- From: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:52:34 +0100
- To: SWD Working SWD <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
The record of yesterday's SWD telecon [1] is now available. Text
version below.
Cheers,
Sean
[1] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/22-swd-minutes.html
O /
------------------------------------------ x
------------------------------------
O \
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
SemWeb Deployment WG
22 Apr 2008
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Apr/
0088.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/22-swd-irc
Attendees
Present
Ralph Swick, Tom Baker, Diego Berruetta, Guus Schreiber,
Alistair Miles, Ed Summers, Antoine Isaac, Sean Bechhofer,
Margherita Sini, Elisa Kendall
Regrets
Daniel Rubin, Vit Novacek, Simone Onofri, Jon Phipps, Quentin
Reul
Chair
Guus
Scribe
Sean
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Admin
2. [6]SKOS
3. [7]RDFa
4. [8]Recipes
5. [9]Vocabulary Management
* [10]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Admin
Guus: Next telecon 29th April
... no telecon on 6th May
Ralph: at risk for 29th April.
Guus: Could produce telecon schedule until Summer.
... hopefully done by then!
PROPOSE to accept minutes
RESOLVED
ACTION: Chairs to draft charter extension proposal for SKOS until
July 1st [recorded in
[11]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-swd-minutes.html#action01]
[CONTINUES]
[11] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-swd-minutes.html#action01
[12]6-7 May f2f agenda
[12] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/WashingtonAgenda
Guus: F2f 6-7 May in Washington. Draft agenda + local arrangements.
... Advise hotel bookings asap.
SKOS
Guus: Look at open issues.
... Report on status
[13]issue 40; ConceptCoordination
[13] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/40
Alistair: Recent discussion. Still view this as nice to have feature
but not essential. Need well worked through proposal. If not, drop
the feature.
Guus: My feeling is to postpone.
Alistair: yes, that's an option
... quite late in the day. Unlikely to get something in a good
state. Could be done as extensions
Guus: Don't want to spend lots of time on this.
Alistair: Co-ordination is key to LCSH. Ed and Clay should shout if
it's really important
Ed: yes, important at LC. But having some time outside the meeting
to discuss things would be ok.
Guus: Ed could become issue owner and consider how critical it is.
If it is, then prepare a discussion.
... Would this block SKOS usage of LC?
Ed: No. Going forward there is interest in representing co-ordinated
concepts. Either SKOS core or
... extension would be fine. No strong feeling that it needs to be
part of the core.
Guus: Suggestion is that it's not part of the core. But include
reference to possible patterns in Primer/Reference
Ed: Could work with Antoine on this.
ACTION: Ed to investigate what text could be added to primer re.
concept co-ordination [recorded in
[14]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/22-swd-minutes.html#action02]
-> [15]http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/37
[15] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/37
Alistair: Guus was going to draft some text for the primer on this.
Antoine: Already done. Some discrepancy between Washington agenda
and issue tracker.
Alistair: Confused between 37 and 56...
... 37 is design patterns for extending SKOS. For 37, haven't done
anything yet.
[General confusion about issue owners]
Alistair: Different issues. One about general extensions. One about
particular extension.
... resolution for 37 is simply providing examples.
...of how to do things.
<Antoine>
[16]http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/#secskosspecialization
[16] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/#secskosspecialization
Ralph: Guus's action on primer text on broadergeneric is associated
wth this.
Antoine: Copied link to primer section. This section may now be
wrong, but there is some text that can be adapted.
Guus: You are proposing that we resolve this with text in the
primer?
<Ralph> [17]ISSUE 37+56 [11]
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Mar/
0037.html
[11] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-swd-minutes.html#action01
Alistair: This is more of a how to than core vocabulary.
Guus: Not a real technical issue. More about getting the right text
into the primer
-> [18]http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/56 Issue 56
[18] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/56
<Ralph> [issue-37 was discussed in ->
[19]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#item02 18-March
telecon]
[19] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#item02
Guus: Outstanding issue. Need to prepare discussion. Spent time on
this in Amsterdam recently. Proposal will be ready for the f2f.
-> [20]http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/71
[20] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/71
Alistair: On my TODO list. Need to go back over emails and review
options.
Guus: Antoine is issue owner here.
Antoine: I own it, but am waiting for Alistair to send the mail.
Guus: What do we expect for f2f?
Antoine: Can prepare something once Alistair has reacted.
Alistair: Next thing on my list.
-> [21]http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/74 Issue 74
[21] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/74
Alistair: Treating 71 and 74 as two sides of the same coin.
-> [22]http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/80 Issue 80
[22] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/80
Guus: Textual issue for reference and primer.
Alistair: True, but questions about imports.
... for the most part, a question of nice explanatory text.
... which lives in the primer
Antoine: Would like to postpone as this is dependent on Issue 56.
... Resolution of 56 may effect 80.
Guus: Don't want to postpone discussion on too many issues in
Washington.
... Would like to tackle remaining issues.
<Ralph> [23]SKOS and imports [16]
[23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Apr/
0078.html
[16] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/#secskosspecialization
seanb: have some issues to discuss, would be useful
... I was talking to people in OWL WG about imports, how imports is
used in reference and primer, they were uneasy with the examples
seanb: one question not clear to me, what do you want to represent
through use of owl imports, what it means for vocab to import
another
... OWL view, ontology is a collection of axioms, using OWL imports
express that imported ontology, all reasoning should be done in
context of imported axioms
... using owl imports across skos concept schemes does not respect
semantics of owl import
... concern about misusing the vocabulary.
... number of ways to use imports, one is for named graph approach.
If one concept scheme consists of multiple parts, you can indicate
with imports that there is one namespace document that represents
the whole concept scheme, that is proper use of imports...
... just expressing fact that you should include all the axioms.
Guus: Across concept schemes, you mean importing mapping
relationships?
seanb: there is a simple example in the reference, says [...]
comment here, no relationship between inscheme and owl:imports
...one thing you want to do, grab some RDF graphs, consider one
graph to contain another graph. Using owl:imports because its only
machinery for doing that. No way to say one rdf graph contain
another.
... so question is, is it really the right thing to do, or the only
thing that will get that behaviour?
... Or do we want to talk about OWL ontologies?
guus: Why is it not an ontology? An ontology is also just an RDF
graph. I don't see the real problem.
seanb: One suggestion made, should we set up a task force between
this WG and OWL WG, check in agreement on how this is working.
That's a proposal they put to me.
... concern over whether this is appropriate use of owl imports.
Alistair when we wrote the current draft of the reference, the goal
was not necessarily to recommend using owl:imports but to leave the
door open
... we could decide to close the door on owl:imports completely or
continue to leave the door open
... at the moment it does look like we're recommending the use of
owl:import
... we could backtrack on this
... but if we do want to leave the door open to owl:import, what
would we need to say to keep everyone happy?
guus: forsee long discussion with OWL WG on this.
... prefer to be on conservative side.
seanb: one suggestion is, we don't explicitly talk about owl imports
in the SKOS reference. Or should we include that explicitly as an
example of what one could do?
Guus: could we drop import from Reference?
Alistair: the problem is more with the Primer than with Reference
... perhaps the better option is to drop owl:imports from Primer but
leave mention with caveats in Reference
guus: less risky to put it in a note (primer) than recommendation
(reference).
<Elisa> the latest thinking on imports in the OWL WG is currently
posted to the OWL wiki at
[24]http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Imports if that's helpful
[24] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Imports
guus: seems like need to take more preparation for f2f.
<Ralph> [putting material that requires caveats into a Primer feels
wrong to me]
Guus: Would like to revisit Issue 26 at F2f and check that this is
all ok.
... Current pattern that we have in reference is perceived as
non-intuitive.
<Ralph> [25]issue 26; RelationshipsBetweenLabels
[25] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/26
Guus: Want to make sure that we take the right decision.
Antoine: Quite optimisitc with the latest proposal from Alistair
... could be ok
Guus: Worried if relationships between labels aren't core
vocabulary.
Alistair: Should reopen this. In a good position to discuss options
Guus: Will review this.
... Would be good to discuss both Ref and Primer and look at main
pieces of work to be done.
... Come up with planning.
... Current proposal assumes that there will be a Last Call document
ready by 1st July. Seven weeks
...after f2f. Is this reasonable? Will be official in charter
proposal
Alistair: Take decisions at F2f, month to prepare new draft and then
two weeks for internal reviews.
Ed: Yes
Guus: SKOS XL already discussed.
... review whether it's an extension or core vocabulary.
Antoine: Question about agenda and issues. Tom circulated list of
issues last week. Different from the
...one that's on the agenda. Did I miss something?
<Antoine>
[26]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Apr/0074.h
tml
[26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Apr/
0074.html
Guus: What's missing?
Antoine: skos:subject issue for example.
Alistair: Indexing relationship; notation; semantics of
broader/narrower
... three things we haven't talked about. Also symbolic labels.
... four things that impact vocabluary.
Guus: Add these to open issue list
Tom: Will add them to the agenda.
ACTION: Antoine will review Alistair's proposals w/r/t the
relationship between the existing solution and the extension
[recorded in
[27]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action06] [DONE]
[27] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action06
ACTION: Guus to write primer text re: broaderGeneric and equivalence
w/r/t subclass [recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action08]
[CONTINUES]
[28] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action08
ACTION: Ralph to check whether the common interpretation of rdfs
isDefinedBy fits the reasoning that was made in
[29]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Oct/0141.h
tml [recorded in
[30]http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action10]
[CONTINUES]
[29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Oct/
0141.html
[30] http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action10
ACTION: Alistair to make a proposal for Issue 40 (Concept
Coordination) [recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action09]
[CONTINUES]
[31] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action09
ACTION: Alistair to review Antoine and Guus' emails to move ISSUE-71
and -74 [recorded in
[32]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action09]
[CONTINUES]
[32] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action09
RDFa
Ralph: Main resolution is response to a commenter to add fucntiona
as well as procedural.
... Any of those there would prefer functional, but didn't feel they
could produce it and be consistent
... in the time. Will defer until some later date.
... Key item for today. Ben asked for WG review of new Primer.
Guus: Two reviewers?
Ed: Diego and Ed did this before.
Guus: Diego, Ed will you do this?
Diego: yes
Ed: Yes
<Ralph> [33]RDFa Primer ready for Working Group review Ben
2008-04-22]
[33] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Apr/
0096.html
<Ralph> [34]RDFa Primer editor's draft 2008-04-22
[34] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/primer/20080422/
ACTION: Ed to review RDFa Primer Editor's draft
[35]http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/primer/20080422/] recorded
in [36]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/22-swd-minutes.html#action08]
[35] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/primer/20080422/
ACTION: Diego to review RDFa Primer Editor's draft
[37]http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/primer/20080422/] recorded
in [38]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/22-swd-minutes.html#action09]
[37] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/primer/20080422/
Guus: Charter extension proposal. Revised version of LC for 1st
July.
ACTION: Ben to prepare draft implementation report for RDFa (with
assistance from Michael) [recorded in
[39]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14]
[CONTINUES]
[39] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14
Recipes
Guus: Propose in the charter extension that the WG Note on recipes
is published by June. Reasonable?
Diego: yes. Document is in good shape. Once examples are moved,
ready to publish.
Ralph: Unlikely to be able to finish wordnet action in that time.
... Doesn't need to hold up the publication. Comfortable with the
date.
Guus: Can expect revised draft soon with all issues
resolved/postponed.
Ralph: Shouldn't be surprised if we get substantial comments from
TAG re. con-neg.
Guus: Reviewers?
... Tom and Ed
... Can expect a new request to review.
ACTION: Ralph propose resolution to ISSUE-16 "Default behavior"
[recorded in
[40]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14]
[CONTINUES]
[40] http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14
<Tom> Tom did not review Recipes
ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes
implementations] [recorded in
[41]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]
[CONTINUES]
[41] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20
Vocabulary Management
Elisa: Thanks for detailed comments.
... Working forward to provide responses. A few things to discuss at
F2F.
... get some responses to stuff we can do in advance.
Guus: Would like to see list of topics for F2F.
Elisa: Alistair had comments on URI schemes, maintenance policies
etc.
... need some input to ensure that we mention the right policies and
say the right things.
Alistair: took private action to look at what it says about SKOS
there. Don't quite know what we're going to do about SKOS.
...Last time, thought up a bunch of poilicies and rwrote them down.
What we said would happen
... wasn't exactly what happened.
Elisa: Yes, so want some discussion about what we should and
shouldn't say.
Ralph: Can't write this until we know what we're doin with SKOS
Elisa: Some smaller issues, other larger ones that need discussion.
At least laundry list of things
... that need talking about.
... Will try and come up with list for next week.
Guus: Revised version of the document by F2F?
Elisa: Can solve lightweight issues and leave TO-DOS.
Guus: ideal
Elisa: Can put markers in document.
... one to two hours?
Guus: Second afternoon, 2:30 until the end of the meeting. 1.5-2
hours.
... Lots of work in June. Would like notes out by 1st June so that
we can
... concentrate on other stuff. Requires some decisions to be made
at f2f (e.g. deprecated vocabulary).
Elisa: Should be possible.
Tom: A Note means strong consensus from the WG. I see issues that
may not be addressed in the time.
... e.g what is a vocabulary. Do we have time to do this as a note?
<Ralph> [42]RE: [VM] Review of 16 March Editor's Draft Alistair
2008-04-11]
[42] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Apr/
0054.html
Guus: Other Recommendations define this so this isn't our worry.
... Different routes we could take. We could spend another year on
this.
Ralph: If we don't have consensus, then we shouldn't publish Note.
Should be uncompleted
... working draft if no consensus.
Guus; ok. Option to publish as Working Draft
Elisa: Fine. Will do what I can to address comments. Leave issues
for f2f and then we go from there.
[adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Diego to review RDFa Primer Editor's draft
[43]http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/primer/20080422/] recorded
in [44]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/22-swd-minutes.html#action09]
[NEW] ACTION: Ed to investigate what text could be added to primer
re. concept co-ordination [recorded in
[45]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/22-swd-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Ed to review RDFa Primer Editor's draft
[46]http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/primer/20080422/] recorded
in [47]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/22-swd-minutes.html#action08]
[43] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/primer/20080422/
[46] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/primer/20080422/
[PENDING] ACTION: Alistair to make a proposal for Issue 40 (Concept
Coordination) [recorded in
[48]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action09]
[PENDING] ACTION: Alistair to review Antoine and Guus' emails to
move ISSUE-71 and -74 [recorded in
[49]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action09]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ben to prepare draft implementation report for
RDFa (with assistance from Michael) [recorded in
[50]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
[51]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
[52]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action08]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ralph propose resolution to ISSUE-16 "Default
behavior" [recorded in
[53]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
[54]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Oct/0141.h
tml [recorded in
[55]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
[56]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]
[48] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action09
[49] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action09
[50] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14
[51] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-swd-minutes.html#action01
[52] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action08
[53] http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14
[54] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Oct/
0141.html
[55] http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action10
[56] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20
[DONE] ACTION: Antoine will review Alistair's proposals w/r/t the
relationship between the existing solution and the extension
[recorded in
[57]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action06]
[57] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action06
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [58]scribe.perl version 1.133
([59]CVS log)
$Date: 2008/04/22 17:28:06 $
[58] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/
scribedoc.htm
[59] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
--
Sean Bechhofer
School of Computer Science
University of Manchester
sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk
http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/bechhofer
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2008 08:53:44 UTC