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

meeting record: 2009-02-24 SemWeb Deployment Working Group

From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:25:37 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20090224122234.0571ec98@127.0.0.1>
To: public-swd-wg@w3.org
The record [1] of today's Semantic Web Deployment Working Group telecon
is now available.

  [1] http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-swd-minutes.html

Note that the US changes its clocks on 8 March so the next
telecon on 10 March is 1 hour earlier for Europeans (and some others).

A text snapshot follows:

----

                 Semantic Web Deployment Working Group

24 Feb 2009

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Feb/0058.html

   See also: [3]IRC log, previous [4]2009-02-10

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-swd-irc
      [4] http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html

Attendees

   Present
          Ralph Swick, Guus Schreiber, Tom Baker, Alistair Miles,
          Antoine Isaac, Ben Adida, Sean Bechhofer

   Regrets
          Margherita Sini, Ed Summers

   Chair
          Guus

   Scribe
          Ralph

Contents

     * Topics
         1. Admin
         2. SKOS
         3. SKOS Ontology
         4. SKOS Primer
         5. Implementation Report
         6. RDFa
         7. Recipes
         8. RDFa Metadata Note
         9. SWD Review of OWL WDs
     * Summary of Action Items
     _____________________________________________________

Admin

   RESOLVED to accept [16]2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html as minutes of
   previous telecon

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

   PROPOSED next telecon 10 March

   Ralph: note that the telcon time will be at 1500 UTC on March 10 and
   subsequent
   ... i.e. 1 hour earlier for Europeans

   <TomB> +1

   RESOLVED next telecon 10 March, 1500 UTC

SKOS

   Ralph: I pinged the chair of I18N yesterday
   ... no response yet
   ... but Richard Ishida did ask if we were going to reply to [17]his
   2-Feb message
   ... Felix Sasaki followed that up in [18]public-swd-wg/2009Feb/0011

     [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Feb/0010.html
     [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Feb/0011.html

   Guus: we won't be able to solve all the problems of concepts in
   different languages

   Alistair: when I read Felix's response he seemed to be explaining
   the theories of thesaurii in various languages
   ... so there didn't really seem to be an issue; just a dialog

   Guus: perhaps making that statement would be an appropriate followup
   from us

   ACTION: Alistair look at Richard Ishida and Felix Sasaki's messages
   in
   [19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Feb/thread
   .html#msg10 and see if there's an issue [recorded in
   [20]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-swd-minutes.html#action01]

     [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Feb/thread.html#msg10

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

     [21] http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action07

SKOS Ontology

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

     [22] http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action03

   Alistair: I believe I've done this and thought I'd sent mail
   ... will find that mail

   -> "[23]Re: ISSUE-190: Last Call Comment: Unicity of prefLabel
   (comment in SKOS RDF)" [Alistair 2009-02-10]

     [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Feb/0029.html

   <aliman> thanks ralph, that's it

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

     [24] http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action02

   Antoine: action should have read "raise and open"

   Ralph: yep

   -> "[25]Re: [SKOS] Re: TR : W3C SKOS Reference Last Call (3 days
   left in comment period) [ISSUE-189, ISSUE-190]" [Antoine's reply]

     [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Feb/0027.html

SKOS Primer

   Antoine: there might still be updates to the Primer

   <Antoine> [26]public-esw-thes/2009Feb/0069

     [26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2009Feb/0069.html

   Antoine: Pat Hayes read the Primer and commented on a misleading
   sentence
   ... I [27]proposed one rewrite, and Alistair proposed a different
   one
   ... then I received mail from Pat accepting my rewrite

     [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2009Feb/0069.html

   Alistair: go ahead with your version

   ACTION: Antoine provide a pointer to the new Primer Editor's Draft
   [recorded in
   [28]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-swd-minutes.html#action05]

   Antoine: Pat neglected to cc: his reply to a list, so his approval
   of my text isn't on a record

   Guus: just include Pat's reply in your mail

Implementation Report

   Sean: [29]start of implementation report
   ... best thing is to keep it simple

     [29] http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/573036/SWD/implementation.html

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

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

   Guus: I think it's OK to close Sean's action given the draft
   ... [31]dl.getdropbox.com/u/573036/SWD/implementation is the kind of
   implement I was hoping for

     [31] http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/573036/SWD/implementation.html

   Sean: it's hard to pin down some things
   ... so it's necessarily somewhat informal

   <seanb> From the OED: wooly: " 6. transf. and fig. Lacking in
   definiteness or incisiveness; ‘muzzy’; (of the mind, etc.) confused
   and hazy; (of painting, etc.) lacking in clearness or definition;
   (of sound, etc.) dull and indistinct."

   Ralph: Thanks, Sean :)

   ACTION: Sean move
   [32]http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/573036/SWD/implementation.html to the
   WG Wiki [recorded in
   [33]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-swd-minutes.html#action07]

     [32] http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/573036/SWD/implementation.html

   ACTION: Antoine add the Vrieje Uni tool to the implementation report
   [recorded in
   [34]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-swd-minutes.html#action08]

RDFa

   Ben: discussions with the HTML Working Group continue
   ... it's a bit of a roller coaster
   ... Manu Sporny has been a good interface with them
   ... we're exploring the possibility of proposing a new attribute,
   @prefix, as a way of moving forward on CURIE mappings
   ... within the Task Force we're close to consensus on adding
   @prefix, (name not cast in concrete)
   ... would do the same thing as @xmlns

   Guus: I'd be in favor of this

   Ben: the reason for a new attribute is ...
   ... some parsers will do the right thing with @xmlns accumulating
   all the prefixes declared up to each point in the document
   ... other parsers might not do this; it depends on how the DOM tree
   might be fixed-up
   ... so it's inconsistent whether one can get at all the @xmlns data
   with every DOM implementaton
   ... I've demonstrated working code for every modern browser but it's
   admittedly a bit messy
   ... sometimes need to use DOM level 1 calls
   ... all this is much cleaner if we use some other attribute than
   @xmlns
   ... the Task Force hopes to converge very quickly
   ... thought of perhaps issuing a Note on what we think ought to be
   done
   ... but very recently there's some feedback suggesting we propose to
   revise the RDFa Recommendatoin

   Ralph: might be able to do this as a Proposed Edited Recommendation
   ... I'll have to remind myself what review is required for that

   Ben: we're getting very positive feedback on @prefix unofficially
   from implementors

   Guus: if there's any chance of doing this, I'm very much in favor of
   it

   <TomB>
   [35]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfr-edited

     [35] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfr-edited

   Ralph: even if it means extending the Working Group by 1-4 weeks?

   Guus: certainly

Recipes

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

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

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

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

SWD Review of OWL WDs

   ACTION: [DONE] 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
   [39]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action13]

     [39] http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action13

   -> "[40]LC comments SWD Working Group" [Guus 2009-02-12]

     [40] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Feb/0032.html

   [adjourned]

   <TomB>
   [41]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfr-edited

     [41] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfr-edited

   <Ralph>
   [42]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#correction-cl
   asses

     [42] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#correction-classes

   Ralph: I believe calling the community review of @prefix a
   "Candidate Rec" would be most consistent with section 7.6.3

   Guus: so 2 week CR followed by a 4 week Proposed [Edited] Rec review
   by the AC?

   Ben: so it's critical that there are no new features?

   Ralph: yes

   Tom: could it be argued that this is a new feature?

   Ben: it's new syntax for something we already do

   Guus: should the WG meet next week to discuss this?

   Ben: the Task Force should have a complete proposal in place with a
   diff to the current document

   Guus: is the XHTML2 Working Group agreeing with this proposal?

   Ralph: that's my sense, yes

   Guus: so I'll plan to have a proposal for a Proposed Edited
   Recommendation on 10 March

   Ralph: let's call the WG and public review "candidate review for a
   Proposed Edited Recommendation"
   ... I'll run that terminology past a couple of others here

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

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

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Alistair look at Richard Ishida and Felix Sasaki's
   messages in
   [44]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Feb/thread
   .html#msg10 and see if there's an issue [recorded in
   [45]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-swd-minutes.html#action01]
   [NEW] ACTION: Antoine add the Vrieje Uni tool to the implementation
   report [recorded in
   [46]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-swd-minutes.html#action08]
   [NEW] ACTION: Antoine provide a pointer to the new Primer Editor's
   Draft [recorded in
   [47]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-swd-minutes.html#action05]
   [NEW] ACTION: Sean move
   [48]http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/573036/SWD/implementation.html to the
   WG Wiki [recorded in
   [49]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-swd-minutes.html#action07]

     [44] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Feb/thread.html#msg10
     [48] http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/573036/SWD/implementation.html

   [PENDING] ACTION: Ben review RDFa Use Cases and propose transition
   to Group Note [recorded in
   [50]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph include in the Call for Implementation prose
   on "feedback on implementations of SKOS Editors and Checkers"
   [recorded in
   [51]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action07]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph post his comments on the editor's draft of
   the metadata note [recorded in
   [52]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action03]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph to review the revised Recipes draft
   [recorded in [recorded in
   [53]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-swd-minutes.html#action09]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of
   Recipes implementations] [recorded in
   [54]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]

     [50] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02
     [51] http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action07
     [52] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action03
     [54] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20

   [DONE] ACTION: Alistair update the RDF file for response to Magnus
   Knuth's comment [recorded in
   [55]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action03]
   [DONE] ACTION: Antoine raise and close an issue for Magnus Knuth's
   comment [recorded in
   [56]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action02]
   [DONE] 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
   [57]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action13]
   [DONE] ACTION: Sean to report on SKOSED for SKOS implementation
   report [recorded in
   [58]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/06-swd-minutes.html#action10]

     [55] http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action03
     [56] http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action02
     [57] http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action13
     [58] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/06-swd-minutes.html#action10

   [End of minutes]
     _____________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [59]scribe.perl version 1.133
    ([60]CVS log)
    $Date: 2009/02/24 17:22:23 $

     [59] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [60] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2009 17:26:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 24 February 2009 17:26:17 GMT