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

meeting record: 2008-10-07 SWD WG

From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 12:16:10 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20081007121423.0d807ad8@127.0.0.1>
To: public-swd-wg@w3.org

The minutes of today's SemWeb Deployment Working Group telecon
are ready for review.  Thanks to Ed for scribing.

   http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html

A text snapshot follows.

----

                                SWD WG

07 Oct 2008

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0099.html

   See also: [3]IRC log, previous [4]2008-09-30

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-irc
      [4] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html

Attendees

   Present
          Tom Baker, Ed Summers, Diego Berrueta, Ralph Swick,
          Margherita Sini, Ben Adida, Alistair Miles, Guus Schreiber,
          Sean Bechhofer, Jeremy Carroll

   Regrets
          AntoineIsaac, Jon Phipps, Quentin Reul, Daniel Rubin

   Chair
          Tom

   Scribe
          Ed

Contents

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

Admin

   RESOLUTION: to accept [12]minutes from Sep-30 telecon

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

   TomB: Guus will chair next week's meeting [14 Oct]

RDFa

   <Ralph> [13]record of 2-Oct RDFa TF telecon

     [13] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/02-rdfa-minutes.html

   ACTION: All to remind respective AC Reps to respond to RDFa Proposed
   Rec Call for Review [recorded in
   [14]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action01] [DONE]

     [14] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action01

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

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

   <benadida> draft -->
   [16]http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20081004/

     [16] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20081004/

   benadida: wanted to ask about moving to REC
   ... we've received comments, two required no change to the draft
   (typos, clarifications)
   ... since these are only typos there's no need for additional
   review, right Ralph?

   Ralph: we can make editorial changes

   TomB: is there a formal requirement to also record the editorial
   changes?

   Guus: yes in the changes section

   benadida: yes Shane has done this, and included a diff

   Ralph: i've submitted the request for transition, and we'll see when
   the necessary parties are available to discuss
   ... the last deadline for requesting publication is next monday,
   before the the tpac meeting

   Guus: would be nice to publish the primer as a note at the same time

   benadida: we haven't looked at the use cases in a while, and i
   wouldn't want to produce inconsistency ... but the primer will be
   ready for submission by the end of the week ... minor editorial
   changes

   Ralph: that sounds like you are making a proposal that the group
   transition the Primer to a WG Note

   benadida: i didn't realize there was a transition to note, but if so
   yes

   Guus: what is the most likely date for transition to REC?

   Ralph: i would expect a decision at the end of this week

   Guus: can we control the day of announcement?

   Ralph: yes, but to meet next weeks publishing moratorium we need to
   do it before noon on monday

   JeremyCarroll: a working draft is a work in progress, unfinished --
   a working group note is a statement that the document is adequate

   benadida: it's sufficiently completed that it could transition to
   Note (the Primer)

   Guus: if there are editorial changes nobody is going to object

   TomB: are we saying we need to delay?

   benadida: i think that most people who read the press release won't
   notice ... we can transition Primer later

   Ralph: what's your best guess about the changes to the Primer?

   benadida: i think that the liklihood of the primer getting a couple
   new paragraphs is about 70%

   <JeremyCarroll> Jeremy: on RDFa call belief was that there was
   enough non-W3C material to play this role

   benadida: it's purpose is to get people interested and curious, will
   do a couple well focused paragraphs, no more than that

   <JeremyCarroll> I suggest we formally approve Primer for WG Note
   now, subject to confirmation next week

   TomB: should we formulate a proposal to transition the syntax
   document to REC? leaving the Primer as a working draft?
   ... so can we approve the Primer working draft for note now?

   <Guus> +1 for Jeremy's proposal

   Ralph: i'm comfortable with the proposal to transition the primer to
   note now

   PROPOSED: the syntax editors use their judgement in correcting typos
   in preparation of recommendation version of RDFa Syntax

   <Ralph> +1

   JeremyCarroll: what about the comment yesterday, regarding the colon
   ... looks like the sort of thing that could cause implementation
   difficulties

   <Ralph> [17]RDFa review ... too late, but maybe still helpful for
   the group [Axel Polleres 2008-10-06]

     [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Oct/0075.html

   JeremyCarroll: correcting an alignment between some english text and
   xml schema definitions ...

   TomB: benadida you can take that into account?

   benadida: sure, will get mark and shane to take a look

   <JeremyCarroll> +1

   RESOLUTION: the syntax editors use their judgement in correcting
   typos in preparation of recommendation version of RDFa Syntax

   <benadida> PROPOSE that RDFa Primer in its last WD state, with some
   minor editorial edits at editors' discretion, be transitioned to
   Note.

   PROPOSED: that the RDFa Primer, with some minor editorial changes at
   editors discretion be published as Working Group Note

   <Ralph> +1

   RESOLUTION: that the RDFa Primer, with some minor editorial changes
   at editors discretion be published as Working Group Note

   +1

   TomB: so where are use cases?

   benadida: i wouldn't ask for this sort of discretion on the use
   cases ... no decision at this time

   TomB: great progress here

Recipes

   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

   <Ralph> [19]Re: [Recipes] Open issues in Recipes [Diego 2008-10-04]

     [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0067.html

   TomB: there are some open and raised issues that Diego wrote about:
   [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0067.h
   tml

     [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0067.html

   berrueta: except for 3 or 4 of the issues we can close without too
   much discussion
   ... i think we can close issue-16 through issue-23

   TomB: can we give someone an action to record this in tracker?

   PROPOSED: resolved issue-16 through issue-23 and issue-58 are closed
   as per
   [21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0067.h
   tml

     [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0067.html

   Ralph: are you certain Carl's comments in ISSUE-18 have been
   resolved?

   berrueta: yes

   RESOLUTION: resolved issue-16 through issue-23 and issue-58 are
   closed as per
   [22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0067.h
   tml

     [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0067.html

   ACTION: diego to close recipe issues issue-16 through issue-23 and
   issue-58 citing email [recorded in
   [23]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#action04]

RDFa Metadata Note

   <berrueta>
   [24]http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/AddingRDFaToTR?action=AttachF
   ile&do=get&target=tr-metadata-20081002.html

     [24] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/AddingRDFaToTR?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=tr-metadata-20081002.html

   ACTION: Diego to update "Minimum RDFa metadata set for WG
   deliverables" draft in the wiki [recorded in
   [25]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action04] [DONE]

     [25] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action04

   TomB: is it ready to be reviewed?

   berrueta: i think before a formal review, we may want to discuss
   some of the points in a telecon

   TomB: lets add it to an upcoming telecon, and move on for today

   berrueta: ok

SKOS

   seanb: didn't we send email asking for feedback a while ago?
   ... didn't alistair do that?

   ACTION: SKOS Reference editors to send mail asking for feedback from
   users [recorded in
   [26]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-swd-minutes.html#action06] [DONE]

     [26] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-swd-minutes.html#action06

   ACTION: Alistair enter Last Call issues from Erik Hennum's 28 June
   mail [recorded in
   [27]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action06] [DONE]

     [27] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action06

   [28]http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=f032cc0
   60810061047w443e49b8qeedace3b6d009adc%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=db
   pedia-discussion

     [28] http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=f032cc060810061047w443e49b8qeedace3b6d009adc%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=dbpedia-discussion

   ACTION: Ed to ask dbpedia to send a message in support of SKOS
   [recorded in
   [29]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action07] [DONE]

     [29] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action07

   TomB: that leaves us with the long list of issues, many of which we
   can just go down the list

   seanb: i think a lot of these issues alistair and i can deal with,
   there are a couple that would merit some discussion to get people's
   input first

   TomB: i thought we could quickly go through the easy ones

   aliman: maybe we could focus on the trickier ones

   TomB: sure, where would you like to start

   seanb: issue-175 and issue-153 to do w/ the skos namespace

   <aliman> [30]ISSUE-153

     [30] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/153

   <aliman> [31]ISSUE-175

     [31] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/175

   seanb: tbl indicated he was not in favor of changing the namespace,
   and jeremy also indicated that he would've been opposed to changing
   the namespace

   JeremyCarroll: implementors using the namespace before REC do so at
   their own risk, so generally i would be against changing namespaces,
   whatever we do will leave someone unhappy, tbl's comment has more
   weight than mine, and if he wants to stick with the old one, lets
   stay with the old one

   seanb: also a comment from simon about maintaining the old namespace
   ... there is the caveat that we are changing the semantics

   GuusS: given the history of skos i don't agree w/ jeremy's point ...
   until a few years ago it wasn't clear this was going to be a REC
   track effort

   <Ralph> [I agree with Guus' point about the history of SKOS and the
   2005 namespace]

   GuusS: i have changed my opinion, after reading tim and simon's
   comments ... from pragmatic reasons it's more important to keep the
   namespace

   <aliman> I'm trying to find simon's mail...

   [32]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0036.h
   tml -> simon's comments

     [32] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0036.html

   seanb: i would be in favor of keeping the same namespace

   aliman: i'm leaning in the same direction

   <Ralph> "If you change the semantics at

   <Ralph> any point, my tools still work and always give the right
   answer

   <Ralph> according the published spec, it's up to the user to be
   aware of what

   <Ralph> the SKOS semantics entail. So for this reason I would be in
   favor of

   <Ralph> keeping the old namespaces and just changing the semantics.

   <Ralph> "

   <Ralph> --
   [33]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0036.h
   tml

     [33] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0036.html

   TomB: do i correctly understand that retain skos:broader and change
   the semantics

   Ed: is there any concern about existing uses of skos:subject, etc?
   ... that these will no longer resolve to anything?

   Guus: it's not a real problem; people could still use it
   ... in OWL the decision was that people could use old terms and the
   tool should give a warning

   Sean: so no explicit deprecation?

   Guus: I prefer not to explicitly deprecate the old terms

   Sean: that's my position as well; don't deprecate

   Guus: could have a namespace change history in the documentation

   GuusS: for historic reasons it would be nice to note when things
   changed

   TomB: did we ever take a decision to stop resolving the old
   documentation ...

   Ralph: would you object to using the rdfs:description property to
   say in effect, this has been deprecated ... keep it in the namespace
   document, was in 2005 but not in standard SKOS?

   TomB: we're talking about adding a short section to the Reference
   ... adding a new section and coming up with a policy for dealing w/
   the deprecated terms feels like a fairly substantial change

   GuusS: i think an appendix wouldn't be a major change

   Ralph: i could see some concerns about removing things from a
   namespace document, but I don't know, we could argue that's part of
   the same question

   TomB: could one of the editors write up this appendix?

   seanb: i can do that

   <JeremyCarroll> Jeremy: reviewers have been asked specifically about
   ns change, if no one spoke up supporting it, thati indicates a lack
   of concern about old properties

   Ralph: have we resolved to keep the old namespace?

   <seanb> +1 for Jeremy's point

   GuusS: perhaps the editors could propose the resolution?

   seanb: as a mechanism for this, could we propose this as a draft
   response to the issue?

   GuusS: take the issues you think are significant, and address them
   together, and propose a solution

   <Ralph> [34]6-May F2F discussion of the namespace

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

   ACTION: sean to propose resolutions to outstanding issues, bundling
   editorial issues where necessary [recorded in
   [35]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#action09]

   TomB: are there any other issues we can pick off?

   seanb: there was [36]ISSUE-135 which relates to labeling properties

     [36] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/135

   <JeremyCarroll> (yes please)

   seanb: implementors are keen to have this relationship with
   rdfs:label
   ... a while ago i looked through the mailing list and couldn't find
   a whole lot, found one frmo tbl about tabulator, but was wondering
   if we could get something clearer from implementors

   <JeremyCarroll> I'll ask Holger

   GuusS: you could a message from me or one of my people

   <JeremyCarroll> and me

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

   <JeremyCarroll> (thanks)

   GuusS: there are good reasons for keeping it

   aliman: this is also higlighted in his analysis ... don't know if
   this is a problem that will go away with owl2

   TomB: we've reached the top of the hour

   GuusS: sean, alistair i'll be around for another 10 minutes to
   discuss other issues

   <Ralph> [adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Diego to close recipe issues issue-16 through issue-23
   and issue-58 citing email [recorded in
   [38]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#action04]
   [NEW] ACTION: Guus and Jeremy to give concrete implementation
   examples of the use of rdfs:label w/ SKOS [recorded in
   [39]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#action10]
   [NEW] ACTION: Sean to propose resolutions to outstanding issues,
   bundling editorial issues where necessary [recorded in
   [40]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#action09]

   [PENDING] ACTION: Ben review RDFa Use Cases and propose transition
   to Group Note [recorded in
   [41]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of
   Recipes implementations] [recorded in
   [42]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]

     [41] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02
     [42] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20

   [DONE] ACTION: Alistair enter Last Call issues from Erik Hennum's 28
   June mail [recorded in
   [43]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action06]
   [DONE] ACTION: All to remind respective AC Reps to respond to RDFa
   Proposed Rec Call for Review [recorded in
   [44]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action01]
   [DONE] ACTION: Diego to update "Minimum RDFa metadata set for WG
   deliverables" draft in the wiki [recorded in
   [45]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action04]
   [DONE] ACTION: Ed to ask dbpedia to send a message in support of
   SKOS [recorded in
   [46]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action07]
   [DONE] ACTION: SKOS Reference editors to send mail asking for
   feedback from users [recorded in
   [47]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-swd-minutes.html#action06]

     [43] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action06
     [44] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action01
     [45] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action04
     [46] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action07
     [47] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-swd-minutes.html#action06

   [End of minutes]
     _____________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [48]scribe.perl version 1.133
    ([49]CVS log)
    $Date: 2008/10/07 16:14:35 $

     [48] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [49] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2008 16:17:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 7 October 2008 16:17:20 GMT