See also: IRC log, previous 2009-01-20
RESOLVED to accept minutes of 20-Jan meeting
RESOLVED next telecon 10 Feb
Guus: typo in the month in my agenda mail
Ralph:when we enter last call
...we are required to notify all other WGs, remind them of end date
... so if any WGs have comments, they get notice
... We (I or chairs) should have sent message to chairs list
... I remembered to send message to WG about last call, should've also sent
to chairs
Guus: one editorial comment from I18N
Alistair: yep, it's editorial
Guus: propose to accept the change
-> "Re: Request for feedback on SKOS Last Call Working Draft" [Felix Sasaki 2009-01-24]
"editorial comment re: Japanese scripts"; now issue-188
PROPOSED: resolve issue-188 by accepting the commentor's edit
RESOLVED issue-188 closed by accepting the commentor's edit
ACTION: Alistair respond to Felix re: issue-188 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html#action01]
Guus: does the Primer contain the same text about Japanese scripts?
Antoine: don't think so
ACTION: [DONE] Guus to report on usage of SKOS in vocabularies at VU for SKOS implementation report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/06-swd-minutes.html#action09]
-> "SKOS usage at eCulture/Europeana" [Antoine 2009-01-27]
Guus: the table Antoine cites might be a format we copy for our implementation report
Antoine: we might improve this by allowing sort
by column and by clustering the columns by general function
... any feedback is welcom
Guus: This is the new European Union-funded
portal
... was presented in October to EU Ministries and got a lot of Press
attention
... 10m hits/hour on the first day
... re-opened end of December with increased server capacity
... Thought Lab
is the experimental SemWeb implementation; gets several thousand hits/day
... Thought Lab is a public demonstrator with data from 3 institutions;
Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, Musee du Louvre, Netherlands Institute for Art
History
ACTION: [PENDING] Sean to report on SKOSED for SKOS implementation report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/06-swd-minutes.html#action10]
-> "application in indexing and search" [Johan De Smedt 2009-01-23]
Guus: Johan's message is applicable to our implementation report; the thread includes notes on two checkers
Alistair: I can take a look and maybe provide feedback
Guus: need someone to volunteer as editor for implementation report
Ralph: I was hoping Sean would take this :)
Guus: I'll ask Sean
Alistair: I'm totally maxed out, sorry
Guus: I may ask someone not currently in the group
ACTION: Guus discuss with Sean editors for the SKOS implementation report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html#action04]
Ben: we're actively working on updating the use
cases in the wiki
... and Michael will update the Note based on the wiki content
... a lot of the wiki update is motivated by discussions with the HTML
Working Group
... the Task Force has onging work on providing guidance on how to make RDFa
friendly to HTML
ACTION: [PENDING] Ben review RDFa Use Cases and propose transition to Group Note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02]
ACTION: [PENDING] Ralph to review the revised Recipes draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html#action15]
ACTION: [PENDING] Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes implementations] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]
ACTION: [PENDING] 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]
ACTION: [PENDING] Guus to look at OWL documents for review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10]
Guus: I've started this, hope to post a draft
response by the end of the week
... a short summary of my comments: (a) the number of additional features
provided is useful for characterizing SKOS properties
... (b) none of the documents are really accessible to a typical SKOS
reader
... (c) the documents appear to be very biased toward the -DL version of the
language
Ralph: I would concur with all three
Alistair: me too
<TomB> +1 on Guus's comments
-> "Mapping" vs "standard" relationships [Tom 2009-01-13] start of thread
<TomB> Antoine's message on 27 January
Antoine: it's still difficult to evaluate; the
discussion is around one sentence
... whether to keep or remove or change this sentence
... the discussion is still ongoing
... but the conclusion will be easy to write once we agree
Tom: the Primer currently in queue to be
published seems to recommend the use of mapping relationships when enriching
a vocabulary
... the minimal approach taken in SKOS Reference makes a simpler distinction;
it says only that you should use standard relationships when talking about
relationships within a concept scheme and mapping relationships between
schemes
... the current editor's draft of the Primer suggests using mapping
relationships when someone other than the owner is making relationships
within a concept scheme
... this appears to me to be a bit of an inconsistency
... for the next version of the Primer it would be good to decide this
... "enrichment within a concept scheme" is one suggestion
... I would accept a minimum solution
... if Antoine's point could be articulated in a way to satisfy everyone, I
see some value in it
Ed: what's the one sentence?
<TomB> SWD/SKOS/primer/primer-20090113
Antoine: the discussion started with a sentence about enrichment
Tom: see end of section
3.1
... "However, the use of mapping properties might also be appropriate in
cases where someone other than its owner needs to enrich the semantic
relationships within a particular concept scheme."
... the question is whether this goes beyond what SKOS Reference says
Guus: what would be the problem in deleting the sentence?
<aliman> Key section from SKOS Reference, section 10.6.1. Mapping Properties, Semantic Relation Properties and Concept Schemes, """By convention, the SKOS mapping properties are only used to link concepts in different concept schemes."""
Guus: we could see what practices are
adopted
... this doesn't sound like a necessary statement for a Primer
... but could agree that this sort of hint is not appropriate for a Primer
... it's not a strong hint anyway; I'd feel more comfortable removing it.
... if we had more time, I'd hope the document would be shorter :)
... would dropping this sentence remove the problem?
Alistair: think so
Tom: looking at the preceeding sentence ...
... the paragraph before isn't necessarily the best wording but I don't have
anything better to suggest right now
Guus: I suggest we drop the 'However ...' sentence from the Primer
Antoine: OK with me
Alistair: OK to drop
Tom: OK to drop
ACTION: SKOS Editors drop "However, the use of mapping properties might..." sentence from the primer section 3.1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html#action10]
[adjourned]
<ed> TomB, thanks for the detailed look at Primer