See also: IRC log, previous 2008-11-25
<TomB> scribenick: Antoine
RESOLUTION: to accept minutes of the last telecon http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html
RESOLUTION: next telecon 9 December
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] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Diego write a proposal to republish Recipes with the httpRange-14 reference corrected and a link to an errata document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action02][DONE]
<berrueta> new editor's draft -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/recipes/draft-20081201.html
Diego: changes are
... new companion
document
... new change log
section
... with respect to
the issue that was mentioned
... the obsolete references were replaced
Tom: does the current version
refers to the TAG position?
... explicitly?
... it is not clear to me whether the TAG document is intended
to be cited like that
Diego: not sure, indeed
... we cite the Cool URIs, we also have reference to email of
TAG resolution
Tom: we should have somebody review these changes and report back
Guus: I propose that we consult Ralph
Tom: Ralph, we wanted to
ask you advice
... on the process of re-publishing the Recipes
... especially wrt. having the reference to the TAG
decision
... and about the process of re-publishing the note (reviews,
etc.)
Ralph: I don't have a strong
opinion about the citation of the TAG finding
... I suggest that we might use the internal review process we
have used in the past
Tom: since the changes are of
technical nature
... Ralph would you be willing to review them from that
perspective?
Ralph: yes
ACTION: Ralph to review the revised Recipes draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html#action15]
<Ralph> Recipes Editor's Draft 01-December
ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes implementations] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Ralph post his comments on the editor's draft of the metadata note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action03] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Guus to look at OWL documents for review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10] [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]
Sean: do we still require dealing
with this issue?
... the draft response has gone out
Tom, Guus: OK
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] [DROPPED]
ACTION: Alistair send issue 135 response from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0104.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action08] [DONE]
<aliman> ISSUE-135 response
ACTION: Sean to add rdf:type and rdf:Property assertions to the skos schema [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-minutes.html#action07] [CONTINUES]
Tom: SKOS namespace question
Sean: a draft response has been written
<seanb> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Dec/0019.html
Sean: Antoine and Alistair are
happy with the proposed appendix
... we can send the draft and we're done
PROPOSED: to respond to ISSUE-153 commenter as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Dec/0019.html
Guus: I support
RESOLVED to respond to ISSUE-153 commenter as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Dec/0019.html
<aliman> for the record, I support this
PROPOSED: to respond to ISSUE-175 commenter as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Dec/0018.html
Tom: is there any difference in the text?
Sean: not really
... just in case one says yes and the other says no
RESOLVED to respond to ISSUE-175 commenter as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Dec/0018.html
Tom: OWL-DL aspect
Sean: I need to discuss with Guus, I don't think there is a big issue here
ACTION: Guus discuss response to issue 157 with Sean [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action12] [CONTINUES]
Aliman: are we going to say that we will not make substantive changes?
Guus: yes
... we might have a note indicating what kind of precautions
OWL-DL people have to take
... with the annotation property decision we made that should
be ok
ACTION: Alistair add an issue for Bernard's comment on mappingRelation and draft a response [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action13] [DONE]
<aliman> new issue for mappingRelation
ACTION: Guus send response for issue 186 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action10] [DONE]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Dec/0010.html
SKOS Primer
ACTION: Antoine propose 1 or 2 SPARQL examples showing named graph usage [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action14] [CONTINUES]
<aliman> antoine: issue closed 160, alistair proposed issue is closed by change to primer...
<aliman> ...this is not recorded anywhere else.
Alistair: we sent a response to
Doug
... he answered but asking a modification to Primer
ACTION: Antoine to write something in Primer wrt. ISSUE 160 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html#action14]
Tom: SKOS open issues
<TomB> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/products/3
Alistair: I assumed that for some
issues there would be an agreement
... as we implemented what the commenter proposed
Ralph: it's probably wise to send
a response to reviewer
... just saying that we agreed
Tom: ISSUE 130
<Ralph> issue 130 skos:hasTopConcept and skos:topConceptOf
Alistair: we're expecting
answer
... how long do we need to wait?
... apart from 153/157/175 there have been answers sent for all
issues
... 181-185 were sent by Antoine on nov 6
Tom: the most recent is 186
Ralph: shorter than a week would be questionable
Tom: by next week we could be
down to just three issues
... it seems we're almost done with the issues
... we should shift our attention to the other documents
<Ralph> Update on Last Call Comments [Alistair 2008-12-02]
Tom: UCR, Primer
Guus: we could be just in time to make a candidate REC request before Xmas
Ralph: it would be tight
... the document has to pass pubrules checker before 18
dec
... I won't be available for a telecon on Dec 16
... if we have something for the 16 I could send it in time
Guus: we would then to have to vote next week
Ralph: we could vote next week
with the understanding that our vote is contingent on the
commentors accepting our reponse responses to the last 3
issues
... I could try to ask for a director's decision for Dec
17
... the sooner we get answers, the better for scheduling the
decision
Tom: if Guus and Sean can propose
a resolution to 157
... and if we can approve that on the list
Ralph: maybe anything we release
before Xmas would not get attention
... we could vote to resolve all the issues and ask for CR in
the first week of January
... my proposal would be to request CR by the 16th
... on the 17th I will ask for an extension of our
charter
... how long are we considering for CR?
Guus: 4-6 weeks
Ralph: I suggest on Dec 16
resolution to request CR on first week of January
... and on 17th I ask for a extension to end of April
... that would fit an end for CR in March
Guus: we can ask on the list
whether people disagree for a response on 157
... once a draft response has been posted
... and next Tuesday we make the formal decision
Tom: ok!
... any issues to raise?
... meeting is adjourned