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

Meeting Record: 2008-06-24 SWD Telecon

From: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:45:36 +0100
Message-Id: <C19D7A6B-4F29-4B74-A013-4489229316FB@manchester.ac.uk>
To: SWD Working SWD <public-swd-wg@w3.org>


The minutes of this week's telecon are now available [1]. Plain text  
copy below.

Cheers,

	Sean

[1] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------

    [1]W3C

       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                          SemWeb Deployment WG

24 Jun 2008

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/ 
0086.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Sean Bechhofer, Tom Baker, Alistair Miles, Antoine Isaac,
           Diego Berrueta, Ralph Swick, Margherita Sini, Daniel Maycock
           (part)

    Regrets
           Quentin, Simone, Jon, Ed, Guus, Vit

    Chair
           Tom

    Scribe
           Sean

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Admin
          2. [6]SKOS
          3. [7]RDFa
          4. [8]Recipes
          5. [9]Vocabulary Management
          6. [10]Preparation for SKOS Last Call
      * [11]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

Admin

    Tom: Telecon next week, Guus to chair.

    PROPOSED to accept minutes of the last telecon:

    [12]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/17-swd-minutes.html

      [12] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/17-swd-minutes.html

    RESOLVED to accept the minutes

SKOS

    ACTION: Ed to investigate what text could be added to primer re.
    concept co-ordination [recorded in
    [13]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/22-swd-minutes.html#action02]
    [CONTINUES]

      [13] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/22-swd-minutes.html#action02

    ACTION: Guus to write primer text re: broaderGeneric and equivalence
    w/r/t subclass [recorded in
    [14]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action08]
    [CONTINUES]

      [14] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action08

    ACTION: Alistair to check the old namespace wrt dereferencing
    [recorded in
    [15]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action03]
    [CONTINUES]

      [15] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action03

    ACTION: Antoine and Ed to add content to Primer about irreflexivity
    [recorded in
    [16]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action06]
    [CONTINUES]

      [16] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action06

    <Ralph> [17]Antoine's proposed text

      [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/ 
0094.html

    ACTION: Sean to write a proposal to indicate to OWL WG our
    requirements for annotation properties [recorded in
    [18]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action07] [DONE]

      [18] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action07

    <Ralph> [19]Sean's proposed text

      [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/ 
0089.html

    <Ralph> Sean: I plan to discuss this with folks in the OWL WG who
    have offices near me

    <Ralph> ... if we had rich annotations, that's what we would use for
    SKOS

    <Ralph> ... it's not clear how much benefit we'd get from just
    labels and the documentation properties; hard to reason with these

    <Ralph> ... hard to see much benefit from defining complex classes
    using the documentation properties

    <Ralph> ... both Alistair and I think of these things as being
    annotations

    <Ralph> ... I'll post this to the OWL WG in a week or so after
    collecting comments from SWD WG

    <Ralph> ... the OWL WG is interested in our comments as they see
    SKOS as a use case for their annotation and punning work

    ACTION: Sean to post comment to OWL WG re annotation requirements.
    [recorded in
    [20]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action06]

    ACTION: Alistair to update the history page adding direct link to
    latest version of rdf triple [recorded in [recorded in
    [21]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/17-swd-minutes.html#action01]
    [CONTINUES]

      [21] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/17-swd-minutes.html#action01

    ACTION: Editors of the Use Cases to clean up the lists of
    requirements in light of resolutions [recorded in
    [22]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html#action02]
    [CONTINUES]

      [22] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html#action02

    Antoine: put notes about requirements up on wiki.
    ... do we change the list of requirements?
    ... good starting points

    Tom: reminder. Requirements to be published as WG Note in December.
    ... The document as is is a record of our thinking. Should we edit
    it to
    ... reflect our requirements?

    Antoine: Main thing to check whether we have met the resolutions

    Ralph: Suggest we don't delete requirements. If there are reqs that
    we've decided not
    ... to meet, should say that explicitly.
    ... Wouldn't bother adding requirements to document. Don't feel so
    ... strongly, but not necessary to put in there detail abut outher
    things that we ended
    ... up doing.
    ... Would mark anything additional as additional
    ... As Tom suggested, more of a historical record. How we resolved
    those

    <TomB> +1 on Ralph's approach to Use Cases

    Ralph: things listed as potential requirements.

    <aliman> +1 on what ralph said, say explicitly if don't meet stated
    requirements, don't need to add requirements

    Tom: Basically cleaning up, not necessarily adding things but making
    things neat.

    Ralph: Have we gone through and identified everything?

    TOm: Ongoing task to get Use case + requirement as WG Note.

    Antoine: Would rather consider this action done.

    Ralph: another action may be needed.

    Antoine: Mostly Guus who wanted this thin done. Spotting
    requirements for which
    ... we haven't done the jobs.

    <Ralph> [23]status of SKOS requirement [24]

      [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/ 
0093.html
      [24] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/13-swd-minutes.html#action25

    TOm: Action is to get use cases doc as a whole into shape. Then have
    two people read through
    ... and provide views, then declare as note. Could continue action
    as it
    ... covers what needs to be done.

    ACTION: Guus to mail his position on issues 72, 73 and 75 to the
    list [recorded in
    [24]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/13-swd-minutes.html#action25]
    [CONTINUES]

      [24] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/13-swd-minutes.html#action25

    <TomB> [25]http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/41

      [25] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/41

    Tom: Agenda shows two issues. Antoine raised ISSUE 41 which he
    thought was closed.

    Antoine: Use of language tags in examples in all documents. Can't
    remember original comment. Long
    ... time ago. Examples changed in primer to fit the comment. Idea
    was to check with original author?
    ... is this why issue is pending? Confident that the required
    changes were made.

    Ralph: Issue tracker suggests that this was sorted and we just need
    to get in touch with the commentor

    Alistair: Can't remember if email was sent.
    ... sure that commentor was happy.

    PROPOSED to declare ISSUE 41 closed.

    RESOLVED to close ISSUE 41.

    Tom: Two remaining issues
    ... 84.

    <Ralph> [26]ISSUE 84; ConstructionOfSystematicDisplaysFromGroupings

      [26] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/84

    Antoine: Ongoing. No time to check this. Diego sent proposal for
    algorithm a while ago. Noone
    ... has checked it. Could decide to postpone?

    Tom: Would propose to postpone. If this is posted to list, then we
    could decide this next week.

    Antoine; Even if Diego's algorithm is really cool (which there's
    little doubt about :-)

    scribe: should it be in documents?

    Diego: Based on how thesaurus should be displayed. Don't have access
    to ISO
    ... standard, so work based on things that Alistair included in wiki
    page.

    <Ralph> in February, Alistair wrote "ISSUE-84
    ConstructionOfSystematicDisplaysFromGroupings) --

    <Ralph> important, but arguably out of scope.

    <Ralph> "

    Diego: can't be considered a complete implementation

    <Ralph> [27]Issues Review [21]

      [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/ 
0096.html
      [21] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/17-swd-minutes.html#action01

    Diego: if someone can help or provide informaiton about systematic
    display, would be happy to
    ... extend implementation. Don't thunk algorithm should be in
    documents. It's a toy/example.

    Tom: We are agreeing that this is out of scope for inclusion in
    specs. Independent of whether we
    ... can work with Diego to publish in some form.
    ... Suggest that in the interest of closing issues, Antoine takes an
    action to propose postponement.

    ACTION: Antoine to propose that we postpone ISSUE 84. [recorded in
    [28]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action10]

    Tom: Issue 86.

    <Ralph> [29]ISSUE 86; SkosURIDereferenceBehaviour

      [29] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/86

    Alistair: We just need a proposal here which will be something along
    the lines of adding text to primer/reference following
    ... Cool URIS, semantic Web recipes etc.

    Tom: Basically linking to external resoruces.
    ... Is this reference, primer or both?

    Ralph: Makes sense to have it as a reference issue. It's
    ... best practice for use of SKOS, so reference.

    Tom: Add a sentence or two plus links in reference.

    Ralph: Particularly if there are any minimum required behaviours.
    E.g.
    ... you're conforming if you do the following.

    Alistair: would be reluctant to bring that into the reference.
    Additional level of
    ... conformance.

    Ralph: Makes sense to give some advice.

    Alistair: Happy to have no minimum requirements. But would like to
    encourage good practice.

    <TomB> +1 Alistair

    Ralph: Would like to see a proposal on what the recommended
    behaviour would be,
    ... Are concepts different from other stuff?

    ACTION: SKOS Reference Editors to propose a recommended minimum URI
    dereference behaviour [recorded in
    [30]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action11]

    Tom: Comment on change of namespace.
    ... Do we need to do anything?
    ... Has anyone pointed out this is a major versioning?

    Antoine: Comment is slighlty different from the first one. While we
    might have a new version,

    <Ralph> [31]SKOS comment: change of namespace Laurent LE MEUR
    2008-06-17]

      [31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/ 
0064.html

    Antoine: we could have used the original as it wasn't really
    official.

    <Ralph> Sean: could be argued either way; we decided to make the
    change

    Tom: This posting puts the emphasis on the status of the vocabulary.
    The answer really involves explaining that this is
    ...

    a major versining. Simply recording the justification that the
    previous version didn't have this status.

    scribe: Would be useful to respond along those lines.

    Antoine: Maybe a good rsponse would be that akthough the previous
    version wasn't a standard,
    ... it was "de facto"

    Ralph: Refrain from using the words "de facto", but this is roughly
    the reasons from the face to face.
    ... Discussions from f2f were that changing existing vocabs would be
    a lot of work.
    ... Meeting record should shw that we considered pain for authors
    and developers.
    ... Should respond or it may turn into Last Call comment. Feel a bit
    ... bad that we didn't highlight this in the status of the document.
    In retrospect we might have
    ... written a sentence calling this to people's attention

    Tom: This will come up, so lets formualte a response now. Can
    someone take an action to formulate a resposne
    ... on the list.
    ... Look at f2f washinton record to reconstruct this.

    <Ralph> [32]SKOS Namespace discussion of 2008-05-06

      [32] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#skosnamespace

    <aliman> Ralph, I feel bad about that too, I can't believe I didn't
    think to add a note on this to the "changes" section of the
    reference.

    Sean: is it right to do this on the list?

    Tom: Yes. Final response will go to the commentor.

    Ralph: Draft the response in the fish bowl.

    ACTION: Sean to draft response to comment about namespace. [recorded
    in [33]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action12]

RDFa

    ACTION: Ben to prepare draft implementation report for RDFa (with
    assistance from Michael) [recorded in
    [34]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14]
    [CONTINUES]

      [34] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14

    Tom: Anyone reporting re RDFa?

    Ralph: Telecon last week dealing with last minute LC comment which
    was resolved
    ... with editorial changes only. Substance of comment was
    uncertainty about the technical
    ... direction. Clarified language about use of doc type when DTD
    validation is considered important
    ... by the document author.
    ... Published CR. Now officially in CR. WOuld like to point out that

    <Ralph> [35]Pubrules update: XHTML+RDFa permitted as DTD in non-Recs

      [35] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2008AprJun/ 
0113.html

    Ralph: pubrules now permit XHTML+RDFa in documents.
    ... So anything up to CR can use RDFa. Important milestone.
    ... Have already met the CR. Two interoperable implementations.
    ... Hoping for more information about implementations. Only thing we
    really need to do is
    ... respond to comments.

Recipes

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

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

    Ralph: Continues until infrastructure is available.

    ACTION: Jon and Ralph to publish Recipes as Working Group Note
    [recorded in
    [37]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/10-swd-minutes.html#action03]
    [CONTINUES]

      [37] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/10-swd-minutes.html#action03

    Ralph: Jon owes me some text.

    Diego: Wondering about what Ralph just said about RDFa in W3C
    documents. Does this apply to notes?
    ... Should we add RDFa to our upcoming documents?

    Ralph: Excellent question. Ian's message to chairs says "all TR
    except for Recommendations".
    ... so could do this for Notes.

    Tom: Essentially taking header information

    Ralph: Basic DC metadata.
    ... Idea why Recommendations are excluded is because any document
    that's expected to be
    ... updated can use RDFa, but Recs are hard to change, so need to
    wait until RDFa is Rec.

    Diego: W3C has database with RDF data?

    Ralph: yes

    Diego: is it a good idea to add metadata inside document?

    Ralph: Diego -- make a list of interesting metadata that could be
    included

    Diego: For instance links between current and previous versions
    ... would be interesting. So could be added as RDFa

    Tom: In terms of process, we're proposing to adopt a uniform
    approach for all the new technical documents.
    ... Recipes, new drafts etc.
    ... Welcome to Daniel Maycock of Boeing.
    ... What we should probably do is work out what the metadata will
    say,
    ... maybe using recipes as test case, then adopt that approach for
    others. Otherwise will
    ... end up with inconsistency. If we can get this right, then it's
    an example we can point to.
    ... Worth taking a moment to look specifically at content of the
    metadata. Can someone take an action to
    ... make a proposal.

    Diego: Considering adding a page to the wiki about using RDFa on W3C
    TR.

    Tom: Excellent idea. Even if it's just a page that's simple, thought
    through, then
    ... we could even publish it as a Note.

    Ralph: No need to go hog wild (!!). DC is a no-brainer. Maybe also
    some other
    ... things, but good to see a list.

    ACTION: Diego to propose minimum RDFa metadata set for WG
    deliverables. [recorded in
    [38]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action16]

Vocabulary Management

    No actions, Vit and Elisa not on the call.

    <TomB> vit, would you like to report on Vocabulary Management?

    <vit> no news from me

Preparation for SKOS Last Call

    Ralph: Objective next week is to decide that we have a LC document?

    <Ralph> Ralph: regrets from me for 8 July

    Ralph: I will not be here for July 8th.

    Tom: Not available for July 8, 15, 22. Need to think about how to
    schedule further calls.
    ... How close to LC?

    Alistair: What do we need to do?

    Ralph: Anything about which we expect substantive comments, if
    there's something
    ... that we're likely to change, would be good to document those
    ... explicitly in the LC draft, which would then allow us to fic
    them.

    Alistair: Flag anythin that might change.

    Ralph: Things that we anticipate there will be sufficient comment to
    make us change our position.

    Alistair: e.g namespace. Don't want to chew up lots of time.

    Tom: Should we also flag mapping properties as at risk?
    ... Where would one flag this?

    Ralph: Best place to do that would be in the mapping properties
    section. "This section
    ... /part of section are features at risk"

    Tom: Do we need to do this in announcement?

    Ralph: Announcement would include status. Don't have to enumerate,
    but should say if there are some
    ... at risk features.

    Tom: Who will write that announcment?

    Ralph: Chairs and team contact

    Alistair: Will need some input on which sections or features should
    be marked. Please
    ... email list.

    Tom: Two mentioned: namespace and mapping properties. Are there any
    others?

    Ralph: Suspect that minutes of f2f will show anything controversial.

    <Ralph> [39]ISSUE 71 ParallelMappingVocabulary

      [39] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/71

    Ralph: Recent decisions more likely to be controversial as these
    issues have been around a while.

    Alistair: Should we err on the side of caution?

    Ralph: If we believe it's controversial and new evidence could
    persuade us to change our psoition, then yes.
    ... if it's controversial and we know we won't change our minds,
    then no.

    Alistair: So w.r.t namespace, what new evidence would make us change
    our mind.

    Ralph: If all the authors of SKOS documents complained.
    ... this is primarily a deployment based decision.

    Tom: Kind of hoping that won't happen :-)
    ... inclined to avoid marking too many things as at risk. Looking at
    the Washington record would
    ... be useful

    Ralph: e.g. resolution for mapping stated this explciitly.

    ACTION: SKOS Reference Editors to specifically flag features at risk
    for Last Call. [recorded in
    [40]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action17]

    meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Antoine to propose that we postpone ISSUE 84.
    [recorded in
    [41]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action10]
    [NEW] ACTION: Diego to propose minimum RDFa metadata set for WG
    deliverables. [recorded in
    [42]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action16]
    [NEW] ACTION: SKOS Reference Editors to specifically flag features
    at risk for Last Call. [recorded in
    [43]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action17]
    [NEW] ACTION: Sean to draft response to comment about namespace.
    [recorded in
    [44]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action12]
    [NEW] ACTION: Sean to post comment to OWL WG re annotation
    requirements. [recorded in
    [45]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action06]
    [NEW] ACTION: SKOS Reference Editors to propose a recommended
    minimum URI dereference behaviour [recorded in
    [46]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action11]

    [PENDING] ACTION: Editors of the Use Cases to clean up the lists of
    requirements in light of resolutions [recorded in
    [47]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html#action02]
    [PENDING] ACTION: Ed to investigate what text could be added to
    primer re. concept co-ordination [recorded in
    [48]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/22-swd-minutes.html#action02]
    [PENDING] ACTION: Alistair to update the history page adding direct
    link to latest version of rdf triple [recorded in
    [49]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/17-swd-minutes.html#action01]
    [PENDING] ACTION: Antoine and Ed to add content to Primer about
    irreflexivity [recorded in
    [50]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action06]
    [PENDING] ACTION: Alistair to check the old namespace wrt
    dereferencing [recorded in
    [51]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action03]
    [PENDING] ACTION: Ben to prepare draft implementation report for
    RDFa (with assistance from Michael) [recorded in
    [52]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14]
    [PENDING] ACTION: Guus to mail his position on issues 72, 73 and 75
    to the list [recorded in
    [53]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/13-swd-minutes.html#action25]
    [PENDING] ACTION: Guus to write primer text re: broaderGeneric and
    equivalence w/r/t subclass [recorded in
    [54]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action08]
    [PENDING] ACTION: Jon and Ralph to publish Recipes as Working Group
    Note [recorded in
    [55]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/10-swd-minutes.html#action03]
    [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of
    Recipes implementations] [recorded in
    [56]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]

      [47] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html#action02
      [48] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/22-swd-minutes.html#action02
      [49] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/17-swd-minutes.html#action01
      [50] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action06
      [51] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action03
      [52] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14
      [53] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/13-swd-minutes.html#action25
      [54] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action08
      [55] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/10-swd-minutes.html#action03
      [56] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20

    [DONE] ACTION: Sean to write a proposal to indicate to OWL WG our
    requirements for annotation properties [recorded in
    [57]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action07]

      [57] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action07

    [End of minutes]
      _________________________________________________________


     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [58]scribe.perl version 1.133
     ([59]CVS log)
     $Date: 2008/06/24 23:15:30 $

      [58] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/ 
scribedoc.htm
      [59] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/


--
Sean Bechhofer
School of Computer Science
University of Manchester
sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk
http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/bechhofer
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2008 07:48:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:53 UTC