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

meeting record: 2008-04-08 SWD telecon

From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 13:31:33 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20080408132657.03313ea8@127.0.0.1>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:53 UTC