Meeting record: 2008-02-12 SWD telecon

The [1] record of Tuesday's SemWeb Deployment WG telecon is ready for
review. A text copy follows below.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html

Topics
   1. Admin
   2. RDFa
   3. SKOS
      1. SKOS Primer
      2. SKOS Reference
      3. SKOS ISSUES
   4. Recipes
   5. Vocabulary Management

Summary of Resolutions
   RESOLVED Next telecon will be 19 February, 1600 UTC
   RESOLVED SKOS Primer to be published
   RESOLVED ISSUE-31 is as per email
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0191.html)

Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Alistair and Antoine to propose priorities on how to
resolve ISSUE 56 to ISSUE 84 [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action12]
[NEW] ACTION: Antoine to propose a resolution for ISSUE 54 by next
telecon [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action11]
[NEW] ACTION: Ralph to ask task force to recommend appropriate time
frame for RDFa Last Call review period [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action16]
[NEW] ACTION: Ralph to let the task force know that SWD require extended
response on editor's draft [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Ralph to publish Feb 12th version of SKOS primer as
working draft [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: Sean to propose a way to handle deprecated properties
(Updating RDF schema) [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action06]
 
[PENDING] ACTION: Alistair and Guus to check the text in the primer on
relationship between Concept Schemes and OWL Ontologies. [recorded in
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
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
http://www.w3.org/2007/12/11-swd-minutes.html#action06]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ben to prepare draft implementation report for RDFa
(with assistance from Michael) [recorded in [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html#action03]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ben to prepare the email to request the decision for
publishing on Feb 12th [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action24]
[PENDING] ACTION: Chairs to put schedule review on agenda [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action24]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ralph propose resolution to ISSUE-16 "Default
behavior" [recorded in
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
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Oct/0141.html
[recorded in 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
http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html#action03]
[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
http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html#action07]

The full text of the minutes follows.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Admin

RESOLVED to accept minutes of the Feb 5 telecon

Next telecon on Feb 19th

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

<Ralph> Ben's mail

<edsu> there was also thoughts on reviewers' comments

Tom says that we should have reviewed RDFa before submitting but
... needing an email from the authors before the submission takes place

Guus informs it's not a submission problem, but the note should provide
an explanation of
... an explanation of how the authors have resolved the comments from
different reviewers (i.e. Ed and Diego).
... this could be done by simply linking section from revised editor's
draft to specific reviewers' comments.

Tom concurs with point raised by Guus
... and points out that reviewers should have a look at comments once
available.

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

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

ACTION: Ralph to let the task force know that SWD require extended
response on editor's draft [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action04]

RalphLast Thursday Shane informed the RDFa telecon that XHTML2 Working
Group was happy with current version of editors' draft
... but mentioned that XHTML2 WG focuses on different aspects (e.g.
modularity) than SWD WG.

<Ralph> XHTML2 WG resolution

Guus says that we need to indicate that the current draft is the RDFa
Last Call review
... that the WG should define aa deadline for comments.
... 4 to 6 weeks is the minimum time frame for comments

ACTION: Ralph to ask task force to recommend appropriate time frame for
RDFa Last Call review period [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action16]

Ralph [If an RDFa Last Call were published end of Feb, then 6 weeks puts
us just before WWW2008]
SKOS
SKOS Primer

Antoine sent proposal to move SKOS Primer forward
... and asked reviewers to make final comments on revised version.
... He highlighted that Margherita had given further comments to be
implemented

Margherita mentioned that most of her comments could be implemented in
the next version

Quentin commented that some points raised by Margherita were quite
important,
... especially moving to Turtle syntax (+ asked clarification).
... mentioned that the 4 four points raised by Antoine shouldn't hold up
publication of WD

Antoine insured that current draft was compliant with Turtle,
... but the the problem is just that the examples cited N3 but really
only used Turtle.
... fixed in the latest working draft (12 Feb editor's draft)

Quentin agreed that the revision should allow version to be released as
WG

<aliman> +1

<edsu> Ralph++

RESOLUTION: SKOS Primer to be published

ACTION: Ralph to publish Feb 12th version of SKOS primer as working
draft [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action05]
SKOS Reference

Tom raised several SKOS Core Vocabulary of 2005 - issues
... the first one wrt deprecated properties from the SKOS Core
... the second wrt the RDF schema used and whether it would cause
problems to people using SKOS Core RDF schema.
... This is raised by the SKOS Reference replaces the previous SKOS Core
published in 2005

Sean says that the RDF schema could be produced relatively easily

Alistair not sure how to cover the deprecated properties from SKOS Core.
... One solution is to re-use current namespace for the SKOS reference/

Tom highlights that this requires deprecated properties to be removed
from namespace.
... if it is ok with SKOS community this could be done but shouldn't if
people using the deprecated properties
... SKOS Reference should point to RDF schema and explains why it's out
of synch

Alistair asks whether Tome would be happy to resolve this issue
... by mentioning that RDF schema will be done at a later date in the
current SKOS reference.

Tom agrees with this proposal.
... but someone need to look at consequences to remove these properties.

Ralph if we decide that the SKOS Specification makes no mention of the
old
... deprecated properties, then those properties should also be removed
from the namespace document

Ed says that a group is using subject indexing but skos:subject is in
doubt (Skos subject properties are deprecated)

Alistair says these have not been formarly deprecated yet

ACTION: Sean to propose a way to handle deprecated properties (Updating
RDF schema) [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action06]

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

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

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

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

Ralph mentions that Alistair keeps highlighting that the isDefinedBy
property doesn't exist anymore
SKOS Issues

ISSUE 31

Alistair proposed a resolution for this issue
... says that the resolution still stands and wonders whether it could
be resolved today

<Antoine> +1

Tom: Alistair proposed that skos:preLabel should only have one value per
language
... says that it seems to be an adequate resolution

<seanb> +1

<edsu> +1

RESOLVED ISSUE-31 is as per email
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0191.html)

Margherita highlights that the resolution only covers one point of
ISSUE-31

Alistair points out that S11 covers the number of prefLabel per natural
language
... and S10 covers clashes between the use of similar value for
skos:prefLabel for different concepts.

Ralph asks if there is a specific statement covering the resolution.

Sean highlights that the resolution is clear to WG members but could
still be considered as ambiguous

Ralph seconds the resolution as long as a separate issue looks at the
clarity of the document. (ISSUE 67)

ISSUE 47

Antoine proposes two solutions to resolve this issue
... first relies on name class to express context
... second consist in adding a new resource for the mapping relation,
... but need to investigate advantages and disadvantages of either
solutions.

Guus still thinking about both solution and considers asking people
outside the SWD WG

ISSUE 54

Alistair and Antoine thinks ISSUE 54 was resolved following the
Amsterdam f2f in October.
... Antoine mentions that issue 80 carries forward the remaining parts
of 54

ACTION: Antoine to propose a resolution for ISSUE 54 by next telecon
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action11]

ACTION: Alistair and Antoine to propose priorities on how to resolve
ISSUE 56 to ISSUE 84 [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action12]

Guus says that most work on SKOS might be resolved by May.
... hence proposes to hold a another f2f to solved remaining issues
... one and half day meeting (4-7th May 2008)
Recipes

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

ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes
implementations] [recorded in [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20] [CONTINUES]
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
http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html#action07] [CONTINUES]

Vit mentions that the list should make comment on the New Editor's Draft
Available

Tom this will be discussed next week

******************************************
* Quentin H. Reul                        *
* PhD Research Student                   *
* Department of Computing Science        *
* University of Aberdeen, King's College *
* Room 238 in the Meston Building        *
* ABERDEEN AB24 3UE                      *
* Phone: +44 (0)1224 27 4485             *
* http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/~qreul       *
******************************************

Received on Thursday, 14 February 2008 10:20:59 UTC