W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > February 2009

meeting record: 2009-02-10 SemWeb Deployment WG telecon

From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:43:11 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20090210153939.04a287e8@127.0.0.1>
To: public-swd-wg@w3.org

The record of today's Semantic Web Deployment Working Group telecon
is now available.

  http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html

A text snapshot follows.

----

                                SWD WG

10 Feb 2009

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Feb/0022.html

   See also: [3]IRC log, previous [4]2009-01-27

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-irc
      [4] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html

Attendees

   Present
          Ralph Swick, Tom Baker, Diego Berrueta, Antoine Isaac, Guus
          Schreiber, Alistair Miles, Sean Bechhofer, Margherita Sini

   Regrets
   Chair
          Tom

   Scribe
          Ralph

Contents

     * Topics
         1. Admin
         2. SKOS
         3. SKOS Ontology
         4. SKOS Primer
         5. SKOS Implementation report
         6. RDFa
         7. Recipes
         8. RDFa METADATA NOTE
         9. OWL documents
     * Summary of Action Items
     _____________________________________________________

Admin

   RESOLUTION: accept [16]minutes of 27-Jan telecon

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html

   RESOLUTION: next meeting 24 Feb

   Tom: today is our 98th WG telecon. closing in on 100 :)

   Guus: I'll buy drinks for the 100th

SKOS

   ACTION: [DONE] Alistair respond to Felix re: issue-188 [recorded in
   [17]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html#action01]

     [17] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html#action01

   Alistair: editorial suggestion, we accepted and put it in the
   editor's draft

   Tom: CR transition status?

   Ralph: I18N Core agreed to send any Last Call comments by 18 Feb
   ... after that, assuming they don't find any serious flaws, we
   should be able to proceed
   ... are we willing to give the editors discretion to make any
   trivial editorial changes?

   Guus: yes, sure

   Ralph: I expect that the editors and I can judge whether a change
   would need formal WG approval

   -> [18]2009-02-07 Comment from Magnus Knuth - proposed response

     [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Feb/0018.html

   Antoine: Magnus asked that the recommendation be an informal one
   ... as that was already the case -- was informal -- that seems to
   satisfy Magnus
   ... there was a comment on prefLabel in the RDF version of the
   onotology that seems to more strongly enforce this recommendation
   ... I propose to reword this comment following the current language
   of the Primer
   ... "It is recommended that no two concepts in the same concept
   scheme be given the same preferred lexical label for the same
   language tag"
   ... I'm ready to send this response if the WG agrees

   Alistair: I concur

   Sean: fine with me

   RESOLUTION: Antoine's proposed response in
   [19]public-swd-wg/2009Feb/0018.html approved

     [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Feb/0018.html

   ACTION: Antoine raise and close an issue for Magnus Knuth's comment
   [recorded in
   [20]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action02]

   ACTION: Alistair update the RDF file for response to Magnus Knuth's
   comment [recorded in
   [21]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action03]

   -> [22]issue-157; Last Call Comment: SKOS and OWL 2 analysis

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

   Sean: I think it's an oversight that this issue is still open
   ... we haven't received a formal response [on behalf of the WG] for
   this
   ... we've noted his [personal] agreement with the resolution
   ... so we can close 157

SKOS Ontology

   -> [23]SKOS ontology sanity-check? [Antoine 2009-02-07]

     [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Feb/0020.html

   Antoine: this was directly related to Magnus' comment
   ... should we do a final check of the RDF ontology?

   Alistair: it would be good to have as many people as possible to
   look at the comments and labels in the RDF ontology and compare with
   the document
   ... I've done some basic [machine] checks but these don't look at
   the labels or comments

   Antoine: I'll try for the basic ontology, won't get to the -xl
   ontology

   Guus: I'll do the same

SKOS Primer

   -> [24]Updated Primer editor's draft [Antoine 2009-02-07]

     [24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Feb/0019.html

   Antoine: is this update small enough to republish the WD?

   Ralph: yeah, sure; because of the delay in the CR publication we
   haven't actually published the Primer yet so this update will be
   part of the published version

   PROPOSED: Accept [25]primer-20090207 as the next WD

     [25] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/primer/primer-20090207.html

   RESOLUTION: Accept [26]primer-20090207 as the next WD

     [26] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/primer/primer-20090207.html

   ACTION: [DONE] SKOS Editors drop "However, the use of mapping
   properties might..." sentence from the primer section 3.1 [recorded
   in
   [$1\47][27]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html#action10]
   [recorded in
   [28]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action04]

     [27] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html#action10

SKOS Implementation report

   ACTION: [CONTINUES] Sean to report on SKOSED for SKOS implementation
   report [recorded in
   [29]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/06-swd-minutes.html#action10]

     [29] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/06-swd-minutes.html#action10

   ACTION: [DONE] Guus discuss with Sean editors for the SKOS
   implementation report [recorded in
   [30]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html#action04]

     [30] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html#action04

   Guus: problem will be time
   ... we need an implementation report before we can exit Candidate
   Recommendation
   ... if we setup a structure for folks to fill-in it will be easier
   ... create a list of what we want and ask people to add to that list
   ... create a table for SKOS Editors and Checkers
   ... would Sean propose a structure for these tables?
   ... we could include this in our Call for Implementations

   <Antoine> [31]public-swd-wg/2009Jan/0080.html

     [31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Jan/0080.html

   -> [32]SKOS usage at eCulture/Europeana Antoine, fwd from Ronald
   Siebes]

     [32] http://www.few.vu.nl/~ronny/eculture/skos-usage-eculture.html

   Guus: let's try to have the structure in 2 weeks for people to fill

   Guus: for a tool, the differences would be whether the tool handles
   a particular construct

   Sean: extra functions like reading, writing, modifying
   ... I can add some categories for these
   ... for an implementation report we'd want each implementation to
   add a line to the table?
   ... plus a short paragraph about the implementation?

   Guus: yes

   Antoine: could re-use some of the text from our call for use cases

   Ralph: sure, referring back to our use cases seems reasonable

   ACTION: Ralph include in the Call for Implementation prose on
   "feedback on implementations of SKOS Editors and Checkers" [recorded
   in [33]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action07]

   Sean: yes, we use "checker" rather than "validator"

   Guus: we'd like to know which SKOS concepts are supported
   ... and for SKOS Vocabularies we'd like to know the purpose, a link,
   and a list of SKOS concepts used
   ... we could extract the concepts used if the vocabulary is public

   Ralph: could put this in the Wiki and let implementors update
   directly

   Sean: we're not expecting hundreds of reports, so may be easier just
   to supply a list of the data we'd like
   ... I'm not yet accepting editorship of this report :)

   [Guus' action to discuss done]

   Guus: we may not need a formal report; could just be links to
   several tables

   Ralph: yes
   ... an implementation report need not be a formal document

RDFa

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

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

Recipes

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

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

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

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

RDFa METADATA NOTE

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

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

OWL documents

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

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

   -> [39]proposed response to OWL LC documents [Guus 2009-01-28]

     [39] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Jan/0084.html

   Guus: the link [$1\47] should point to OWL Reference
   ... several of the new OWL2 constructs, particularly property
   characteristics, are useful for characterizing SKOS
   ... .another typo; reflexivity should be irreflexitivity
   ... in my second point I note that the OWL2 documents are not
   accessible to the typical SKOS user
   ... this is an editorial comment
   ... while substantial, it's not a technical point against OWL2
   ... point 3 is about terminology; to what does "OWL2" refer? Just
   the DL subset or the whole thing?

   <TomB> +1 Guus's comments look good

   Guus: I added a fourth point which needs more discussion

   Sean: I'm less worried about point 2 from where I sit
   ... but I don't object to including it in the group's comments

   Guus: I could imagine the OWL WG responding that there will be one
   document that uses an RDF representation
   ... they wouldn't have to re-do all the documents; it would be
   sufficient for one document to use RDF
   ... leave it to them to decide how to remedy this
   ... I don't think it ought to be a lot of work for them
   ... internally [in Vrieje] in our group there was consensus about
   this from folk who were very familiar with RDF

   Alistair: I support Guus' comments

   Antoine: I support them fully

   Guus: my fourth comment ...

   -> [40]Re: proposed response to OWL LC documents [29]

     [40] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Jan/0091.html
     [29] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/06-swd-minutes.html#action10

   Guus: I chatted with Ivan about this
   ... Ivan suggested I have misinterpreted the OWL documents
   ... this might be the case, but my misinterpretation could be
   revealing
   ... I was worried that OWL2 tools might no longer be required to
   produce RDF/XML
   ... these other syntaxes are used in normative sections of the OWL2
   documents but apparently that does not mean that the other syntaxes
   are themselves normative

   Sean: is there an explicit statement of what the normative syntax
   is?

   Guus: I can rephrase as a question;
   ... we would expect RDF/XML to continue to be the normative exchange
   syntax. It is not completely clear from the documents whether this
   is the case. Would the OWL WG care to clarify?
   ... from the documents I am unclear about the status of the other
   syntaxes
   ... is this a fair question to ask?

   Ralph, Alistair: yes, it's fair

   Alistair: it's a valid concern. It would be a problem for me if OWL
   tools stopped emitting RDF/XML

   <Antoine> +1

   Guus: we can ask this as a clarification question

   Ralph: I think it's reasonable and proper for this WG to ask the OWL
   WG to be explicit that RDF/XML continues to be a required exchange
   syntax

   Guus: 'a' or 'the'?

   Ralph: I'd like 'the' but we can ask them to clarify at least

   Diego: I agree that RDF/XML must be required
   ... we would otherwise introduce interoperability problems
   ... someone must study the impact of changing the normative syntax

   Guus: I could live with a tool that produces other syntaxes if it
   always produces RDF/XML too

   Diego: my problem is not just producers but also tools that consume
   ... if OWL2 introduces new syntaxes equivalent to RDF/XML then
   effectively this adds a requirement on implementors

   Sean: looking at the OWL2 Conformance and Test Cases document ...
   ... in Section 2 ...

   <aliman> +1 on what guus said, I have no problem with an OWL tool
   that produces other syntaxes, if it can produce some RDF syntax too

   Sean: I see "... successfully parsed using canonical RDF parsing
   process ..."

   <seanb> [41]OWL 2 Web Ontology Language:[42]Conformance and Test
   Cases

     [41] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-owl2-test-20081008/
     [42] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-owl2-test-20081008/

   Sean: which to me says that RDF is still in there

   <seanb> Section 2

   Guus: but the other documents aren't clear as the other syntaxes do
   appear in normative sections

   Sean: so you want a clarification?

   Guus: yes, I want a clarification but without putting too much
   pressure on them
   ... I will rephrase this as a question
   ... I'd like to send this response in a day
   ... I'll send a revise proposal tonight, would like comments from
   SWD tomorrow, then I'll send the comment to OWL WG on Thursday

   Tom: OK

   <aliman> antoine i see you've raised issue 189, were you planning to
   also raise another issue for the comment in the RDF?

   ACTION: Guus send draft of revised OWL2 response by end of day
   Tuesday, for WG to review on Wednesday, then send to OWL WG on
   Thursday [recorded in
   [43]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action13]

   Guus: I can keep this general; request clarification on status of
   RDF/XML as a normative exchange syntax

   Ralph: I think it is appropriate and useful for this WG to state
   that RDF/XML is mandatory

   Margherita: apologies for being less available; I expect to have
   more time in 2 weeks

   Tom: editorial input [after we publish CR] will be useful

   Guus: especially on how FAO uses SKOS; this would be very useful for
   the implementation report

   Margherita: the new application we are building will have SKOS
   export

   <TomB> AGROVOC

   Margherita: this is a new maintenance tool; AgroVoc service

   <marghe> [44]AGROVOC Concept Server Workbench

     [44] http://naist.cpe.ku.ac.th/agrovoc/

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Alistair update the RDF file for response to Magnus
   Knuth's comment [recorded in
   [45]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action03]
   [NEW] ACTION: Antoine raise and close an issue for Magnus Knuth's
   comment [recorded in
   [46]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action02]
   [NEW] ACTION: Guus send draft of revised OWL2 response by end of day
   Tuesday, for WG to review on Wednesday, then send to OWL WG on
   Thursday [recorded in
   [47]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action13]
   [NEW] ACTION: Ralph include in the Call for Implementation prose on
   "feedback on implementations of SKOS Editors and Checkers" [recorded
   in [48]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action07]

   [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: Ralph post his comments on the editor's draft of
   the metadata note [recorded in
   [50]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action03]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph to review the revised Recipes draft
   [recorded in
   [51]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
   [52]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Sean to report on SKOSED for SKOS implementation
   report [recorded in
   [53]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/06-swd-minutes.html#action10]

     [49] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02
     [50] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action03
     [51] http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html#action15
     [52] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20
     [53] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/06-swd-minutes.html#action10

   [DONE] ACTION: Alistair respond to Felix re: issue-188 [recorded in
   [54]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html#action01]
   [DONE] ACTION: Guus to look at OWL documents for review [recorded in
   [55]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10]
   [DONE] ACTION: Guus discuss with Sean editors for the SKOS
   implementation report [recorded in
   [56]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html#action04]
   [DONE] ACTION: SKOS Editors drop "However, the use of mapping
   properties might..." sentence from the primer section 3.1 [recorded
   in
   [$1\47][57]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html#action10]
   [recorded in
   [58]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action04]

     [54] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html#action01
     [55] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10
     [56] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html#action04
     [57] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html#action10

   [End of minutes]
     _____________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [59]scribe.perl version 1.133
    ([60]CVS log)
    $Date: 2009/02/10 20:39:53 $

     [59] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [60] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2009 20:43:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 10 February 2009 20:43:47 GMT