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

Meeting Record: 2008-02-27 SWD telecon

From: Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 10:03:17 -0800
Message-ID: <f032cc060803011003j16953aei9318c574bc410f2b@mail.gmail.com>
To: "SWD Working Group" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

The record of this week's SWD telecon [1] is ready for review. The
text version is below.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-swd-minutes.html

//Ed

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

   [1]W3C

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

                                SWD WG

26 Feb 2008

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0101.html

   See also: [3]IRC log, [4]previous 2008-02-19

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-swd-irc
      [4] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/19-swd-minutes.html

Attendees

   Present
          Ed Summers, Diego Berrueta, Guus Schreiber, Ralph Swick,
          Alistair Miles, Clay Redding, Simone Onofri, Vit Novacek,
          Daniel Rubin, Margherita Sini, Ben Adida, Elisa Kendall

   Regrets
          Sean Bechhofer, Antoine Isaac, Quentin Reul, Jon Phipps,
          Michael Hausenblas, Tom Baker

   Chair
          Guus

   Scribe
          Ed

Contents

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

Admin

   RESOLUTION: to accept [12]minutes of the Feb 19 telecon

     [12] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/19-swd-minutes.html

   Guus: briefly discuss Face-to-face meeting, day and a half, in
   Amsterdam?
   ... have we made update of charter schedule?

   Ralph: we have not yet
   ... I assume we will ask for charter extension

   Guus: charter expires on 1st of April?

   Ralph: first or last? ... [checks] ... Our charter expires April 30

   Guus: we could have a proposed recommendation for RDFa within the
   charter period

   Guus: after the charter period i expect minimal work on RDFa

   benadida: yes, i think that's a fair statement

   Guus: is it realistic to assume by the end of april we will have an
   implementation report ready?

   benadida: yes, we have 2 priorities: one is IR and the other is
   updating the rdfa Primer

   Guus: the purpose of the recipes is to publish as a Note
   ... diego, what is a realistic time for the recipes publication?

   diego: in a few weeks we can have a new draft, i don't know what the
   schedule is for publishing a w3c note, we need 2 or 3 weeks to make
   changes in the current draft

   Guus: realistic to shoot for 1st of May?

   diego: new draft by the end of march

   Ralph: note basically means we don't plan on publishing another
   version

   diego: no problem to have a note by 1st of May then

   Guus: vit: how about the vocabulary management document?

   vit: we are requesting feedback on the Vocabulary Management doc
   ... i cannot estimate how long it will take at this point

   Elisa: we have a decent editors draft, which just needs some polish
   ...waiting on input from a couple of people...
   ...i think we can publish by the second week of march for internal
   review
   ... beyond that i don't know what it takes to get to working draft
   status

   Guus: usually publish a working draft first, and then go for note
   status -- which is the end point

   <Ralph> I see 7 @@TODOs in the [13]4-Feb Vocab Management editors'
   draft ]

     [13] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/Vocab/principles-20080204

   Guus: if we can have a document for review in march, we can publish
   as working draft by end of march, and then take the month of april
   to get feedback on it, and then publish as note in the beginning of
   may

   Elisa: i have asked for comments from Tom, Alistair and Ralph for
   specific comments and feedback, if I can get that I think we're at a
   point where it could be a working draft

   Guus: having draft available for internal review shouldn't be later
   than middle of march

   Elisa: anyone who wants to take a look now is more than welcome

   Guus: would like to shoot for first of June as last call for SKOS
   documents
   ... is that a reasonable schedule?

   aliman: is it reasonable to think we could publish another draft?
   ... i think first of june as last call for working draft, would
   leave us two months, i think that's a good target

   Guus: we can extend a bit, but not too much
   ... my proposal will be to ask for extension to do skos work to 1st
   of July, and then normal schedule to rec

   <aliman> sounds ok to me

   Guus: will include bring rdfa from proposed rec to rec

   Ralph: i can't judge how much the technical work will be, but it
   sounds like a plausible proposal to me
   ... i'm comfortable asking for the extension
   ... focusing on last remaining big deliverable

   <scribe> ACTION: Chairs to draft charter extension proposal for SKOS
   until July 1st [recorded in
   [14]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-swd-minutes.html#action01]

RDFa

   <Ralph> Ben++ for updating RDFa issue tracker quickly :)

   benadida: starting to get feedback, going to keep track of comments
   in tracker, to make a nice review
   ... i really want to thank reviewers

   Ralph: we should make a schedule for the Primer

   benadida: yes

SKOS

   Guus: SKOS primer has been published

   <Ralph> [15]Announcment text for Request for Comments: SKOS Primer
   [Antoine 2008-02-21]

     [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0100.html

   <scribe> ACTION: Ralph to publish Feb 12th version of SKOS primer as
   working draft [recorded in
   [16]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action05] [DONE]

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action05

   Guus: how are we doing w/ comments to SKOS reference?

   aliman: haven't had a chance to review comments in the last week, I
   have set up a [17]wiki page to capture all the comments

     [17] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosReference20080125

   <scribe> ACTION: Sean to propose a way to handle deprecated
   properties (updating RDF schema) [recorded in
   [18]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action06]
   [CONTINUES]

     [18] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action06

   <scribe> ACTION: Alistair to propose an approach to clarify which
   aspects of the extension module should be in scope for the candidate
   recommendation package. [recorded in
   [19]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action09]
   [CONTINUES]

     [19] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action09

   <scribe> ACTION: Ralph to check whether the common interpretation of
   rdfs isDefinedBy fits the reasoning that was made in
   [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Oct/0141.h
   tml [recorded in
   [21]http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action10]
   [CONTINUES]

     [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Oct/0141.html
     [21] http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action10

   <aliman> [22]comments on SKOS reference

     [22] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosReference20080125

   aliman: i think the text on concept schemes and owl ontologies looks
   ok

   Guus: i think we need to go on record

   <scribe> ACTION: Alistair and Guus to check the text in the primer
   on relationship between Concept Schemes and OWL Ontologies.
   [recorded in
   [23]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action13]
   [CONTINUES]

     [23] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action13

   <scribe> ACTION: Antoine to close ISSUE 54 in tracker with links to
   resolution [recorded in
   [24]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/19-swd-minutes.html#action15] [DONE]

     [24] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/19-swd-minutes.html#action15

   -> [25]ISSUE--54 closed, ISSUE-80 opened [22]

     [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0098.html
     [22] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosReference20080125

   Guus: is it still open?

   Ralph: closed now

   Guus: issue 40, concept coordination?

   aliman: will be working on that in the next couple of weeks

   <scribe> ACTION: Alistair to make a proposal for Issue 40 (Concept
   Coordination) [recorded in
   [26]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action09]
   [CONTINUES]

     [26] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action09

   Guus: issues 71 and 74

   aliman: we opened them last week, and Antoine has sent emails making
   proposals for each

   -> [27]on ISSUE-71 and ISSUE-74 [21]

     [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0095.html
     [21] http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action10

   Guus: why don't we mention skos:exactMatch?

   aliman: there isn't a parallel
   ... if you look at OWL, it does not have any duplicate properties
   ... if we are going to have parallel vocabularies we should detail
   why we need it
   ... i tried to restate Antoine's position, it seems like there are
   lots of general statements, and that the proposal depends on people
   doing things a particular way, there are more questions to answer
   for why we need the two types of relationships
   ... in practice you have to manage your graphs, and their provenance

   Guus: is there a logical semantic relationship between them?

   aliman: like equivalent properties?

   Guus: equivalent would be strange

   aliman: we need to clarify usage conventions

   Guus: asking if broaderMatch as a subproperty of broader might make
   sense

   <Ralph> [I like Guus' proposal skos:broadMatch rdfs:subPropertyOf
   skos:broader]

   marghe: i think broadMatch between concepts that belong to different
   schemes is ok, to keep them separate
   ... there is a kind of semantic relation between the parallel
   vocabularies, somehow they mean the same things

   Guus: i'm going to make an add on proposal to Antoine's proposal

   marghe: i'm not sure if they are subproperties

   Guus: defining something as subPropertyOf does not exclude the case
   that the two properties have the same extension

   marghe: if broaderMatch is a subproperty of broader it's a
   specialization, but i'm not sure we are specializing

   Guus: seems like an issue that would be good for the list

   aliman: if your email could include usage conventions i think that
   would help

   <scribe> ACTION: Guus to add to Antoine's proposal for issue 71, a
   proposal for semantic relations between match relations and standard
   relations [recorded in
   [28]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-swd-minutes.html#action02]

   Guus: aliman how are we doing with your issue priorities list, do we
   need to take actions

   aliman: we openened 71 and 74, it would be good if we could open a
   couple more
   ... if we could open indexing relation issues, and notations that
   might be a good thing to do at this stage

   Guus: for me the thorniest issue is ISSUE-37, SkosSpecialization

   <Ralph> [29]issue 37; SkosSpecialization

     [29] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/37

   aliman: the easy way out of that would be to consider that out of
   scope

   <Ralph> [30][SKOS] Issues Review [21]

     [30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0096.html
     [21] http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action10

   Guus: i propose we open ISSUE-37 and ISSUE-67

   <Ralph> [31]issue 67; StatingFormalDefinitions

     [31] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/67

   Guus: i will be happy to be owner of 37, and alistair could you own
   67?

   aliman: could i propose we open indexingrelationship ?

   Guus: needs someone to issue a proposal

   <Ralph> [32]issue 48; IndexingRelationship

     [32] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/48

   Guus: if it doesn't do any particular harm, we could leave it in,
   it's kind of a weird animal in the skos language, but i don't think
   it does any harm
   ... happy to leave issue 48 in a raised state
   ... issue-48
   ... what about SKOS-OWL patterns?

   <Ralph> [33]issue 80; SKOS-OWL-Patterns

     [33] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/80

   Guus: lets leave things for the moment, and review next week
   ... would it be good to have a mtg in the beginning of may to talk
   about remaining issues
   ... a day and a 1/2 to get things ready for last call draft
   ... May 8-9 (Thurs, Fri)

   Ralph: i have conflict May 7-9

   marghe: if it is may 5 i can also join

   <Simone> I've conflict for 6 and 8 May

   Ralph: i could join first 1/2 of each day remotely if the meeting is
   in Amsterdam

   Guus: critical for document editors to be there

   aliman: free for me at the moment

   edsu: i am free

   dlrubin: need to look at calendar

   Guus: sean and antoine are not here ...
   ... will come back to this next week

   Ralph: i could do the following week

Recipes

   Ralph: i think we've take care of resolution to issue-16, but
   wordnet implementation is waiting on a database decision at w3c

   <scribe> ACTION: Ralph propose resolution to ISSUE-16 "Default
   behavior" [recorded in
   [34]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14]
   [CONTINUES]

     [34] http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14

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

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

Vocabulary Management

   Elisa: cleaning up validator bugs

   -> [36]Editor's Draft 04 February 2008

     [36] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/Vocab/principles-20080204

   Guus: meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Chairs to draft charter extension proposal for SKOS
   until July 1st [recorded in
   [37]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-swd-minutes.html#action01]
   [NEW] ACTION: Guus to add to Antoine's proposal for issue 71, a
   proposal for semantic relations between match relations and standard
   relations [recorded in
   [38]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-swd-minutes.html#action02]

   [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph to check whether the common interpretation
   of rdfs isDefinedBy fits the reasoning that was made in
   [39]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Oct/0141.h
   tml [recorded in
   [40]http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action10]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Alistair and Guus to check the text in the primer
   on relationship between Concept Schemes and OWL Ontologies.
   [recorded in
   [41]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action13]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Alistair to make a proposal for Issue 40 (Concept
   Coordination) [recorded in
   [42]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action09]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ben to prepare draft implementation report for
   RDFa (with assistance from Michael) [recorded in [recorded in
   [recorded in
   [43]http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html#action03]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph propose resolution to ISSUE-16 "Default
   behavior" [recorded in
   [44]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of
   Recipes implementations] [recorded in
   [45]http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html#action03]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Sean to propose a way to handle deprecated
   properties (updating RDF schema) [recorded in
   [46]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action06]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Alistair to propose an approach to clarify which
   aspects of the extension module should be in scope for the candidate
   recommendation package. [recorded in
   [47]http://www.w3.org/2007/12/11-swd-minutes.html#action06]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph to check whether the common interpretation
   of rdfs isDefinedBy fits the reasoning that was made in
   [48]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Oct/0141.h
   tml [recorded in
   [49]http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action10]

     [39] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Oct/0141.html
     [40] http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action10
     [41] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action13
     [42] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action09
     [43] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html#action03
     [44] http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14
     [45] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html#action03
     [46] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action06
     [47] http://www.w3.org/2007/12/11-swd-minutes.html#action06
     [48] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Oct/0141.html
     [49] http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action10

   [DONE] ACTION: Antoine to close ISSUE 54 in tracker with links to
   resolution [recorded in
   [50]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/19-swd-minutes.html#action15]
   [DONE] ACTION: Chairs to put schedule review on agenda [recorded in
   [51]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action24]
   [DONE] ACTION: Ralph to publish Feb 12th version of SKOS primer as
   working draft [recorded in
   [52]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action05]
   [DONE] ACTION: Ralph to publish rdfa syntax as last call WD
   [recorded in
   [53]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/19-swd-minutes.html#action05]

     [50] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/19-swd-minutes.html#action15
     [51] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action24
     [52] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action05
     [53] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/19-swd-minutes.html#action05

   [End of minutes]
     _________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [54]scribe.perl version 1.133
    ([55]CVS log)
    $Date: 2008/02/27 15:24:14 $

     [54] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [55] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Saturday, 1 March 2008 18:03:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 1 March 2008 18:03:28 GMT