SWD WG

3 Jul 2007

Attendees

Ralph, Guus, Antoine_Isaac, CarlosI, Daniel, Diego, Vit, Sean, Clay, JonP, Ed, TomB

Bernard, Elisa, Simone, Justin

Guus

dlrubin

Contents

• Topics
  1. admin
  2. SKOS
  3. RDFa - RDFa Overview document http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/
  4. . VOCABULARY MANAGEMENT - see http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/Deliverables#VocabularyMgt
• Summary of Action Items

  ---

   
  
   
  
  <RalphS> previous 2007-06-26
  
  <TomB> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jul/0002.html
  
  

  admin

  Guus: proposal to accept minutes
  ... carried
  ... Upcoming tcon July 10
  ... Tom will Chair
  ... Next F2F meeting
  
  <RalphS> results of November f2f poll
  
  Guus: after summer will need meeting resolve SKOS and RDFa issues.
  ... Should we have SKOS meeting in Korea or separate venue?
  ... For RDFa US is likely candidate
  
  Ralph: Only Guus couldn't be in Cambridge for SKOS
  ... 5 said they can't be in Korea
  
  Antoine: If SKOS were in Europe, that is preferable.
  
  Ralph: First two weeks in Nov are not possible.
  ... 3rd week of Nov is a big US holiday, so we'd be at end of Nov.
  
  Guus: We could select Amsterdam.
  
  <scribe> ACTION: Guus to propose dates in Oct for Amsterdam meeting on SKOS. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-minutes.html#action01]
  
  TomB: can we pick early Oct?
  
  Guus: We should do a web poll.
  ... for RDAa meeting--cambridge venue?
  
  Ralph: only 3 people wanted a meeting
  ... suggest that RDFa be taken up in XHTML2 meeting
  ... there are 2 new chairs for XHTML2
  ... Roland Merrick and Steven Pemberton
  ... correction Steven Pemberton
  
  <scribe> ACTION: Discuss possibility of meeting for RDFa in Cambridge. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-minutes.html#action02]
  
  

  SKOS

  Issue-26: RelationshipsBetweenLabels ( http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/26)
  
  Guus: Two current proposals, simple extension and minimal label.
  
  <RalphS> (RDFa hopes to be substantially done by Nov, so the question of a f2f agendum for it was considered low priority by Ben)
  
  Guus: gave this to ontology engineering students. Will post results to list.
  ... Other issue is comment from Antoine on naming Guus used
  ... Instead of prefLabel, use prefLabelR--antoine wonders if this is good naming
  ... we could discuss
  
  edsu: Does adding an "R" used elsewhere?
  
  Guus: was in OWL
  ... Actually in OWL it was dropped.
  ... You need a lexical way of having difference.
  
  Antoine: This is not really explicit and confusing, as could be interpreted as relation
  ... you have properties with R and label relation
  ... this is a worry
  
  Guus: "resource" might be better
  ... There was also discussion as to whether relation was bijectional
  ... Alistair was going to propose resolution for issue 33. Action not yet been done.
  ... Proposal to leave it at that
  
  seanb: Wasn't there mail from Allistair in June proposing this?
  
  Guus: if you are willing to look, we'll move on.
  
  seanb: will look for url
  
  -- ISSUE-31 BasicLexicalLabelSemantics proposed resolution
  
  See thread from:
  
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0170.html
  
  -- ISSUE-31 BasicLexicalLabelSemantics proposed resolution
  
  See thread from:
  
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0170.html
  
  Guus: John, I can clarify what I meant
  ... we had discussion on the potential ontological commitment
  ... should the concept be in only one scheme
  
  <TomB> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0166.html
  
  Guus: if there is no clear reason to say this is the case, we should not specify
  ... The other issue is whether broader/narrower can be between concepts in 2 different schemes
  ... I don't see concerns here yet
  
  JonP: this has to do with ownership schemes
  ... there was also question whether concept can be in more than one scheme.
  
  Guus: from web approach, whether concepts belong to scheme is something owner should have control over
  ... whether you use broader/narrower for that is another question
  
  JonP: you should look at mapping vocabulary
  
  <seanb> I think this is also related to issue 36: http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/36
  
  <Antoine> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptualMapping/ProposalOne
  
  Guus: We have equivalent concepts and overlapping concepts
  
  Antoine: I was proposing using broader/narrower relations
  
  Guus: I feel uncomforable replicating OWL vocabulary here
  ... for equivalence we have equivalentClass and sameAS
  ... we hav union and negation
  ... would hamper usability if we introduce redundancy
  
  Antoine: equivalentConcept may exist in another namespace, so we would turn to a less satisfactory concetp
  
  Guus: why not use sameAs?
  
  Antoine: the meaning of the concepts are the same, but sameAs states equivalence of the resources.
  ... if you have metadata about the concepts, then this information would be aggregated around unique resource
  
  Guus: you can't use equivClass because they are not equivalent.
  ... ok
  ... so we will need further discussion
  ... do we have an owner for issue 31?
  ... it was proposed by Alistair
  ... so Alistair will be owner
  
  Mapping Topic Maps to SKOS:
  
  https: //mijn.postbank.nl/internetbankieren/SesamLoginServlet
  
  Antoine: what Alistiar has proposed is interesting, but I am concerned about constraints on semantics.
  ... people in WG should look at this before next week.
  ... I'm questioning use of 'syntactic constraints'--I'm not used to that and its relevance to people outside the WG
  ... is this a good way to specify semantics?
  ... even Alistair not sure
  ... people should look at whether this is proper way to do things
  
  Guus: there are analogies in owl.
  
  <JonP> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/Semantics/Labelling?action=recall&rev=5
  
  Guus: every parser might flag a warning as a syntactic condition
  
  Antoine: so no problem specifying semantic constraints at syntactic level?
  ... I am ok with this.
  
  Guus: Sean--what do you think?
  
  seanb: where is this?
  
  Guus: if you look at issue 31 and go to wiki page, you see skos semantics labeling.
  ... you see semantic conditions
  ... it is not about the statement but whether semantic considtions are ok
  ... for language tag, there is no other option...
  
  seanb: ok
  
  <TomB> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0167.html
  
  Guus: will you look at this and see whether this form is ok?
  
  seanb: yes
  
  Antoine: this may be redundant with owl specification
  ... I am ok with what is there.
  
  Mapping Topic Maps to SKOS:
  
  https: //mijn.postbank.nl/internetbankieren/SesamLoginServlet
  
  Guus: this is the wrong link--I apologize
  ... I'll resend a new message
  
  <guus> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jul/0004.html
  
  Guus: There is support for properties of narrower/broader
  
  Antoine: should we raise this as an issue?
  
  Guus: we have these subtypes on our issue list
  
  Antoine: the standardization level is different?
  
  <RalphS> Semantic relation BroaderPartitive/ NarrowerPartitiv
  
  Guus: We can indicate how to do it
  ... at moment, topic map community isn't very large
  
  Antoine: while broader/narrower is something that might come from outside topic map communtiy
  ... people have said they would use it for their vocabulary case
  
  Guus: we have these things on our issue list
  
  Anotoine: I don't think so
  ... we have issue 37 on skos specialization
  
  Guus: should we include in skos the broader/narrower specialization?
  ... could Antoine raise that issue?
  
  Antoine: ok
  
  seanb: is there a use case that picks up on that?
  
  Antoine: yes in one of the use cases
  
  <scribe> ACTION: Antoine to raise issue of adding broader/narrower relations in skos [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-minutes.html#action03]
  
  Guus: suggestions on how to move forward these discussions?
  
  <TomB> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0166.html
  
  <TomB> I have proposed the following section of the SKOS Semantics wiki draft as a resolution for this issue:
  
  Guus: some of these issues need to be resovled at f2f meeting
  
  <TomB> [1] < http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/Semantics/Grouping?action=recall&rev=4>
  
  <TomB> This is section of the SKOS Semantics wiki draft, which defines a semantics for skos:Collection, skos:OrderedCollection, skos:member and skos:memberList.
  
  <TomB> N.B. the semantics are such that the use of a skos:Collection with skos:narrower, skos:broader or skos:related will lead to an inconsistency if the domain or range of these properties is skos:Concept, because skos:Collection is disjoint with skos:Concept. The SKOS Primer will of course have to present examples that are consistent with the semantics, and explain how to avoid an inconsistency.
  
  <TomB> I would like to suggest that the Working Group accept this resolution, because it fixes the basic contradiction in the previous specifications, regarding the use of skos:Collection with skos:broader or skos:narrower, that [ISSUE-33] captures.
  
  <Zakim> TomB, you wanted to draw attention to Alistair's proposal re: ISSUE-33 http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/Semantics/Grouping?action=recall&rev=4
  
  TomB: On issue 33, I added link.
  ... Alistair proposes to address issue 33 by getting wiki draft of skos semantics
  ... his proposal is that we focus on that part of wiki draft for skos that we can agree on
  
  Guus: we cannot decide on this while issue owner is not here.
  
  TomB: the proposal was that Alistair would make the proposal explicit and that we would discuss that section on a tcon.
  ... I propose we do that at the f2f
  
  Guus: ok, we should schedule that for next week.
  
  <RalphS> RE: [SKOS] ISSUE-33 "Minimal Fix" Proposal [Alistair, 2007-06-26]
  
  

  RDFa - RDFa Overview document http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/

  Guus: there is proposal for resolution of issues
  
  RalphS: I haven't see responses from group members for the resoution. I need comments from them.
  
  Guus: let's look at issue 2
  
  Proposed resolutions to ISSUE-2, ISSUE-5, ISSUE-25, ISSUE-29, ISSUE-4
  
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0176.html
  
  Guus: if that is consensus in the subgroup, I'm happy with it
  
  <RalphS> Custom Attributes for RDF shorthand
  
  Guus: any discussion?
  ... should we go through and accept them?
  
  RalphS: I would like some sense that other WG members have given input
  
  Guus: these are non-controversial.
  ... these are fine with me. No real commitments that worry me.
  ... I propose we resolve and accept RDFa issue 2
  ... objections?
  ... so carried
  
  <RalphS> CURIEs in Predicate Attributes
  
  Guus: next is issue 5
  
  RalphS: the subtelty that the task force has not abandoned the compact URIs
  ... XHTML is advocating compact URIs
  ... task force continues to go along with it.
  ... it will be controversial in HTML community
  ... Proposed resolution relates to URL part
  ... This proposed resolution is ok, but this wg may give recommendation to task force as to whether they should still continue persue compact URIs
  
  Guus: I suggest we leave this until this can be explained to rest of group
  ... issue 25
  ... this doesn't look as simple
  
  RalphS: Issue 1 is simple
  
  Discussion on ISSUE-1: reification
  
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0177.html
  
  Guus: ok
  
  <TomB> +1 on Issue-1 - i.e., not support reification
  
  Guus: seems wise decison to me
  ... I propose we resolve issue 1 based on Ben's message
  
  objections?
  
  Guus: so carried
  ... issue 3
  
  Discussion thread on ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type
  
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0178.html
  
  Guus: this is not one we can easily decide.
  ... is Michael here?
  ... I suggest we leave it to issues 1 and 2
  
  RalphS: the class and role issue relates to how we value clarity of semantics in class attribute
  ... we need clearer way to express semantics. Momentum for using class
  
  Guus: we skip to agenda item 5
  
  

  . VOCABULARY MANAGEMENT - see http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/Deliverables#VocabularyMgt

  Guus: any current actions?
  
  vit: there is discussion on naming of terms but these should be taken over by Elisa
  
  RalphS: if Elisa proposes text to discuss, then we can discuss, but there is no action on her for this
  
  vit: what are requirements on version identification and report on results of questionnaire
  ... on identifying versions...
  ... this will be by end of July at soonest.
  
  Guus: shouldn't be a problem.
  
  <RalphS> Ralph: that sounds like reasonable progress
  
  vit: it will take longer to gather the answers.
  
  Guus: we are at end of the time.
  
  <scribe> ACTION: Guus to move Action 26 forward [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-minutes.html#action04]
  
  Guus: people representing user communities should compare different proposals
  
  <RalphS> ACTION: Guus to post user experience reports for issue-26 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-minutes.html#action05]
  
  Guus: I will use same examples
  ... so makes easier to comapre. We need explicit feedback.
  
  

  Summary of Action Items

  [NEW] ACTION: Antoine to raise issue of adding broader/narrower relations in skos [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-minutes.html#action03]
  [NEW] ACTION: Ralph to Discuss possibility of meeting for RDFa in Cambridge. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-minutes.html#action02]
  [NEW] ACTION: Guus to move Action 26 forward [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-minutes.html#action04]
  [NEW] ACTION: Guus to post user experience reports for issue-26 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-minutes.html#action05]
  [NEW] ACTION: Guus to propose dates in Oct for Amsterdam meeting on SKOS. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-minutes.html#action01]
   
  [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph propose resolution to Recipe issue 1.3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/24-swd-minutes.html#action09]
   
  [DONE] ACTION: Alistair to post the proposed resolution to ISSUE-33 and systematic display to the list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/26-swd-minutes.html#action04]
  [End of minutes]
  

  ---

  Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.128 (CVS log)
  $Date: 2007/07/05 17:10:04 $