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

meeting record: 2008-11-04 SWD telecon

From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 12:31:27 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20081104123002.04d37eb8@127.0.0.1>
To: public-swd-wg@w3.org

The record of today's Semantic Web Deployment Working Group telecon
is available for review:

  http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-swd-minutes.html

A text snapshot follows.

----

                                SWD WG

04 Nov 2008

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0001.html

   See also: [3]IRC log, previous [4]2008-10-21

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-swd-irc
      [4] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html

Attendees

   Present
          Tom Baker, Ralph Swick, Alistair Miles, Antoine Isaac, Sean
          Bechhofer, Margherita Sini

   Regrets
          Daniel Rubin, Jon Phipps, Ben Adida, Ed Summers, Diego
          Berrueta, Quentin Ruel

   Chair
          Tom

   Scribe
          Ralph

Contents

     * Topics
         1. Admin
         2. RDFa
         3. Recipes
         4. SWD Review of OWL WDs
         5. SKOS
     * Summary of Action Items
     _____________________________________________________

Admin

   RESOLVED to accept [12]minutes of the last telecon

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

   next telecon in 2 weeks; 18 Nov

RDFa

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

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

Recipes

   ACTION: [DONE] diego propose resolutions to remaining recipes issues
   [recorded in
   [14]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/14-swd-minutes.html#action02]

     [14] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/14-swd-minutes.html#action02

   -> [15][Recipes] proposed resolution for remaing issues Deigo
   2008-11-03]

     [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0003.html

   Tom: let's wait for Diego and Jon to be at a telecon before taking
   up those proposals

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

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

SWD Review of OWL WDs

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

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

SKOS

   Tom: I believe we resolved last telecon to close several issues per
   msg 222

   Sean: we were waiting for responses from the commentors

   <Guus> [my phone is out of power, sorry]

   Antoine: it might confuse the commenter if we close an issue before
   getting their response

   <aliman>
   [18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0287.h
   tml

     [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0287.html

   -> [19]Alistair's review of 23 Oct issue proposals

     [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0010.html

   Alistair: can we resolve a batch of issues as I propose in [20]0010
   ?

     [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0010.html

   Antoine: issue 134 should be included in your batch

   <aliman> PROPOSED: to resolve issues 140, 141, 146, 133, 134, 144,
   145, 149, 150,

   <aliman> 152, 162, 160, 171, 172, 178 and 180 (part 1) as described
   in

   <aliman>
   [21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0287.h
   tml

     [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0287.html

   Antoine: I've read each one and am satisfied with the proposal

   Sean: I'm happy with Alistair's proposal

   Antoine: for issue 160 I proposed to add an invitation to Doug to
   post something but OK to proceed

   Alistair: in order: 133, 134, 140, 141, 144, 145, 146, 149, 150,
   152, 160, 162, 171, 172
   ... I propose to agree on the response to the comment

   Sean: if the commentors agree with our response then our resolution
   here is to close or pospone the respective issue

   RESOLVED respond to issues 133, 134, 140, 141, 144, 145, 146, 149,
   150, 152, 160, 162, 171, 172, 178, and the first part of 180 per
   [22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0287.h
   tml

     [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0287.html

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

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

   ACTION: [DONE] Antoine to propose revised answers for issues 181-185
   [recorded in
   [24]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action01]

     [24] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action01

   <GuusS> pls continue my action wrt Issue 186, will be completed this
   week

   Antoine: I sent these proposals last week

   -> [25]ISSUE-181 new draft response

     [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0226.html

   -> [26]ISSUE-182 new draft response

     [26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0227.html

   -> [27]ISSUE-183 new draft response

     [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0228.html

   -> [28]ISSUE-184 new draft response

     [28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0304.html

   -> [29]ISSUE-185 new draft response

     [29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0230.html

   ACTION: [CONTINUES] Guus to propose answer for issue 186 [recorded
   in [30]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action02]

     [30] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action02

   ACTION: [DONE] Sean and Alistair to send answers wrt. the editorial
   issues resolved on 21-10-08 [recorded in
   [31]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action07]

     [31] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action07

   ACTION: [DONE] Sean and Alistair to send answers wrt. the editorial
   issues resolved on 21-10-08 [recorded in
   [32]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action07]

     [32] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action07

   Sean: see a slew of email on 22 October

-- issue 151

   <TomB>
   [33]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0010.h
   tml

     [33] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0010.html

   <aliman>
   [34]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0270.h
   tml -> draft response on 151

     [34] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0270.html

   -> [35]issue 151; skos:member definition

     [35] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/151

   Alistair: none of the commentors have demanded a range but Jeremy
   has noted that there is an effective range
   ... I propose to not explicitly define a range

   <GuusS> Ii;ve made progress in reviewing OWL docs, and talked to Ian
   at ISWC about timing SWD comments

   Alistair: I can live with either approach (defining or not defining)

   Antoine: I'm rather in favor of defining a range

   <Antoine>
   [36]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0290.h
   tml

     [36] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0290.html

   Sean: Antoine has arguments for including a range, not seeing
   arguments against it

   Alistair: the argument against is to leave flexibility

   Antoine: in the case of collections, I think we gain from adding
   constraints

   Sean: we've included ranges in other places, so why the need for
   flexibility here?
   ... for consistency in the text, make it clear that collections are
   collections of concepts

   Alistair: the original document did not say "collections *of
   concepts*"; it only said "collections"
   ... there are other cases of flexiblity; e.g. no domain for
   skos:inScheme
   ... we've not chosen to have domains and/or ranges for everything

   Tom: coherence of specs, coherence of data all sound good but I
   don't think anything is harmed by leaving it unspecified

   Ralph: I hear Antoine saying it would be useful

   PROPOSED: we define the range of skos:member as the union of
   skos:Concept and skos:Collection

   RESOLUTION: we define the range of skos:member as the union of
   skos:Concept and skos:Collection

   Alistair: I'll redraft and send the response

-- issue 180

   <TomB>
   [37]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0282.h
   tml

     [37] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0282.html

   -> [38]issue 180; PFWG: skosxl:Label class

     [38] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/180

   Alistair: this is about the extensibility of the vocabulary
   ... PFWG would like to extend the xl:Label class to be able to
   specify labels in other modalities
   ... e.g. in other markup languages; MathML, etc.
   ... currently we require that every instance of xl:Label have a
   plain literal form
   ... should we relax this restriction, e.g. from "exactly one [plain
   literal form]" to "at most one"?

   Tom: I prefer solution 1, our current solution

   Alistair: saying "at most one" would still permit "dumbing-down"

   Antoine: do both really support dumbing-down?

   Alistair: if there is no plain literal form then there are no
   entailments

   Antoine: so SKOSXL might not provide data that is compatible with
   standard SKOS tools

   Alistair: correct, but the PFWG scenarios do not provide data
   useable by standard SKOS tools and we wouldn't want those tools to
   dumb-down

   Antoine: I prefer option 1; live with the current XL data model
   ... this is consistent with our resolution on symbolic labels, which
   is related

   <TomB> +1 with Antoine - go with option 1

   Ralph: I suspect that if we keep the restriction and folks find good
   reason to violate it the world won't fall apart :)

   Alistair: I may hold you to this at some point in the future :)

   Antoine: I can see a use for more than one resource form attached to
   a label

   RESOLUTION: retain the current XL data model; make no change to the
   restriction on xl:Label

-- issue 181

   -> [39]issue 181; Non Assignable Concepts

     [39] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/181

   -> [40]ISSUE-181 new draft response [22]

     [40] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0226.html
     [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0287.html

   Antoine: this is about what might be allowed to be introduced in
   concept schemes
   ... there was a requirement that we dropped
   ... we discussed this in issue 48 and dropped the indexing
   ... I propose a practice to solve the issue in specific cases
   ... I suggested to Michael to consider proposing a practice

   Alistair: I'm happy with Antoine's response

   Tom: I'm happy with the response as drafted

-- issue 182

   -> [41]issue 182; Index Terms

     [41] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/182

   Antoine: the problem here is to attach classes to concepts
   ... would look a bit like indexing

   <TomB> [42]ISSUE-182 new draft response

     [42] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0227.html

   Antoine: I propose to make no change but again suggest a practice
   that could be used

   Alistair: could we say that this be resolveed within a community of
   practice without giving specific practices?
   ... Michael is effectively proposing some extensions
   ... could we say that we agree these are important areas and that we
   look forward to proposed practices from the community?
   ... we look forward to seeing this requirement addressed by
   third-party extensions
   ... noting that Michael's suggestions might be good candidates for
   such third-party extensions

   Antoine: so use the word 'extension' explicitly in the response?

   Alistair: yes, this requirement is out of scope for SKOS but can be
   dealt with by extensions
   ... be more positive; we acknowledge that this is an important
   requirement

   Tom: could have boilerplate text, as this comes up in a number of
   cases

   Alistair: yes, I've tried to be consistent in the language I use

   Antoine: I'd be happy for Alistair's help in drafting the language
   of the response

   Antoine: I just need to reformulate the last paragraph of the
   responses for issues 181 and 182

   RESOLUTION: close issue 182 without changing the specification

-- issue 183

   -> [43]issue 183; Class-Topic relationships

     [43] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/183

   -> [44]ISSUE-183 new draft response

     [44] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0228.html

   Antoine: this was a case of a classification scheme and a concept
   scheme co-existing
   ... I suggest this is an unusual use case and that we not try to
   adapt the SKOS standard to handle this
   ... and again note a possible practice for using SKOS classes and
   concepts, suggesting Michael use that practice if it is useful

   Alistair: I try to word my responses to avoid stimulating a long
   conversation
   ... try to elicit a "yes, I can live with the Group's decision"
   response

   Antoine: I can extract the essential details

   Tom: sounds like we agree on the substance, though

   Antoine: I felt that this commentor really wanted to be convinced
   that a solution could be found

   Tom: shall we leave it to Antoine's discretion?

   Alistair: sure

-- issue 184

   -> [45]issue 184; Notation and prefLabel overlap

     [45] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/184

   <TomB> [46]ISSUE-184 new draft

     [46] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0304.html

   Antoine: Michael objected that skos:notation wouldn't handle the
   case
   ... I gave an example of using private notations
   ... so the response is long just to illustrate the solution

   Alistair: the core of the response is that we acknowledge the
   utility of the case but that it's out of scope for SKOS

   Antoine: however, SKOS can do what he wants

-- issue 185

   -> [47]issue 185; Order in Classification Systems

     [47] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/185

   <TomB> [48]ISSUE-185 new draft response

     [48] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0230.html

   Antoine: the commentor wanted a way to distinguish order of children
   ... my proposed response is that we did not have a use case for this
   and that ordering is difficult to express in RDF
   ... an alternative is to use ordered collections

   Alistair: we could also refer to a previous issue where we resolved
   that capturing all of the information one might want to display is
   out of scope
   ... some parallel coding might be necessary

   Antoine: have we discussed ordering for systematic display?

   Alistair: not, but we agreed that SKOS does not have to capture all
   the information needed for a systematic display

   RESOLUTION: we accept Antoine's proposed responses for issues 181,
   182, 183, 184, and 185 with stylistic adjustments at Antoine's
   discretion

   Alistair: so Antoine will post the responses to the commentor when
   he's ready

   [adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

   [PENDING] ACTION: Ben review RDFa Use Cases and propose transition
   to Group Note [recorded in
   [49]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Guus and Jeremy to give concrete implementation
   examples of the use of rdfs:label w/ SKOS [recorded in
   [50]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#action10]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Guus to look at OWL documents for review [recorded
   in [51]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Guus to propose answer for issue 186 [recorded in
   [52]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action02]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of
   Recipes implementations] [recorded in
   [53]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]

     [49] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02
     [50] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#action10
     [51] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10
     [52] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action02
     [53] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20

   [DONE] ACTION: Antoine to propose revised answers for issues 181-185
   [recorded in
   [54]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action01]
   [DONE] ACTION: diego propose resolutions to remaining recipes issues
   [recorded in
   [55]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/14-swd-minutes.html#action02]
   [DONE] ACTION: Sean and Alistair to send answers wrt. the editorial
   issues resolved on 21-10-08 [recorded in
   [56]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action07]

     [54] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action01
     [55] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/14-swd-minutes.html#action02
     [56] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action07

   [End of minutes]
     _____________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [57]scribe.perl version 1.133
    ([58]CVS log)
    $Date: 2008/11/04 17:29:49 $

     [57] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [58] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 17:31:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 November 2008 17:31:50 GMT