining issues?
- 16:10:53 [Ralph]
- -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0003.html [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]
- s/remaing/remaining/
- 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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0214.html
- 16:15:55 [edsu]
- RESOLVED to postpone issues 24, 30 and 98 and close 60 as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0003.html
- 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]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2008Nov/0151.html
- 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 http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10]
- 16:23:58 [edsu]
- --continues
- 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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa/2008Nov/0004.html ]
- 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 http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#action10]
- 16:24:55 [edsu]
- --continues
- 16:25:02 [edsu]
- ACTION: Guus to propose answer for issue 186 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action02]
- 16:25:05 [edsu]
- --done
- 16:25:32 [Ralph]
- -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0079.html "ISSUE 186 - draft response" [Guus]
- 16:25:58 [edsu]
- TomB: ok lets start with ISSUE-135
- 16:26:17 [Ralph]
- -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/135 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]
- -> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#Annotations 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." -- http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#Annotations
- 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]
- -- http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#Annotations
- 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 http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/#Annotations 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 .. http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-owl2-syntax-20081008/
- 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]
- s/lableing/labeling/
- 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]
- -> http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#L1329 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]
- s/model/properties/
- 16:51:21 [aliman]
- q+
- 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="http://www.w3.org/2008/05/skos#altLabel" />
- 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]
- s/at/add/
- 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]
- -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0064.html
- 17:01:28 [edsu]
- aliman, Antoine, Guus : support
- 17:01:41 [Zakim]
- -Guus
- 17:01:51 [edsu]
- PROPOSED close issue #147 per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0064.html
- 17:02:01 [edsu]
- RESOLVED close issue #147 per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0064.html
- 17:02:04 [Ralph]
- -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/147 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]
- -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20081001/
- 17:03:43 [edsu]
- seanb: it's the latest working version
- 17:03:50 [edsu]
- TomB: any other business?
- 17:03:57 [Zakim]
- -seanb
- 17:03:59 [edsu]
- nope, and byes :)
- 17:04:00 [Zakim]
- -Diego
- 17:04:01 [Zakim]
- -Ben_Adida
- 17:04:01 [Zakim]
- -aliman
- 17:04:02 [Zakim]
- -Margherita_Sini
- 17:04:06 [Zakim]
- -Antoine
- 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 http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-minutes.html Ralph
- 17:04:30 [Zakim]
- -TomB
- 17:05:11 [Zakim]
- -Ralph
- 17:05:12 [Zakim]
- -EdSu
- 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 http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-actions.rdf :
- 18:13:42 [RRSAgent]
- 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] [1]
- 18:13:42 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-irc#T16-09-04
- 18:13:42 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: Ralph to report on use of RDFa metadata in Recommendations. [2]
- 18:13:42 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-irc#T16-23-44
- 18:13:42 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: Guus to look at OWL documents for review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10] [3]
- 18:13:42 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-irc#T16-23-55
- 18:13:42 [RRSAgent]
- 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] [4]
- 18:13:42 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-irc#T16-24-51
- 18:13:42 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: Guus to propose answer for issue 186 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action02] [5]
- 18:13:42 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-irc#T16-25-02
- 18:13:42 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: Sean to propose a resolution to ISSUE-135 [6]
- 18:13:42 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-irc#T16-58-53
- 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 http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-irc#T16-59-25