- From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 13:31:33 -0400
- To: public-swd-wg@w3.org
The record of today's SWD WG telecon [1] is now available.
Thanks again to Ed for jumping in to scribe when I was in
ramble mode.
There were some action items marked as PENDING in last
week's record that had not been included in today's agenda.
I added them to this record as PENDING after we adjourned today;
if any of them are actually completed we can mark them completed
next telecon or I'll update these minutes.
[1] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/08-swd-minutes.html
A text snapshot follows.
----
Semantic Web Deployment WG
08 Apr 2008
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Apr/0036.html
See also: [3]IRC log, previous [4]2008-04-01
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/08-swd-irc
[4] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/01-swd-minutes.html
Attendees
Present
Ralph Swick, Margherita Sini, Tom Baker, Antoine Isaac, Clay
Redding, Guus Schreiber, Ed Summers, Alistair Miles, Jon
Phipps, Sean Bechhofer, Diego Berrueta, Elisa Kendall, Daniel
Rubin
Regrets
Quentin Reul, Ben Adida, Vit Novacek, Simone Onofri
Chair
Guus
Scribe
Ralph with help from Ed
Contents
* Topics
1. Admin
2. SKOS Primer
3. SKOS Reference
4. RDFa
5. Recipes
6. Vocabulary Management
* Summary of Action Items
_____________________________________________________
Admin
next telecon: 15 April 2008 1500 UTC
RESOLUTION: [13]01-swd-minutes accepted as minutes of 1 April
telecon
[13] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/01-swd-minutes.html
ACTION: Chairs to draft charter extension proposal for SKOS until
July 1st [recorded in
[14]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-swd-minutes.html#action01]
[CONTINUES]
[14] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-swd-minutes.html#action01
Guus: Tom and I agreed to do this after today (European proposal
deadline today)
PROPOSED: to have a May 6-7 SKOS face-to-face in Washington
-> [15]Face-to-face meeting poll results
[15] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/39408/FTF-May-2008-poll/results
Clay: we have a conference room for both days at LoC
... the only issue has been determining if we can get network access
for everyone
... typically it's tough to get internet connectivity for visitors
... I'm hoping to be able to get 15 'blessed' connections
Guus: connectivity is more essential for us, being a Web group
Clay: I think it's mostly a matter of preparing; there's pretty high
visibility for this
Ralph: do you mean to devote the entire agenda to SKOS?
Guus: yes, that's what I was thinking
... we could devote some time to the other tasks
... my main goal was to get major decisions taken to have a clear
road to a Last Call draft for SKOS
... however, if Jon and Diego want an hour for recipes I'd be happy
to schedule this
Jon: I'm inclined to think we don't need to put recipes on the f2f
agenda
... we're pretty close to a final draft
<aliman> what about vocab management?
Ralph: perhaps an hour on Vocab Mgmnt would be useful?
Guus: we were hoping to finish the other tasks by 5 May
... but we could schedule a total of 2 hours for other topics than
SKOS
RESOLUTION: Face-to-Face in Washington on 6 & 7 May
Sean: will there be dial-in facilities?
Clay: good question
<edsu> Ralph++
Clay: we can find a speakerphone
Ralph: no problem using W3C's bridge
Guus: thanks to Library of Congress for hosting
ACTION: Guus and Tom draft an agenda for the May f2f [recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/08-swd-minutes.html#action02]
Guus: can we start at 9am on Tuesday?
Ralph: that's late for me :)
... I second starting no earlier than 8 and no later than 9 :)
Guus: expect to start at 0900 on Tuesday and finish by 1600 on
Wednesday
SKOS Primer
-> [17]Primer editor's draft
[17] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-skos-primer-20080221/
ACTION: Alistair and Guus to check the text in the primer on
relationship between Concept Schemes and OWL Ontologies. [recorded
in [18]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action13]
[CONTINUES]
[18] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action13
ACTION: Guus to write primer text re: broaderGeneric and equivalence
w/r/t subclass [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action08]
[CONTINUES]
[19] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action08
Guus: what's critical for the Primer now?
Alistair: it's looking pretty good
... just some things I highlighted in my review, which also relate
to the mapping vocabulary issues
... the story we tell about concept schemes, ontologies, and levels;
whether we link broadergeneric to OWL or leave them more open; this
will be the difficult thing
SKOS Reference
-> [20]SKOS Reference WD
[20] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-skos-reference-20080125/
-> [21]comments on 25 Jan WD
[21] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosReference20080125
-> [22][SKOS] Standalone definitions in natural language; previous
links in headers [Tom 2008-03-25]
[22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Mar/0087.html
Guus: my advice was to have pointers to natural language
descriptions
ACTION: [DONE] Sean to propose a way to handle deprecated properties
(updating RDF schema) [recorded in
[47][23]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action06]
[recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/08-swd-minutes.html#action05]
[47] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14
[23] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action06
-> [25]Deprecated SKOS Vocabulary [Sean 2008-04-07]
[25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Apr/0032.html
Sean: my proposal is to document the deprecated vocabulary in the
spec but omit it from the RDF schema
... would be nice to start with a clean schema
Guus: document the deprecated vocabulary in an appendix
Sean: we should discuss the namespace
<aliman> +1 to sean's proposal re deprecated properties
Tom: is there a W3C policy on support of schemas for spec that have
not yet reached REC
Ralph: we can -- and should prior to CR -- have a namespace document
Tom: the previous SKOS drafts are a legacy specification
Ralph: is the question about use of the legacy namespace?
Sean: there will be some legacy vocabulary lying around; the things
we're going to deprecate
... is the W3C happy about there being legacy vocabulary around that
is not described in a machine readable form?
Tom: can you follow your nose?
Ralph: I think it would be considered unfriendly to remove things
from the namespace
... there is data deployed and tools such as Tabulator that will
want to continue to browse that data
... I think we'd get severe push-back both architecturally and from
users of the old specs if we remove things from the namespace
Alistair: I assumed we'd stick with the same namespace just because
there's a lot of deployed data
... the deployed data would be consistent with the current spec
Ralph: the things we're deprecating are not used?
Tom: Alistair's point is that there's a lot of data the uses the
existing namespace
... if there is a new namespace then a relationship between the two
namespaces would need to be declared
... would the old namespace disappear?
Ralph: if you are asking if the old namespace would dissappear the
answer is no
Ralph: the old namespace definitely won't disappear
Alistair: there's been some effort to put data in SKOS form
Ralph: a lot of the data wouldn't need to change
aliman: a small amt of data might use some deprecated vocabulary
would need to change, but the majority wouldn't have to change at
all
Guus: i'm slightly worried about making a new vocabulary that makes
data on the web invalid
... i'm more in favor of using a version type link
Ralph: how expensive is it for us to retain the deprecated
vocabulary in our namespace document? I respect the truth/beauty
argument, but I wouldn't want to omit this possibility
aliman: i'm a bit confused: how do we deal with the deprecated
vocabulary, and one that is what is the namespace for skos -- i
thought we were talking about what the skos namespace should be
seanb: i think we're having both convos at the same time
Guus: if we keep the same namespace it would be better to have the
old vocabulary marked as deprecated
... if we move to a new namespace we stil keep the old one, but
people who want to use the new vocabulary have to change the
namespace vocabulary
Ralph: the strongest reason for moving to a new namespace is to
remove the clutter
aliman: by creating a new namespace you are deprecating the old one
Guus: not entirely true, people could still use the old one
Ralph: could provide owl:sameAs relationships
Antoine: i have a question regarding a question from Simon Spero on
the list, about the semantics between the new/old vocabularies
Ralph: would it raise actual problems, or theoretical problems?
aliman: implementations might have to change
Guus: we cannot make assumptions about what people have done, if
they have used transitive they will now be in trouble ... from a
maintenance point of view there is a strong case for creating a new
URI for the 2nd version
seanb: do we have a feel for how people are using the vocabulary?
<Ralph> [26]old SKOS WD
[26] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-skos-reference-20080125/
Ralph: Alistair, what's your belief about how stable people felt the
old definitions were
aliman: i think people have anticipated that things would change,
because they've been asking when the REC would come out
aliman: i would also defer to Antoine, Jon and Ed on what people are
doing
seanb: are they concerned with the vocabulary or just the namespace?
aliman: tools have been built, some are in the commercial space, it
wouldn't hurt too badly to ask people to change their URIs
Ralph: i think we should document this and flag it, and make it part
of the Last Call
... from the point of view of the w3c effort, this work has been in
working draft for a few years, that would be the basis of keeping
the current namespace
... we should acknowledge existing users however
Guus: i would feel uncomfortable to force people to make a change
Ralph: the question is what do we force them to change, to change
transitive implementations or URIs
Guus: there's nothing deprecated about the old namespace
Ralph: that means tools would need to recognize both namespaces
... it's feeling like the least pain is if we change the definitions
of the terms in the namespace
Guus: whatever we do we should make it a Last Call issue
marghe: the advantage to having a new namespace is that we will keep
in mind versioning, it may be difficult to keep track of the
different changes over time, we wouldn't know when new properties
are added, etc
Guus: this is something we can't decide on now, i think seanb's
messsage raises some clear points, and we should cover this in the
f2f
Ralph: we should adapt the VocabManagement document to suit our
needs :-)
ACTION: Ralph to check whether the common interpretation of rdfs
isDefinedBy fits the reasoning that was made in
[27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Oct/0141.h
tml [recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action10]
[CONTINUES]
[27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Oct/0141.html
[28] http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action10
-> [29]2008-03-24: questions about n-ary relations solution
[29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Mar/0083.html
Guus: let's come back to this if there's time later in the telecon
RDFa
-> [30]3-April telecon minutes
[30] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html
ACTION: Ben to prepare draft implementation report for RDFa (with
assistance from Michael) [recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14]
[CONTINUES]
[31] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14
Ralph: the TF last Thursday did make some changes to the SPEC, 1 was
to change instanceof to typeof, and the other is to make a small
change to the processing rules, to remove a side effect from a
change that this working group recommended -- we had removed some
bnodes that otherwise wouldn't be there and now wish to add them
back, both have implementation impact, relatively small, the TF is
recommending we extend Last Call by 3 weeks, to allow for testing of
processing rules
... i asked for the processing rules to undergo a bit more testing
before we go to Candidate Recommendation
diego: need some time to look at the changes
Ralph: ideal path would've been to publish an updated working draft
... that would add more than a 3 week delay
... we believe we have given notice to the active implementor
community, we may need to do this in a more visible way
... we don't have final new language on the change to show to diego,
i don't feel comfortable until we see the new language making any
decision
Guus: i assume you are distributing a comment to that effect to the
various channels
... i think if you do that all is fine
Ralph: ok
Guus: it might effect our charter extension proposal, if after May 1
we might do more work that we expect
Ralph: we're still expecting some post deadline comments, but don't
expect them to have substantive impact, one of the last ones is from
Yahoo, and they are in favor of both of the proposed minor changes
... we're not proposing to delay last call
Recipes
ACTION: Ralph propose resolution to ISSUE-16 "Default behavior"
[recorded in
[32]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14]
[CONTINUES]
[32] http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14
ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes
implementations] [recorded in
[33]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]
[CONTINUES]
[33] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20
ACTION: [DONE] Recipes editors to clarify and write some sentences
for the title that spells out points Ed made for .htaccess and
Apache [recorded in
[34]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action13]
[34] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action13
Vocabulary Management
-> [35]VM 16 March Editor's Draft
[35] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/Vocab/principles-20080316
Elisa: Ralph and Diego's comments were helpful
... should be able to deal with these in short order
Diego: document seems to be in good shape; only minor changes
... the way Recipes is cited
... my comments should be easy to tackle
<Guus> [36]Diego's comments
[36] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Apr/0043.html
Elisa: I agree; I may want to iterate with Diego to get the language
describing the relationship with Recipes
Ralph: i think the work that's there now is good enough that it
would be shame to abandon, if we publish now with @@ i think we can
fill them in later
Guus: we need to try to keep a strict timeframe
Ralph: if we wrestle with the skos namespace, this is the document
that should/can decide how we resolve the skos namespace, my hope
has been that this issue of how to evolve namespaces would rest
here, i would like to publish this as a framework where we can put
our knowledge in
Guus: tom you have some review as well?
<Ralph> [37][VM] review of March 16 editor's draft [Diego]
[37] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Apr/0043.html
Tom: i'll have them before next weeks call
<Ralph> [38][VM] comments on 16 March editor's draft [Ralph]
[38] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Apr/0030.html
Elisa: I expect to be able to return a new version quickly once I
get the comments from Tom and Mark
Guus: I'd like explicit emails to reach consensus
Elisa: OK
... I still hope to be able to attend the face-to-face
Guus: more SKOS discussion next week, and 2 more reviews of VM
[adjourned]
ACTION: Alistair to make a proposal for Issue 40 [recorded in
[39]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/01-swd-minutes.html#action06]
[CONTINUES]
[39] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/01-swd-minutes.html#action06
ACTION: Antoine will review Alistair's proposals w/r/t the
relationship between the existing solution and the extension
[recorded in
[40]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action06]
[CONTINUES]
[40] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action06
ACTION: Alistair to review Antoine and Guus' emails to move ISSUE-71
and -74 [recorded in
[41]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action09]
[CONTINUES]
[41] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action09
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Guus and Tom draft an agenda for the May f2f [recorded
in [42]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/08-swd-minutes.html#action02]
[PENDING] ACTION: Alistair and Guus to check the text in the primer
on relationship between Concept Schemes and OWL Ontologies.
[recorded in
[43]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action13]
[PENDING] ACTION: Alistair to review Antoine and Guus' emails to
move ISSUE-71 and -74 [recorded in
[44]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action09]
[PENDING] ACTION: Alistair to make a proposal for Issue 40 [recorded
in [45]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/01-swd-minutes.html#action06]
[PENDING] ACTION: Antoine will review Alistair's proposals w/r/t the
relationship between the existing solution and the extension
[recorded in
[46]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action06]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ben to prepare draft implementation report for
RDFa (with assistance from Michael) [recorded in
[47]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14]
[PENDING] ACTION: Chairs to draft charter extension proposal for
SKOS until July 1st [recorded in
[48]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-swd-minutes.html#action01]
[PENDING] ACTION: Guus to write primer text re: broaderGeneric and
equivalence w/r/t subclass [recorded in
[49]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action08]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ralph propose resolution to ISSUE-16 "Default
behavior" [recorded in
[50]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ralph to check whether the common interpretation
of rdfs isDefinedBy fits the reasoning that was made in
[51]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Oct/0141.h
tml [recorded in
[52]http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action10]
[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]
[43] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action13
[44] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action09
[45] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/01-swd-minutes.html#action06
[46] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action06
[47] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14
[48] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-swd-minutes.html#action01
[49] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action08
[50] http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14
[51] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Oct/0141.html
[52] http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action10
[53] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20
[DONE] ACTION: Recipes editors to clarify and write some sentences
for the title that spells out points Ed made for .htaccess and
Apache [recorded in
[54]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action13]
[DONE] ACTION: Sean to propose a way to handle deprecated properties
(updating RDF schema) [recorded in
[47][55]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action06]
[recorded in
[56]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/08-swd-minutes.html#action05]
[54] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action13
[47] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14
[55] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action06
[End of minutes]
_____________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [57]scribe.perl version 1.133
([58]CVS log)
$Date: 2008/04/08 17:27:52 $
[57] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[58] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2008 17:32:15 UTC