- From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 16:06:15 -0500
- 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