IRC log of swd on 2009-02-10

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:53:58 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #swd
15:53:58 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-irc
15:54:02 [TomB]
rrsagent, bookmark
15:54:02 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-irc#T15-54-02
15:54:08 [Ralph]
Ralph has joined #swd
15:54:12 [TomB]
zakim, this will be swd
15:54:12 [Zakim]
ok, TomB; I see SW_SWD()11:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
15:54:31 [TomB]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Feb/0022.html
15:54:44 [TomB]
Previous: http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html
15:54:51 [TomB]
Regrets: Sean
15:54:58 [TomB]
Meeting: SWD WG
15:55:00 [TomB]
Chair: Tom
15:55:10 [TomB]
rrsagent, please make record public
15:56:57 [Zakim]
SW_SWD()11:00AM has now started
15:57:04 [Zakim]
+Ralph
15:57:42 [Ralph]
actionagent, please continue all my actions :(
15:57:50 [Zakim]
+??P2
15:58:00 [Ralph]
zakim, ??p2 is TomB
15:58:00 [Zakim]
+TomB; got it
15:58:17 [Ralph]
Ralph: no, there's not really an actionagent ;)
16:01:16 [Antoine]
Antoine has joined #swd
16:02:44 [Zakim]
+manrique
16:02:50 [berrueta]
zakim, manrique is me
16:02:50 [Zakim]
+berrueta; got it
16:02:59 [Zakim]
+??P10
16:03:08 [Ralph]
zakim, ??p10 is Antonine
16:03:08 [Zakim]
+Antonine; got it
16:03:23 [Ralph]
s/Antonine/Antoine
16:04:04 [Guus]
Guus has joined #swd
16:05:22 [Zakim]
+Guus_Schreiber
16:05:40 [Ralph]
Regrets+ Sean
16:06:02 [aliman]
aliman has joined #swd
16:06:02 [Ralph]
scribe: ralph
16:06:07 [seanb]
seanb has joined #swd
16:06:13 [Zakim]
+ +0786654aaaa
16:06:24 [Ralph]
zakim, aaaa is Alistair
16:06:24 [Zakim]
+Alistair; got it
16:06:59 [Ralph]
Topic: Admin
16:07:14 [Ralph]
RESOLVED: accept minutes of 27-Jan telecon http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html
16:07:46 [Ralph]
RESOLVED: next meeting 24 Feb
16:08:07 [Ralph]
Tom: today is our 98th WG telecon. closing in on 100 :)
16:08:10 [Zakim]
+??P45
16:08:14 [Ralph]
Guus: I'll buy drinks for the 100th
16:08:18 [Ralph]
zakim, ??p45 is Sean
16:08:18 [Zakim]
+Sean; got it
16:08:18 [seanb]
zakim, ??P45 is me
16:08:19 [Zakim]
I already had ??P45 as Sean, seanb
16:08:23 [Ralph]
regrets- Sean
16:08:40 [Ralph]
Topic: SKOS
16:08:57 [Ralph]
[DONE] ACTION: Alistair respond to Felix re: issue-188 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html#action01]
16:09:11 [Ralph]
Alistair: editorial suggestion, we accepted and put it in the editor's draft
16:09:22 [Ralph]
Tom: CR transition status?
16:10:21 [Ralph]
Ralph: I18N Core agreed to send any Last Call comments by 18 Feb
16:10:43 [Ralph]
... after that, assuming they don't find any serious flaws, we should be able to proceed
16:11:29 [Ralph]
... are we willing to give the editors discretion to make any trivial editorial changes?
16:11:32 [Ralph]
Guus: yes, sure
16:12:23 [Ralph]
Ralph: I expect that the editors and I can judge whether a change would need formal WG approval
16:13:00 [Ralph]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Feb/0018.html 2009-02-07 Comment from Magnus Knuth - proposed response
16:13:13 [Ralph]
Antoine: Magnus asked that the recommendation be an informal one
16:13:35 [Ralph]
... as that was already the case -- was informal -- that seems to satisfy Magnus
16:14:03 [Ralph]
... there was a comment on prefLabel in the RDF version of the onotology that seems to more strongly enforce this recommendatoin
16:14:12 [Ralph]
... I propose to reword this comment following the current language of the Primer
16:14:31 [Ralph]
... "It is recommended that no two concepts in the same concept scheme be given the same preferred lexical label for the same language tag"
16:14:38 [Ralph]
s/datoin/dation
16:14:48 [Ralph]
... I'm ready to send this response if the WG agrees
16:15:08 [Ralph]
Alistair: I concur
16:15:15 [Ralph]
Sean: fine with me
16:15:38 [Ralph]
RESOLVED: Antoine's proposed response in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Feb/0018.html approved
16:16:30 [Ralph]
ACTION: Antoine raise and close an issue for Magnus Knuth's comment
16:16:41 [Ralph]
ACTION: Alistair update the RDF file for response to Magnus Knuth's comment
16:17:04 [Ralph]
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/157 issue-157; Last Call Comment: SKOS and OWL 2 analysis
16:17:12 [Ralph]
Sean: I think it's an oversight that this issue is still open
16:17:24 [Ralph]
... we haven't received a formal response [on behalf of the WG] for this
16:17:39 [Ralph]
... we've noted his [personal] agreement with the resolution
16:17:49 [Ralph]
... so we can close 157
16:18:19 [Ralph]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Feb/0020.html SKOS ontology sanity-check? [Antoine 2009-02-07]
16:18:28 [Ralph]
Antoine: this was directly related to Magnus' comment
16:18:50 [Ralph]
... should we do a final check of the RDF ontology?
16:19:25 [Ralph]
Alistair: it would be good to have as many people as possible to look at the comments and labels in the RDF ontology and compare with the document
16:19:39 [Ralph]
... I've done some basic [machine] checks but these don't look at the labels or comments
16:19:56 [Ralph]
Antoine: I'll try for the basic ontology, won't get to the -xl ontology
16:20:02 [Ralph]
Guus: I'll do the same
16:20:24 [Ralph]
Topic: SKOS Primer
16:20:47 [Ralph]
i/-> http:/Topic: SKOS Ontology
16:21:27 [Ralph]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Feb/0019.html Updated Primer editor's draft [Antoine 2009-02-07]
16:21:51 [Ralph]
Antoine: is this update small enough to republish the WD?
16:22:23 [Ralph]
Ralph: yeah, sure; because of the delay in the CR publication we haven't actually published the Primer yet so this update will be part of the published version
16:22:47 [Ralph]
PROPOSED: Accept http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/primer/primer-20090207.html as the next WD
16:22:56 [Ralph]
RESOLVED: Accept http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/primer/primer-20090207.html as the next WD
16:23:16 [Ralph]
[DONE] ACTION: SKOS Editors drop "However, the use of mapping properties might..." sentence from the primer section 3.1 [recorded in [39]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html#action10]
16:23:29 [Ralph]
Topic: SKOS Implementation report
16:23:40 [Ralph]
[CONTINUES] ACTION: Sean to report on SKOSED for SKOS implementation report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/06-swd-minutes.html#action10]
16:23:52 [Ralph]
ACTION: Guus discuss with Sean editors for the SKOS implementation report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html#action04]
16:24:01 [Ralph]
Guus: problem will be time
16:24:13 [Ralph]
... we need an implementation report before we can exit Candidate Recommendation
16:24:29 [Ralph]
... if we setup a structure for folks to fill-in it will be easier
16:24:42 [Ralph]
... create a list of what we want and ask people to add to that list
16:24:51 [Ralph]
... create a table for SKOS Editors and Checkers
16:25:00 [Ralph]
... would Sean propose a structure for these tables?
16:25:12 [Ralph]
... we could include this in our Call for Implementations
16:25:58 [seanb]
-> http://www.few.vu.nl/~ronny/eculture/skos-usage-eculture.html
16:26:06 [Antoine]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Jan/0080.html
16:26:28 [Ralph]
Guus: let's try to have the structure in 2 weeks for people to fill
16:26:57 [Ralph]
^ SKOS usage at eCulture/Europeana [Antoine, fwd from Ronald Siebes]
16:27:37 [Ralph]
Guus: for a tool, the differences would be whether the tool handles a particular construct
16:27:47 [Ralph]
Sean: extra functions like reading, writing, modifying
16:28:00 [Ralph]
... I can add some categories for these
16:28:18 [Ralph]
... for an implementation report we'd want each implementation to add a line to the table?
16:28:26 [Ralph]
... plus a short paragraph about the implementation?
16:28:28 [Ralph]
Guus: yes
16:28:41 [Ralph]
Antoine: could re-use some of the text in our call for use cases
16:28:45 [Ralph]
s/in our/from our
16:29:29 [aliman]
zakim, mute alistair
16:29:29 [Zakim]
Alistair should now be muted
16:29:29 [Ralph]
Ralph: sure, referring back to our use cases seems reasonable
16:30:44 [Ralph]
ACTION: Ralph include in the Call for Implementation prose on "feedback on implementations of SKOS Editors and Checkers"
16:30:52 [Ralph]
Sean: yes, we use "checker" rather than "validator"
16:31:01 [Ralph]
Guus: we'd like to know which SKOS concepts are supported
16:31:18 [Ralph]
... and for SKOS Vocabularies we'd like to know the purpose, a link, and a list of SKOS concepts used
16:31:44 [Ralph]
... we could extract the concepts used if the vocabulary is public
16:32:59 [Ralph]
Ralph: could put this in the Wiki and let implementors update directly
16:33:18 [Ralph]
Sean: we're not expecting hundreds of reports, so may be easier just to supply a list of the data we'd like
16:33:42 [Ralph]
... I'm not yet accepting editorship of this report :)
16:33:55 [Ralph]
[Guus' action to discuss done]
16:34:30 [Ralph]
Guus: we may not need a formal report; could just be links to several tables
16:34:34 [Ralph]
Ralph: yes
16:35:05 [Ralph]
... an implementation report need not be a formal document
16:35:16 [Ralph]
Topic: RDFa
16:35:26 [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]
16:35:29 [Ralph]
Topic: Recipes
16:35:39 [Ralph]
[CONTINUES] ACTION: Ralph to review the revised Recipes draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html#action15]
16:35:48 [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]
16:35:55 [Ralph]
Topic: RDFa METADATA NOTE
16:36:05 [Ralph]
[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]
16:36:29 [Ralph]
Topic: OWL documents
16:36:37 [Ralph]
[DONE] ACTION: Guus to look at OWL documents for review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10]
16:36:56 [Ralph]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Jan/0084.html proposed response to OWL LC documents [Guus 2009-01-28]
16:37:15 [Ralph]
Guus: the link [2] should point to OWL Reference
16:38:10 [Ralph]
... several of the new OWL2 constructs, particularly property characteristics, are useful for characterizing SKOS
16:38:25 [Ralph]
.. .another typo; reflexivity should be irreflexitivity
16:38:53 [Ralph]
... in my second point I note that the OWL2 documents are not accessible to the typical SKOS user
16:38:59 [Ralph]
... this is an editorial comment
16:39:16 [Ralph]
... while substantial, it's not a technical point against OWL2
16:39:49 [Ralph]
... point 3 is about terminology; to what does "OWL2" refer? Just the DL subset or the whole thing?
16:40:08 [TomB]
+1 Guus's comments look good
16:40:35 [Ralph]
... I added a fourth point which needs more discussion
16:41:06 [Ralph]
Sean: I'm less worried about point 2 from where I sit
16:41:18 [Ralph]
... but I don't object to including it in the group's comments
16:41:43 [Ralph]
Guus: I could imagine the OWL WG responding that there will be one document that uses an RDF representation
16:42:05 [Ralph]
... they wouldn't have to re-do all the documents; it would be sufficient for one document to use RDF
16:42:12 [Ralph]
... leave it to them to decide how to remedy this
16:42:22 [Ralph]
... I don't think it ought to be a lot of work for them
16:42:58 [Ralph]
... internally [in Vrieje] in our group there was consensus about this from folk who were very familiar with RDF
16:43:21 [Ralph]
Alistair: I support Guus' comment
16:43:28 [Ralph]
s/comment/comments
16:43:35 [Ralph]
Antoine: I support them fully
16:43:45 [Ralph]
Guus: my fourth comment ...
16:44:00 [Ralph]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Jan/0091.html Re: proposed response to OWL LC documents [Guus 2009-02-29]
16:44:09 [Ralph]
Guus: I chatted with Ivan about this
16:44:21 [Ralph]
... Ivan suggested I have misinterpreted the OWL documents
16:44:31 [Ralph]
... this might be the case, but my misinterpretation could be revealing
16:45:21 [Ralph]
... I was worried that OWL2 tools might no longer be required to produce RDF/XML
16:45:44 [Ralph]
... these other syntaxes are used in normative sections of the OWL2 documents but apparently that does not mean that the other syntaxes are themselves normative
16:46:34 [Ralph]
Sean: is there an explicit statement of what the normative syntax is?
16:46:45 [Ralph]
Guus: I can rephrase as a question;
16:47:21 [Ralph]
... we would expect RDF/XML to continue to be the normative exchange syntax. It is not completely clear from the documents whether this is the case. Would the OWL WG care to clarify?
16:47:32 [Ralph]
... from the documents I am unclear about the status of the other syntaxes
16:47:45 [Ralph]
... is this a fair question to ask?
16:47:51 [Ralph]
Ralph, Alistair: yes, it's fair
16:48:06 [Ralph]
Alistair: it's a valid concern. It would be a problem for me if OWL tools stopped emitting RDF/XML
16:48:44 [Antoine]
+1
16:48:55 [Ralph]
Guus: we can ask this as a clarification question
16:49:49 [marghe]
marghe has joined #swd
16:50:35 [Zakim]
+Margherita_Sini
16:50:57 [Ralph]
Ralph: I think it's reasonable and proper for this WG to ask the OWL WG to be explicit that RDF/XML continues to be a required exchange syntax
16:51:01 [Ralph]
Guus: 'a' or 'the'?
16:51:13 [Ralph]
Ralph: I'd like 'the' but we can ask them to clarify at least
16:51:20 [Ralph]
Diego: I agree that RDF/XML must be required
16:51:31 [Ralph]
... we would otherwise introduce interoperability problems
16:52:15 [Ralph]
... someone must study the impact of changing the normative syntax
16:52:29 [Ralph]
Guus: I could live with a tool that produces other syntaxes if it always produces RDF/XML too
16:52:40 [Ralph]
Diego: my problem is not just producers but also tools that consume
16:53:07 [Ralph]
... if OWL2 introduces new syntaxes equivalent to RDF/XML then effectively this adds a requirement on implementors
16:53:21 [Ralph]
Sean: looking at the OWL2 Conformance and Test Cases document ...
16:53:29 [Ralph]
... in Section 2 ...
16:53:56 [aliman]
+1 on what guus said, I have no problem with an OWL tool that produces other syntaxes, if it can produce some RDF syntax too
16:53:58 [Ralph]
... I see "... successfully parsed using canonical RDF parsing process ..."
16:54:01 [seanb]
-> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-owl2-test-20081008/
16:54:04 [Ralph]
... which to me says that RDF is still in there
16:54:04 [seanb]
Section 2
16:54:25 [Ralph]
Guus: but the other documents aren't clear as the other syntaxes do appear in normative sections
16:54:30 [Ralph]
Sean: so you want a clarification?
16:54:45 [Ralph]
Guus: yes, I want a clarification but without putting too much pressure on them
16:55:01 [Ralph]
... I will rephrase this as a question
16:55:15 [Ralph]
... I'd like to send this response in a day
16:56:07 [Ralph]
... I'll send a revise proposal tonight, would like comments from SWD tomorrow, then I'll send the comment to OWL WG on Thursday
16:56:18 [Ralph]
Tom: OK
16:56:21 [aliman]
antoine i see you've raised issue 189, were you planning to also raise another issue for the comment in the RDF?
16:56:57 [Ralph]
ACTION: Guus send draft of revised OWL2 response by end of day Tuesday, for WG to review on Wednesday, then send to OWL WG on Thursday
16:57:31 [Ralph]
Guus: I can keep this general; request clarification on status of RDF/XML as a normative exchange syntax
16:58:35 [Ralph]
Ralph: I think it is appropriate and useful for this WG to state that RDF/XML is mandatory
16:59:05 [Zakim]
-Sean
16:59:10 [Zakim]
-Alistair
16:59:35 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html Ralph
17:00:03 [Ralph]
Margherita: apologies for being less available; I expect to have more time in 2 weeks
17:00:25 [Ralph]
Tom: editorial input [after we publish CR] will be useful
17:00:42 [Ralph]
Guus: especially on how FAO uses SKOS; this would be very useful for the implementation report
17:01:02 [Ralph]
Margherita: the new application we are building will have SKOS export
17:01:21 [TomB]
AGROVOC
17:01:27 [Ralph]
... this is a new maintenance tool; AgroVoc service
17:01:54 [marghe]
http://naist.cpe.ku.ac.th/agrovoc/
17:02:30 [Zakim]
-Margherita_Sini
17:02:31 [Zakim]
-Antoine
17:02:33 [Ralph]
^ AGROVOC Concept Server Workbench
17:02:36 [Antoine]
Antoine has left #swd
17:02:41 [Zakim]
-berrueta
17:07:43 [Ralph]
zakim, list attendees
17:07:43 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Ralph, TomB, berrueta, Antoine, Guus_Schreiber, +0786654aaaa, Alistair, Sean, Margherita_Sini
17:07:52 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html Ralph
17:09:25 [Ralph]
[DONE] 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]
17:13:21 [Ralph]
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/
17:15:56 [Zakim]
-Ralph
17:15:57 [Zakim]
-TomB
17:16:12 [Zakim]
-Guus_Schreiber
17:16:17 [Zakim]
SW_SWD()11:00AM has ended
17:16:18 [Zakim]
Attendees were Ralph, TomB, berrueta, Antoine, Guus_Schreiber, +0786654aaaa, Alistair, Sean, Margherita_Sini
17:16:28 [Ralph]
zakim, bye
17:16:28 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #swd