15:01:31 RRSAgent has joined #swd 15:01:31 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-irc 15:01:35 Zakim has joined #swd 15:01:39 zakim, this will be swd 15:01:39 ok, Ralph, I see SW_SWD()11:00AM already started 15:01:42 TomB has joined #swd 15:01:43 zakim, who's on the call? 15:01:43 On the phone I see +003130889aaaa 15:02:01 +Ralph 15:02:03 - +003130889aaaa 15:02:04 + +003130889aaaa 15:02:35 + +31.20.420.aabb 15:02:35 +[IPcaller] 15:02:44 zakim, IPcaller is me 15:02:45 +TomB; got it 15:02:46 Meeting: SemWeb Deployment Working Group 15:02:52 zakim, aabb is me 15:02:52 +Antoine; got it 15:03:42 +??P58 15:03:44 zakim, ??P58 is me 15:03:44 +seanb; got it 15:03:58 zakim, drop aaaa 15:03:58 +003130889aaaa is being disconnected 15:03:59 - +003130889aaaa 15:04:35 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0068.html 15:04:53 -> http://www.w3.org/2009/04/07-swd-minutes.html previous 2009-04-07 15:05:02 rrsagent, please make record public 15:05:56 + +30889aacc 15:06:12 zakim, aacc is Guus 15:06:12 +Guus; got it 15:06:36 Chair: Guus 15:06:40 scribe: Ralph 15:06:52 zakim, who is here? 15:06:52 On the phone I see Ralph, TomB, Antoine, seanb, Guus 15:06:53 On IRC I see TomB, Zakim, RRSAgent, Antoine, seanb, Guus, Ralph 15:06:54 zakim, who's on the call? 15:06:54 On the phone I see Ralph, TomB, Antoine, seanb, Guus 15:07:54 regrets+ Diego 15:08:16 Guus: I see quite a number of implementations coming in 15:08:29 ... we have some editing work to do [based on comment], no real obstacles 15:09:06 RESOLVED: minutes http://www.w3.org/2009/04/07-swd-minutes.html of previous telecon accepted 15:09:22 PROPOSED: next telecon 5 May, Tom to chair 15:09:53 Guus: I may have a conflict on 19 May 15:10:02 Tom: I'll have regrets for 19 May 15:10:16 RESOLVED: next telecon 5 May, Tom to chair 15:10:29 Topic: SKOS 15:10:52 Guus: I'm expecting 10 or more SKOS vocabularies plus 2 tools by 5 May 15:11:00 ... this should be sufficient for an implementation report 15:11:04 Ralph: concur 15:11:18 Guus: not clear whether the SKOS-XL features will have been implemented 15:12:04 ... we'll put Proposed Rec transition request on the agenda for 19 May 15:12:32 ... let's be sure to have all the information available on 5 May 15:13:12 ... issue about labels in SKOS namespace documents 15:13:34 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Mar/0012.html Re: [SKOS] SKOS ontology sanity-check? [Antoine 2009-3-09] 15:13:47 Tom: I just posted about the label issue shortly before this call 15:14:21 ... since our schema will be emulated, it would be good to make it an example of good style 15:14:42 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0074.html Re: [SKOS] SKOS ontology sanity-check? - policy for natural language of rdfs:labels [Tom 2009-04-21] 15:14:57 Antoine: on broaderTransitive ... 15:15:16 ... the reason I omitted concept in the label as I felt the idea of "transitive concept" was unclear 15:15:43 ... however, if you prefer to include "concept" in the label I'll be satisfied 15:16:01 ... I don't see many reactions to [these labels] 15:16:16 Tom: I suspect these things will find their way into displays in various ways 15:16:25 ... so I'd like us to think about whether they make sense in that context 15:16:42 Sean: I would find "has broader concept transitive" confusing 15:16:52 ... sounds like "transitive" is being applied to "concept" 15:17:03 ... perhaps "has broader concept [transitive]" 15:17:19 ... not sure if it's wise to introduce punctuation in labels 15:17:40 Antoine: consider "has transitive broader concept" or "has ancestor" 15:17:50 s/ancestor/ancestor concept/ 15:18:10 ... "ancestor" follows the semantics 15:18:26 Guus: I prefer keeping to a very strict label approach 15:18:37 ... the description property is the appropriate place to explain a bit more 15:18:41 +1 "has transitive broader concept" 15:19:16 Ralph: agree with Guus, I think labels should be very close to the property names. 15:19:48 ... only if we thought we really should have renamed the property would I be inclined to make the labels very different 15:19:59 Tom: I wouldn't want to introduce punctuation 15:20:24 Guus: I propose to keep the labels the same as the name and introduce other clarification into the description 15:20:43 Tom: some labels already introduce other words; 'has', 'concept' 15:20:52 marghe has joined #swd 15:21:09 ... we're following the examples of FOAF and the legacy SKOS vocabulary by breaking the label into natural language strings 15:21:17 ... but introducing words that are not part of the name 15:21:51 -> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-skos-reference-20090317/skos.rdf Candidate Rec schema 15:22:10 +Margherita_Sini 15:22:19 Tom: there was a comment that the property name 'broader' was confusing and the commenter was looking to the label to help clarify 15:22:33 ... so the new label was in response to that comment 15:23:10 Guus: then that would only apply to 'has broader concept' 15:24:25 Ralph: I'd omit words like 'has' 15:24:26 My comments are at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0074.html 15:24:46 ... as I'd expect user interfaces to handle these words 15:25:07 Sean: but some properties should be described as, e.g. 'is in ...' 15:25:18 ... no general algorithm for deciding 'has' or 'is' 15:25:35 Tom: Dublin Core always interpreted label as a human-readable name for the concept 15:25:51 ... so we stick close to the property name but do break it into natural language words 15:26:11 ... we did not, however, follow the upper/lower case conventions for properties and classes 15:27:35 Ralph: my own approach has been a very lazy one; pick property names that work as labels and make the labels be identical to the property names 15:28:18 ... I definitely think introducing 'has' and 'is' in the label will cause us future regrets 15:28:29 Tom: I disagree; we were asked to make the labels be more meaningful 15:28:38 ... so including 'concept' in the label helps 15:28:53 Antoine: @@[scribe missed] 15:29:10 Margherita: I'd like to attach labels in other languages and add synonyms 15:29:34 ... but it's unclear to some whether the object of the relationship is the broader concept or the subject of the relationship 15:29:44 ... so I'd like the label to clarify the direction of the relationship 15:30:05 Guus: we should have a consistent naming scheme, so everything should be these short sentences 15:30:12 ... I can live with this, though I'm not used to it 15:30:20 Ralph: I can live with short sentences as well 15:30:49 ... and anyone who finds sentences truly objectionable can add their own label properties 15:30:54 Guus: exactly 15:32:00 Tom: my message was not meant to make suggestions other than 'has broader transitive' 15:32:09 ... I like adding 'concept' to the label 15:32:17 ... I like 'has transitive broader concept' 15:32:27 Guus: but the word 'concept' seems superfluous to me 15:32:43 ... e.g. 'has related match [concept]' 15:32:51 Antoine: 'match' can be a noun 15:33:03 Guus: adding 'concept' can be very confusing 15:33:14 ... adding it would make 'match' on a par with 'concept' 15:33:36 ... the label should not say anything about the domain and range types, just name the relationship 15:33:51 ... so adding 'concept' would break my rule 15:34:20 ... hasTopConcept is different, as it picks one of several Concepts 15:34:29 ... that's the only exception I see to my rule 15:34:35 Tom: alternativeLabel ? 15:34:50 Guus: the string becomes a Label by virtue of the relationship 15:35:25 ... so drop 'concept' from 'has broader concept' and 'has narrower concept' 15:35:53 ... and 'has broader' solves the problem Tom mentioned 15:36:03 Sean: I'm happy to agree with Guus 15:36:12 ... I'd omit the superfluous stuff 15:36:25 Antoine: I think I could be OK with Guus' suggestion 15:36:35 ... I haven't identified a case that would be particularly bad 15:36:51 Sean: and it's not a technical deal breaker; people can provide their own labels 15:37:40 ACTION: Tom repost his label proposal, dropping the word 'concept' 15:38:29 PROPOSED: drop the word 'concept' from the labels 'has broader concept', 'has narrower concept', 'has related concept' 15:38:53 PROPOSED: drop the word 'concept' from the labels 'has broader concept', 'has narrower concept', 'has related concept', per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0074.html 15:39:33 Margherita: I agree that 'concept' is not needed 15:39:46 ... what's important is that these are URIs, so the URI should not have spaces 15:39:59 Antoine: right, we're not changing the URI 15:40:05 RESOLVED: drop the word 'concept' from the labels 'has broader concept', 'has narrower concept', 'has related concept', per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0074.html 15:41:09 Guus: [to Antoine] note that Primer updates should also be ready by 19 May 15:41:21 Antoine: I'll send something to Ralph 15:41:32 Guus: what about Use Cases and Requirements? 15:41:56 ... it would be nice to clean up UCR but I don't see huge value in it 15:42:08 ... I'd propose to do no further work on UCR 15:42:13 ... happy to leave it as it is 15:42:47 -> http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-ucr/ SKOS Use Cases and Requirements 15:42:53 W3C Working Draft 16 May 2007 15:44:23 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html TomB 15:44:59 Ralph: I'd rather republish it as a Group Note saying we don't plan any further work than to leave it as a Working Draft that eventually falls into a 'Working Drafts no longer in Development' category 15:45:08 Antoine: I agree with not doing much more work 15:45:22 ... but the current working draft uses some identifiers that no longer mean much 15:45:36 ... I'd like to change the ~20 identifiers to be more current 15:46:06 ACTION: Antoine make minor edits to http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-skos-ucr-20070516/ to prepare for publication as Group Note on 19 May 15:47:10 [DONE] CTION: Antoine add the Vrieje Uni tool to the implementation report [recorded 15:47:10 in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-swd-minutes.html#action08] 15:47:33 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0073.html 15:47:36 [DONE] ACTION: Antoine add the Vrieje Uni tool to the implementation report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-swd-minutes.html#action08] 15:48:11 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20090315/implementation.html 15:48:18 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0032.html Request for Implementation Input: SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System [Antoine 2009-04-08] 15:49:07 Sean: I think we have a lot of the substance for the implementation report already in place 15:49:23 Guus: by 5 May I'd like to decide what sorts of implementations we're going to include 15:49:46 Sean: if things continue to come in the way they've been coming in, we should have a number of examples we can cite 15:50:02 Guus: everyone please remind people to send us implementations if you know of anything 15:51:13 Sean: if there's more detail needed in the implementation report than is currently in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20090315/implementation.html, it would be good to know that sooner 15:51:47 Ralph: I'll take a look. Some details about how much of the SKOS vocabulary is exercised could be useful, but that might take too much work to determine 15:52:07 Guus: can we identify which features have not been used in at least 1 implementaton? 15:52:35 ACTION: Sean to look for SKOS constructs not used by current implementations 15:53:52 [DONE] ACTION: Antoine draft intermediate pages for the legacy SKOS Core documents referring readers to the new specifications [recorded in [52]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/07-swd-minutes.html#action04] 15:54:03 [DONE] ACTION: Antoine draft intermediate pages for http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/mapping/spec/2004-11-11.html referring readers to the new specifications [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/07-swd-minutes.html#action05] 15:54:21 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0031.html [SKOS] redirection pages for Quick Guide and Mapping Vocabulary [Antoine 2009-04-08] 15:54:55 Tom: will Sean make the doc changes for the labels? 15:54:59 Sean: sure 15:55:25 ACTION: Sean update labels in the SKOS Rec draft per resolution of 21-April 15:55:57 Guus: I propose to leave the Wikipedia page update until June 15:56:05 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Knowledge_Organization_System Wikipedia page 15:56:09 Topic: RDFa 15:56:19 Ralph: @@ 15:56:22 Ralph: TF continuing to meet 15:57:00 ...main topic has been whether to suggest, and in what form to suggest, adding an attribute that would do the same prefix mapping as XMLNS for HTML 5 and the group has been discussing syntax of that attribute 15:57:30 ...Agreed we would try to reach consensus on design but not update specification - leave design documented in the wiki. 15:57:53 ...At the last meeting, suggested we suspend that discussion, even though close to consensus. 15:58:13 ...Other developments may make this moot. 15:58:34 ...Will probabily not continue further discussion of design. 15:58:46 Topic: Recipes 15:59:31 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0017.html [Recipes] new editors' draft (proposed solution to ISSUE-193) [Diego 2009-04-07] 15:59:41 Ralph: I'd missed Diego's message 15:59:59 ... if we choose to postpone this to next meeting I'll try to have my review done 16:00:16 [CONTINUES] ACTION: Ralph to review the revised Recipes draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html#action15] 16:00:28 [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] 16:00:41 Topic: RDFa Metadata Note 16:00:49 Guus: postpone this to June also 16:01:10 [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] 16:01:31 Topic: WAI-ARIA request for review 16:01:49 Guus: the comment deadline has passed (17 April) 16:02:50 Tom: I'd posted a reply saying that the Group was not planning to do a review but individuals were welcome to post comments as they desired 16:02:59 Guus: so we can drop this item 16:03:21 My response to Michael Cooper re: WAI-ARIA is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0020.html 16:03:37 Antoine: we didn't decide to publish the new intermediate pages 16:03:53 Ralph: Antoine and I can do that offline 16:04:21 ACTION: Ralph publish Antoine's new intermediate pages for legacy specs 16:05:06 Guus: I'm expecting our June telecons to discuss SKOS community outreach 16:05:19 ... and possibly testimonials 16:05:46 Ralph: testimonials go with a Press Release, so you definitely want a Press Release? 16:05:56 Guus, Tom: yes, I think a press release would be good 16:06:03 Ralph: OK, I'll alert Ian Jacobs 16:06:23 [adjourned] 16:06:32 -Antoine 16:06:35 marghe has left #swd 16:06:36 -Margherita_Sini 16:06:39 -seanb 16:06:45 seanb has left #swd 16:07:17 -Ralph 16:07:21 -TomB 16:07:22 -Guus 16:07:23 Antoine has left #swd 16:07:25 SW_SWD()11:00AM has ended 16:07:26 Attendees were +003130889aaaa, Ralph, +31.20.420.aabb, TomB, Antoine, seanb, +30889aacc, Guus, Margherita_Sini 16:07:31 rrsagent, please draft minutes 16:07:31 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html Ralph 16:08:24 rrsagent, bye 16:08:24 I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-actions.rdf : 16:08:24 ACTION: Tom repost his label proposal, dropping the word 'concept' [1] 16:08:24 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-irc#T15-37-40 16:08:24 ACTION: Antoine make minor edits to http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-skos-ucr-20070516/ to prepare for publication as Group Note on 19 May [2] 16:08:24 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-irc#T15-46-06 16:08:24 ACTION: Sean to look for SKOS constructs not used by current implementations [3] 16:08:24 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-irc#T15-52-35 16:08:24 ACTION: Sean update labels in the SKOS Rec draft per resolution of 21-April [4] 16:08:24 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-irc#T15-55-25 16:08:24 ACTION: Ralph publish Antoine's new intermediate pages for legacy specs [5] 16:08:24 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-irc#T16-04-21