W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > December 2008

meeting record: 2008-12-09 SWD WG Telecon

From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 12:13:04 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20081209121114.029f4358@127.0.0.1>
To: public-swd-wg@w3.org

The record of today's Semantic Web Deployment Working Group telecon
is now available.  Thanks, Alistair, for scribing:

  http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-swd-minutes.html

A text snapshot follows.

----

                                SWD WG

09 Dec 2008

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Dec/0055.html

   See also: [3]IRC log, previous [4]2008-12-02

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-swd-irc
      [4] http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html

Attendees

   Present
          Tom Baker, Antoine Isaac, Ralph Swick, Sean Bechhofer,
          Alistair Miles, Antoine Isaac, Ed Summers

   Regrets
          Ben Adida

   Chair
          Tom

   Scribe
          Alistair

Contents

     * Topics
         1. admin
         2. RDFa
         3. recipes
         4. RDFa metadata note
         5. AOB
         6. SKOS
         7. Issue 157
         8. SKOS Implementations
     * Summary of Action Items
     _____________________________________________________

admin

   RESOLUTION: to accept minutes of the last telecon:
   [15]http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html

   tomb: next telecon 16 dec

   ralph: regrets for 16 dec

RDFa

   ACTION: Ben review RDFa Use Cases and propose transition to Group
   Note [recorded in
   [16]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02]
   [CONTINUES]

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02

recipes

   ACTION: Ralph to review the revised Recipes draft [recorded in
   [17]http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html#action15]
   [CONTINUES]

     [17] http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html#action15

   ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes
   implementations] [recorded in
   [18]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]
   [CONTINUES]

     [18] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20

RDFa metadata note

   ACTION: Ralph post his comments on the editor's draft of the
   metadata note [recorded in
   [19]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action03]
   [CONTINUES]

     [19] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action03

AOB

   ACTION: Guus to look at OWL documents for review [recorded in
   [20]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10]
   [CONTINUES]

     [20] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10

SKOS

   ACTION: Sean to add rdf:type and rdf:Property assertions to the skos
   schema [recorded in
   [21]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-minutes.html#action07] [DONE]

     [21] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-minutes.html#action07

   seanb: in latest version of schema, looking for link

   <seanb> Schema is at: ->
   [22]http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20081001/skos.rdf

     [22] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20081001/skos.rdf

   ACTION: Guus discuss response to issue 157 with Sean [recorded in
   [23]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action12] [DONE]

     [23] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action12

   seanb: guus posted the draft for 157

   -> [24]ISSUE-157 Draft response was Re: OWL WG LC comment for SKOS
   reference document] [Guus 2008-12-04]

     [24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Dec/0037.html

   ACTION: Antoine to write something in Primer wrt. ISSUE 160
   [recorded in
   [25]http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html#action14]
   [CONTINUES]

     [25] http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html#action14

   ACTION: Antoine propose 1 or 2 SPARQL examples showing named graph
   usage [recorded in
   [26]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action14]
   [CONTINUES]

     [26] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action14

Issue 157

   Alistair: Guus wrote a [27]draft proposing to rearrange the examples
   ... however Peter wasn't satisfied
   ... Guus noted some things that OWL DL wouldn't support
   ... Antoine noted issues with the rearrangement as this would
   introduce stylistic differences between the Reference and the Primer
   ... Guus proposed that the OWL Full examples be collected under a
   caveat
   ... we need to find a way to resolve issue 157

     [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Dec/0037.html

   -> [28]issue 157; Last Call Comment: SKOS and OWL 2 analysis

     [28] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/157

   Antoine: was Peter's comment about SKOS itself?

   Sean: Peter's worries are not about the data model itself but about
   the presentation of the examples
   ... Peter was concerned that if we used OWL Full patterns in the
   examples this would encourage [more] people to use OWL Full

   seanb: can't stop people doing anything, but peter keen we don't use
   rdf:value in example

   antoine: people should use patterns about to be hidden, because most
   simple and common ones
   ... uncomfortable with encouragement

   Alistair: if this is a problem we need an alternative

   antoine: clear warning about OWL DL
   ... reference has normative value, so people won't come in to primer
   first
   ... so maybe sub-optimal

   seanb: we have these three examples, a literal, a blank node with
   rdf:value, and a URI -- you want to see all three with equal value?

   antoine: literal one is most common, simplest
   ... wouldn't use rdf:value, but means don't need URIs for notes, so
   could be beneficial

   seanb: came late, but alistair had alternative proposal to consider
   them as annotation properties, so then problem using them with
   literals and objects goes away

   antoine: at first glance ok with that, already something we have for
   labeling properties, so re-using this solution is proper way to do
   it
   ... might still be problems with use of annotation properties

   seanb: rdf:value is still an issue, but would solve some of the
   problems

   antoine: anything about rdf:value in OWL 2?

   seanb: not mentioned, has no semantics

   antoine: what is problem with it?

   tomb: where is use of rdf:value documented? mentioned in primer, in
   reference too?

   aliman: just in an example in reference

   antoine: in rdf semantics, listed with containers, collections etc.
   just gives ideas on use, no formal constraint

   tomb: more like a usage convention

   antoine: small paragraph of 7 lines, meaning can vary

   <Antoine> [29]http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#ReifAndCont

     [29] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#ReifAndCont

   Alistair: to make Peter happy we should look at how rdf:value is
   being treated in OWL2
   ... suppose we made all of the properties be owl:AnnotationProperty
   ?
   ... but leave the Primer as it is

   Antoine, Sean: I'd be happy

   Sean: Guus might not be satisfied

   seanb: i would support that
   ... discussing with simon jupp, why aren't documentation props
   annotation props? tells a consistent story
   ... veering towards substantial change, I'm not sure it is.

   antoine: given that skos:note is for annotations, easy to defend.

   seanb: object properties (semantic relations), then labeling and
   documentation properties (annotation properties)

   antoine: difficult to defend doc props not as annotation props

   Alistair: someone might want to add an extension to SKOS that placed
   cardinality restrictions on some properties

   Antoine: complicated because there are many annotation properties in
   the SKOS world

   aliman: i can live with them as annotation props

   seanb: ralph, do you see this as a substantive change? more
   editorial?

   ralph: not sure ... from two viewpoints: Would any developer of a
   skos tool have to change their code to conform to altered version of
   reference? Or, likely that any existing LC comments would disagree
   with this proposed change? I.e. would anyone feel this is
   unacceptable change?

   seanb: difficult to say

   ralph: prefer to err on side of caution, if not sure, consider it
   substantive

   seanb: none of comments mention documentation properties; but maybe
   not mentioned because totally happy;

   ralph: suspect relatively few looking at OWL DL vs OWL Full
   differences in detail

   seanb: I would be happy with this change

   tomb: what are implications if do consider this substantive?

   ralph: we would need to do another last call
   ... formally, we don't have huge variety of choices; more than an
   editorial change, peter feels it's important.
   ... but could say, we don't consider this change invalidates any
   other reviews, and don't consider that skos implementers have to
   make changes.

   seanb: if happy to change to labeling props, then I'm surprised if
   we're unhappy to similar change to doc props.

   tomb: could we assert this is not substantive change, not hide
   problem but ... to go to another last call over this seems to far on
   the side of caution

   ralph: i agree another last call is overkill. i wouldn't want to
   wordsmith too finely to avoid substantive change question, just say
   we have made the following changes.

   seanb: we're still giving people option to comment, so this isn't
   final.

   ralph: purpose of this part of review process is to make sure, if
   somebody did look very carefully at doc props and decide exactly
   right, they wouldn't comment. need to make sure any reviewer who
   could care is on notice that changes have occurred.

   tomb: need to take an action?

   aliman: need to redraft response to peter on 157

   ACTION: seanb to redraft response to peter on ISSUE-157, where skos
   doc props are annotation props, and rdf:value example is dropped
   from skos reference [recorded in
   [30]http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-swd-minutes.html#action10]

   tomb: any objections to this?

   [none]

   <Ralph> Sean, please make sure these sorts of things are explicit in
   the Changes section

   aliman: need to approve sean's drafts on namespace issues

   seanb: approved and sent already

   tomb: so look forward to next week, we should vote next week on a
   resolution to request candidate rec in first week of jan, then on
   next day ralph will ask for extension of charter to end of april
   ... Need to propose to go to candidate rec on the list, so can vote
   at next week's call.

   ACTION: alistair send email with editors' draft proposed for CR
   before next telcon [recorded in
   [31]http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-swd-minutes.html#action11]

   tomb: can say time has run out if no response by next week

   Alistair: on 157, can Sean send his revised response based on
   today's discussion directly to Peter?

   Tom: yes, that would save time

   PROPOSED: to respond to ISSUE-157 commenter, proposing skos
   documentation props are made OWL annotation properties and rdf:value
   example is removed from skos reference

   tomb: any discussion?

   RESOLUTION: to respond to ISSUE-157 commenter, proposing skos
   documentation props are made OWL annotation properties and rdf:value
   example is removed from skos reference

   seanb: i'll check with guus, what if he doesn't like it?

   tomb: then we have to go to list somehow

   Alistair: we'll make a new editors' draft incorporating all the
   changes we proposed to commentors
   ... will be contingent on Peter and Guus being willing to live with
   the resolution to issue 157

SKOS Implementations

   tomb: ask if, implementations, ed and antoine what's the status of
   the LoC subject headings?
   ... any issues to resolve there?

   edsu: we're both working on separate things, but kind of the same.
   what LC is doing, what their not doing. lcsh.info was done as an
   experiment by me, to get feedback on whether correct and/or useful.
   ... people here see it is useful, good feedback, most concerns come
   back to having it live at real domain in LC rather than my domain,
   no concerns about skos implementation details.
   ... antoine and I discussed things specific to LCSH, meaning to
   write email on the topic, basically that LCSH has sets of concepts
   that are more specialised than skos:Concept, e.g. topical concepts,
   geographic concepts, form/genre concepts, things specific to LC.
   antoine and I discussing, i've been inclined to specialise SKOS,
   whereas antoine inclined to use skos:inScheme to identify
   separate...
   ... groupings.

   tomb: also wanted to ask about other vocabs in clay's department. i
   was interested to see if marc relator terms are now declared as rdf
   properties? have been for past 2-3 years, but proposal to declare
   smae URIs as both rdf properties and skos concepts. antoine you
   discussed that with clay?

   antoine: not that. specific concept scheme of relations?

   tomb: i went into skos reference, it's not a contradiction to say
   that a skos concept is also an rdf property... but it makes my head
   spin :)

   edsu: i talked to rebecca about it, better to leave definitions as
   they are. if want to declare elsewhere then fine, but leave existing
   ones as are and keep uris stable

   tomb: proposal was to additoinally say they are also skos concepts
   ... nothing formally says you can't do that, but i'm wondering what
   it means

   edsu: potentially confusing

   tomb: can have sub-property relation between uri as property, and a
   broader relation between same uris
   ... meeting in may, rdf schema doesn't distinguish preferred labels,
   so feature of skos attractive, but labeling properties are not
   committed to skos concepts, so could use preflabel with properties

   antoine: but problem with semantic relations, restricted to skos
   concepts.

   tomb: i sent a not to clay, wanted to follow up
   ... if using marc relator terms as implementation, need to resolve
   that.
   ... anything else to discuss?

   seanb: on topic of implementations, some work here (manchester)
   simon jupp building api infrastructure for skos and an editor as
   well, so can use as implementation experience

   edsu: i've been emailing with simon, he's been using lcsh.info as
   testbed

   seanb: simon makes use of schema to drive the application, so if we
   change schema he can cope with that

   ralph: two action items not carried forward...

   ACTION: [PENDING] Ralph to report on use of RDFa metadata in
   Recommendations. [recorded in
   [32]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-minutes.html#action02]

     [32] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-minutes.html#action02

   ACTION: Guus and Jeremy to give concrete implementation examples of
   the use of rdfs:label w/ SKOS [recorded in
   [33]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#action10]
   [DROPPED]

     [33] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#action10

   tomb: meeting adjourned

   Tom:we dropped that action re: rdfs:label last week

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: alistair send email with editors' draft proposed for
   CR before next telcon [recorded in
   [34]http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-swd-minutes.html#action11]
   [NEW] ACTION: seanb to redraft response to peter on ISSUE-157, where
   skos doc props are annotation props, and rdf:value example is
   dropped from skos reference [recorded in
   [35]http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-swd-minutes.html#action10]

   [PENDING] ACTION: Antoine propose 1 or 2 SPARQL examples showing
   named graph usage [recorded in
   [36]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action14]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Antoine to write something in Primer wrt. ISSUE
   160 [recorded in
   [37]http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html#action14]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ben review RDFa Use Cases and propose transition
   to Group Note [recorded in
   [38]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Guus to look at OWL documents for review [recorded
   in [39]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph post his comments on the editor's draft of
   the metadata note [recorded in
   [40]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action03]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph to report on use of RDFa metadata in
   Recommendations. [recorded in
   [41]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-minutes.html#action02]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph to review the revised Recipes draft
   [recorded in
   [42]http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html#action15]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of
   Recipes implementations] [recorded in
   [43]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]

     [36] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action14
     [37] http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html#action14
     [38] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02
     [39] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10
     [40] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action03
     [41] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-minutes.html#action02
     [42] http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html#action15
     [43] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20

   [DONE] ACTION: Guus discuss response to issue 157 with Sean
   [recorded in
   [44]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action12]
   [DONE] ACTION: Sean to add rdf:type and rdf:Property assertions to
   the skos schema [recorded in
   [45]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-minutes.html#action07]

     [44] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action12
     [45] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-minutes.html#action07

   [DROPPED] ACTION: Guus and Jeremy to give concrete implementation
   examples of the use of rdfs:label w/ SKOS [recorded in
   [46]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#action10]

     [46] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#action10

   [End of minutes]
     _____________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [47]scribe.perl version 1.133
    ([48]CVS log)
    $Date: 2008/12/09 17:11:27 $

     [47] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [48] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 9 December 2008 17:13:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:55 UTC