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

meeting record: 2008-02-05 SWD WG

From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 16:06:15 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20080205160438.05ea66e8@127.0.0.1>
To: public-swd-wg@w3.org

The record of today's meeting [1] is ready for review

    http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-swd-minutes.html

Plaintext copy follows.

----

                                SWD WG

05 Feb 2008

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0006.html

   See also: [3]IRC log, previous [4]2008-01-29

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-swd-irc
      [4] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html

Attendees

   Present
          Tom Baker, Alistair Miles, Antoine Isaac, Clay Redding, Ed
          Summers, Diego Berrueta, Sean Bechhofer, Ralph Swick, Daniel
          Rubin, Margherita Sini, Guus Schreiber

   Regrets
          Vit Novacek, Ben Adida, Michael Hausenblas

   Chair
          Guus

   Scribe
          Daniel, Ralph

Contents

     * [5]Topics
         1. [6]Admin
         2. [7]SKOS
         3. [8]SKOS Primer
         4. [9]RDFa
         5. [10]Recipes
         6. [11]Vocabulary Management
         7. [12]SKOS Issues list
     * [13]Summary of Action Items
     _____________________________________________________

Admin

   RESOLVED to accept [14]minutes of the Jan 29 telecon

     [14] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html

   Next telecon: 12 February 2008 1600 UTC

   Upcoming telecons and scribes - [15]ScribeDuty

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/ScribeDuty

   ACTION: Chairs to put schedule review on agenda. [recorded in
   [16]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action24]
   [CONTINUED]

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action24

SKOS

   guus: which triple notation we will use in our docs?
   ... see if we can reach concensus on this.

   Alistair: I prefer using Turtle in the ref
   ... it is most readable
   ... alternative would be N triples.
   ... this follows RDF semantics

   <Ralph> [17]Turtle - Terse RDF Triple Language

     [17] http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/2008/SUBM-turtle-20080114/

   Alistair: In primer, would be nice to see alternative presentations

   guus: I have preference for same notation in both docs

   <Ralph> [18]Notation3 (N3): A readable RDF syntax

     [18] http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/2008/SUBM-n3-20080114/

   seanb: I'm agnostic. I prefer more human-readable syntax, like
   Turtle

   guus: Ntriples too?

   seanb: yes.

   Antoine: I don't mind either choice

   <Ralph> [19]Turtle Compared To N-Triples

     [19] http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/2008/SUBM-turtle-20080114/#sec-diff-ntriples

   guus: We recently had new document on Turtle
   ... my preference is Turtle. We used it in best practices too
   ... I propose the referene and primer use Turtle notation

   Ralph: we don't need the syntax extensions in N3
   ... Turtle is a subset of N3

   ACTION: Guus to schedule to discussion on the notation (syntax) used
   in SKOS examples in Reference and Primer in two weeks time, i.e. on
   29 January [recorded in
   [20]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action05] [DONE]

     [20] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action05

   RESOLVED: We will use Turtle syntax as defined in
   [21]SUBM-turtle-20080114

     [21] http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/2008/SUBM-turtle-20080114/

   -- [22]SKOS Reference (Alistair, Sean)

     [22] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-skos-reference-20080125/

   ACTION: Alistair to solicit feedback via mailing lists on WD
   [recorded in
   [23]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action22] [DONE]

     [23] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action22

   [24]Request for Comments: SKOS Reference

     [24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0206.html

   ACTION: Alistair to make a proposal for Issue 40 (Concept
   Coordination) [recorded in
   [25]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action09]
   [CONTINUED]

     [25] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action09

   ACTION: Alistair to respond to original query regarding Issue 41
   [recorded in
   [26]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action10] [DONE]

     [26] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action10

   <Ralph> [27]issue 41 [Alistair 29-Jan]

     [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0192.html

   ACTION: Antoine to propose resolution to Issue 32 based on text from
   the primer [recorded in
   [28]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action07] [DONE]

     [28] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action07

   [29]PROPOSED resolution

     [29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0193.html

   Antoine: Recommends SKOS user to use prefLabel as unambigous means
   to identify concepts

   guus: I propose to accept the resolution

   Alistair: We have usage conventions. This is a use convention in
   which there are cases we wouldn't follow them
   ... Most classification systems have non-unique labels
   ... sounds like we expect people to follow convention--people might
   not follow the usage convention
   ... There are exceptions to the rules

   Marghe: This is important to consider the language
   ... We may have two prefLabel reference for same language

   guus: I think the resolution is ok

   Margherita: Can we identify a concept?
   ... through a URI?

   guus: yes we can
   ... I'm not sure what to do with Alistair's remark

   Ralph: I'm not persuaded that Antoine's language is inappropriate or
   confusing

   Alistair: I would like another paragraph saying "however, there are
   cases where we expect people won't follow this convention"
   ... SKOS data model only captures some things.
   ... We expect people to follow use conventions not captured in skos
   data model
   ... there are exceptions where people will diverge from practice
   ... we expect some usage conventions people will follow always and
   some they'll want to diverge

   Ralph: many other W3C Recommendations use the IETF conventions of
   MUST and SHOULD. We could use this in the SKOS specifcation, which
   would make the intend clear, but as we're not currently doing that
   in the document it could be a lot of work to revise the document.

   Alistair: saying SKOS data model doesn't enforce doesn't bring this
   out
   ... We can say this is good practice--I don't want people to think
   that if they break this, they aren't following skos
   ... we should have a paragraph illustrating when people will diverge
   from the convention--exceptions to the rule

   <Ralph> [30]RFC 2119 "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
   Requirement Levels"

     [30] http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2119.html

   guus: Suggestion to editors of primer to consider this. But I think
   resolution is ok

   Alistair: There are usage conventions that we could bring out
   ... we could consider using keywords in relation to those

   Ralph: would be lots of work to have doc use keywords

   guus: I'd like to propose to accept the resolution

   Antoine: ok

   Ralph: others in W3C will tell us we SHOULD use the RFC 2119
   keywords :)

   guus: proposing to resolve issue 32

   RESOLUTION: ISSUE-32 resolved per
   [31]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public
   /public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0193.html

     [31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/

   ACTION: Alistair and Guus to prepare material for next week on
   Concept Schemes vs OWL Ontologies [recorded in
   [32]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action10] [DONE]

     [32] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action10

   [33]issue-35

     [33] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/35

   ACTION: Sean to propose postponing the issue. [recorded in
   [34]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action08] [DONE]

     [34] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action08

   Sean: The skos core guide includes reference to rules, which is not
   clear what these rules are
   ... current working draft doens't include reference to rules
   ... I propose we postpone the issue

   Ralph: seconded

   RESOLUTION: ISSUE-35 postponed

   ACTION: Alistair to propose an approach to clarify which aspects of
   the extension module should be in scope for the candidate
   recommendation package. [recorded in
   [35]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action09]
   [CONTINUES]

     [35] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action09

   ACTION: Ralph to check whether the common interpretation of rdfs
   isDefinedBy fits the reasoning that was made in
   [36]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Oct/0141.h
   tml [recorded in
   [37]http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action10]
   [CONTINUES]

     [36] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Oct/0141.html
     [37] http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action10

   ACTION: Alistair and Guus to check the text in the primer on
   relationship between Concept Schemes and OWL Ontologies. [recorded
   in [38]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action13]
   [CONTINUES]

     [38] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action13

SKOS Primer

   RIF comments

   [39]Margherita's comments

     [39] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0150.html

   Antoine: over past week, we tried to address comments from people
   ... regarding relations between OWL classes and skos concepts
   ...new version tries to address this
   ... There are a few to-dos for the document
   ... Two important comments, we want advice on...
   ... first is getting examples
   ... do we do this now?

   guus: We should have range of examples

   <aliman> +1 on range of examples

   guus: We should add a complete case study
   ... No need for one consistent example through the primer
   ... opinions?
   ... Don't worry about it in this version.
   ... In terms of graphs--done by hand?

   Alistair: yes

   Antoine: this takes lots of time
   ... better if we do this in later version

   guus: you might try a tool to generate the graph

   Margherita: There is no need for the graph

   guus: with this input, don't let this block publication of the
   working draft

   ACTION: Alistair and Guus write draft section in primer on
   relationship between SKOS concepts and OWL classes for OWL DL users
   [recorded in
   [40]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action06] [DONE]

     [40] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action06

RDFa

   RDFa Syntax draft ready for review:

   [41]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0176.h
   tml

     [41] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0176.html

   ACTION: Ed to review RDFa syntax document [recorded in
   [42]http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action13] [DONE]

     [42] http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action13

   -> [43]review of current draft of 'RDFa syntax [Ed 5-Feb]

     [43] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0014.html

   ACTION: Diego to review RDFa syntax document [recorded in
   [44]http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action12] [DONE]

     [44] http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action12

   -> [45]review of current draft of 'RDFa syntax' [Diego 29-Jan]

     [45] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0197.html

   ACTION: Ben to prepare draft implementation report for RDFa (with
   assistance from Michael) [recorded in [recorded in
   [46]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14]
   [CONTINUES]

     [46] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14

   ACTION: Ben and Michael to address comments by Tom [regarding
   maintenance of wiki document
   [47]http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/RDFa] recorded in
   [48]http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html#action05] [DONE]

     [47] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/RDFa
     [48] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html#action05

   ACTION: Ben to prepare the email to request the decision for
   publishing on Feb 12th [recorded in
   [49]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action24]
   [CONTINUES]

     [49] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action24

   ACTION: Ralph confirm with the RDFa Task Force that the current RDFa
   Syntax document is the Last Call candidate and note that SWD WG
   plans to put that resolution on its 12-Feb agenda [recorded in
   [50]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action19] [DONE]

     [50] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action19

   Ralph: I also confirmed during the RDFa call that the XHTML2 WG
   understands that we intend to put the question on RDFa Last Call on
   12 Feb

Recipes

   ACTION: Diego to solicit feedback via mailing lists on WD [recorded
   in [51]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action22]
   [DONE]

     [51] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action22

   ACTION: Ralph propose resolution to ISSUE-16 "Default behavior"
   [recorded in
   [52]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14]
   [CONTINUES]

     [52] http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14

   ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes
   implementations] [recorded in [recorded in
   [53]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]
   [CONTINUES]

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

Vocabulary Management

   ACTION: Vit and Elisa to include in the document all the target
   sections plus an allocation of sections to people and potentially a
   standard structure for sections [recorded in
   [54]http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html#action07]
   [CONTINUES]

     [54] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html#action07

   -> [55]4-Feb Editor's Draft

     [55] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/Vocab/principles-20080204

   Ralph: Elisa sent me a new editor's draft
   ... did anyone see mail from her? (I did not)
   ... ah, but she did update the wiki

   Guus: let's ask Elisa to send mail
   ... I will ask her to send mail

SKOS Issues list

   -> [56]SWD issues tracker

     [56] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues

   -> [57]issue 46; IndexingAndNonIndexingConcepts

     [57] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/46

   Antoine: not much progress on this one but it is an identified
   requirement
   ... the identification of things in conceptual hierarchies that may
   look like concepts but are not, as they can't be used alone
   ... e.g. LCSH subdivisions
   ... in LCSH you can augment a concept with another that adds a shade
   of meaning
   ... sometimes you can use these alone but sometimes it has been
   specifically related for this qualification purpose

   Guus: needs more discussion then
   ... accept this as an open issue

   -> [58]issue 47; MappingProvenanceInformation

     [58] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/47

   Antoine: Jonathan Rees and Alan Ruttenburg wanted this for their
   applications
   ... to distinguish mappings according to their sources
   ... we might go for a solution that resembles the concept scheme
   containment solution
   ... needs more work

   Guus: could indicate a possible practice
   ... I'm willing to own this issue

   Antoine: should be able to adapt something from concept scheme
   containment paragraph

   [adjourn]

Summary of Action Items


   [PENDING] ACTION: Alistair and Guus to check the text in the primer
   on relationship between Concept Schemes and OWL Ontologies.
   [recorded in
   [59]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action13]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Alistair to make a proposal for Issue 40 (Concept
   Coordination) [recorded in
   [60]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action09]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Alistair to propose an approach to clarify which
   aspects of the extension module should be in scope for the candidate
   recommendation package. [recorded in
   [61]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action09]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ben to prepare draft implementation report for
   RDFa (with assistance from Michael) [recorded in [recorded in
   [62]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ben to prepare the email to request the decision
   for publishing on Feb 12th [recorded in
   [63]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action24]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Chairs to put schedule review on agenda. [recorded
   in [64]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action24]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph propose resolution to ISSUE-16 "Default
   behavior" [recorded in
   [65]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
   [66]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Oct/0141.h
   tml [recorded in
   [67]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 [recorded in
   [68]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Vit and Elisa to include in the document all the
   target sections plus an allocation of sections to people and
   potentially a standard structure for sections [recorded in
   [69]http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html#action07]

     [59] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action13
     [60] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action09
     [61] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action09
     [62] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14
     [63] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action24
     [64] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action24
     [65] http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14
     [66] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Oct/0141.html
     [67] http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action10
     [68] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20
     [69] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html#action07

   [DONE] ACTION: Alistair to solicit feedback via mailing lists on WD
   [recorded in
   [70]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action22]
   [DONE] ACTION: Alistair to respond to original query regarding Issue
   41 [recorded in
   [71]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action10]
   [DONE] ACTION: Alistair to write a resolution for ISSUE 31 (citing
   current WD) [recorded in
   [72]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action06]
   [DONE] ACTION: Alistair and Guus to prepare material for next week
   on Concept Schemes vs OWL Ontologies [recorded in
   [73]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action10]
   [DONE] ACTION: Alistair and Guus write draft section in primer on
   relationship between SKOS concepts and OWL classes for OWL DL users
   [recorded in
   [74]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action06]
   [DONE] ACTION: Antoine to propose resolution to Issue 32 based on
   text from [recorded in
   [75]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-swd-minutes.html#action06]
   [DONE] ACTION: Ben and Michael to address comments by Tom [regarding
   maintenance of wiki document
   [76]http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/RDFa] recorded in
   [77]http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html#action05]
   [DONE] ACTION: Diego to review RDFa syntax document [recorded in
   [78]http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action12]
   [DONE] ACTION: Ed to review RDFa syntax document [recorded in
   [79]http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action13]
   [DONE] ACTION: Diego to solicit feedback via mailing lists on WD
   [recorded in
   [80]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action22]
   [DONE] ACTION: Guus to schedule to discussion on the notation
   (syntax) used in SKOS examples in Reference and Primer in two weeks
   time, i.e. on 29 January [recorded in
   [81]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action05]
   [DONE] ACTION: Ralph confirm with the RDFa Task Force that the
   current RDFa Syntax document is the Last Call candidate and note
   that SWD WG plans to put that resolution on its 12-Feb agenda
   [recorded in
   [82]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action19]
   [DONE] ACTION: Sean to propose postponing the issue. [recorded in
   [83]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action08]

     [70] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action22
     [71] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action10
     [72] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action06
     [73] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action10
     [74] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action06
     [76] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/RDFa
     [77] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html#action05
     [78] http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action12
     [79] http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action13
     [80] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action22
     [81] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action05
     [82] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action19
     [83] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action08

   [End of minutes]
     _____________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [84]scribe.perl version 1.133
    ([85]CVS log)
    $Date: 2008/02/05 21:04:33 $

     [84] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [85] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 21:07:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:52 UTC