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

Minutes of 2008-02-19 telcon

From: Alistair Miles <alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:12:46 +0000
Message-ID: <47BDA2FE.3020004@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
To: public-swd-wg@w3.org

--

SWD WG
19 Feb 2008

Agenda

See also: IRC log, previous 2008-02-12
Attendees

Present
     Ralph Swick, Ed Summers, Tom Baker, Manu Sporny, Clay Redding, 
Quentin Reul, Diego Berrueta, Alistair Miles, Mark Birbeck, Elisa 
Kendall, Antoine Isaac, Sean Bechhofer
Regrets
     Jon Phipps, Michael Hausenblas, Daniel Rubin, Margherita Sini, 
Simone Onofri, Vit Novacek, Guus Schreiber
Chair
     Tom
Scribe
     aliman (Alistair)

Contents

     * Topics
          1. ADMIN
          2. RDFa
          3. SKOS
          4. RECIPES
          5. VOCABULARY MANAGEMENT
     * Summary of Action Items

ADMIN

RESOLUTION: to accept minutes of the Feb 12 telecon

tomb: remind everyone, we're trying to find a date 4-7 may for f2f, 
possibly amsterdam

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

<scribe> ACTION: Ralph to let the Task Force know that SWD requires 
extended response on editor's draft [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action04] [DONE]

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

ralph: tf sees no reason to go beyond 6 weeks

Manu: didn't we say 4 weeks?

<TomB> http://www.w3.org/mid/47BAF08E.8080600@digitalbazaar.com

<TomB> 
[http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0073.html 
proposed 4 weeks]

ralph: yes, 4 weeks. guus had suggested 6. also i did query the tag 
because they refer to rdfa in upcomging draft findings. also queried web 
accessibility, whether 6 weeks sufficient. unofficial response from tag 
member that 4 april is ok. official response from wai, 4 april fine with 
them too.
.... TF felt 4 weeks sufficient.

tomb: looking at message from manu, earlier today, says roughly march 18 
if publish today. proposal to have last call finish 4 april?

ralph: need to decide ready for last call first.
.... TF says 4 weeks sufficient, and won't be published today.

<scribe> 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] [DONE]

(by shane)

tomb: email from shane in agenda, shane says TF has made all needed 
edits ... set end of last call comment period 4 april, draft below to 
last call ... differences between version accepted by xhtml wg 2 weeks ago.
.... this is the proposal?

manu: yes, latest editors draft is one we want to go to last call. Ed's 
first sets of comments, Diego's first and second set, Ivan's comments 
integrated. Ed's signed off comments, Diego has too, as has Ivan (except 
for one small editorial change).

tomb: comment from ed & diego, then someone review diffs between version 
we're being asked to approve today, and version approved by xhtml2 wg.

<Ralph> response to reviews [Manu, 2008-02-17]

ed: i reviewed the changes, manu sent out detailed response. [looks for 
link]. very happy with response. discussion i saw was focused on 
processing section, in general my comments were eye-level, not 
completely specific as were diego's. processing section hard to read, 
because in natural language, that was my main comment. response was, 
test cases are geared to that, rather than for one...
.... reference implementation. use of test cases is really nice, happy 
with that. rest of the comments were nit-picks, typos etc.

diego: all my comments have been properly addressed, happy with current 
draft, hope to see it published. wonder if might appear new issues once 
implementors catch up with current draft, but for me current draft is ok.

ed: i would like to see it go forward too.

tomb: nature of diffs?

mark: there were errors in the processing model which diego spotted, 
also ivan herman. couple of them resulted in changes to processing model 
which were simple, e.g. where values weren't being passed down through 
elements which had no rdfa attributes on. couple of changes which 
required fairly large changes to processing model. one which diego 
asked, when do we reset the triples list to...
.... zero, got to heart of recursive processing model, required changes 
to how levels communicated with each other, return value to be added, 
completion of triples moved to after recursion step. a few changes, 
relatively large, but consequence of actual errrors in the processing model.

tomb: mark, any reason to think diffs are significant enough to bring 
that back to xhtml 2 wg, or are you satisfied we can move forward with 
these corrections?

mark: given way xhtml2 wg reviewed it, not necessary to go back. we 
asked if anyone feels need to review it, nobody came back. myself, 
shane, steven fixed these issues.

<Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to note remaining open RDFa issues

<Ralph> RDFa open issues

<Ralph> xml:lang

ralph: there are 6 open issues for rdfa, some have to do with primer so 
can ignore. for issue 6 (xml:lang) on XML literals ... we haven't made 
any changes there mark? (ignoring xml:lang for XML literals).

mark: we ignored xml:lang before, even for plain literals, because it's 
not part of XHTML. we can only use lang.

ralph: current editor's draft refers to xml:lang

mark: you're right

tomb: how serious are remaining open issues

mark: one aspect not done by RDF/XML either, secondly minor question of 
whether attribute is processed, which can easily be resolved.

<Ralph> issue 7

ralph: issue 7, bunch of issues mostly editorial, dealt with all of those.
.... can mark 7 closed.

<Ralph> issue 8

ralph: issue 8 has to do with lists, we've decided to defer special 
processing for lists and containers. (postponed)
.... 11 & 43 about primer, those don't affect us right now. issue 63? 
about canonicalisation of XML literals, just closed.

tomb: any other issues, before we take a decision on last call?

ralph: handling of xml:lang affect ed or diego's comments?

ed: not mine

diego: no for me too

tomb: question about tag's draft finding self-describing web?

ralph: part of my query to tag about 4 april review deadline ok, 
informal response says ok.

tomb: so ralph good enough to go with? not an obstacle?

ralph: TAG draft finding is not an obstacle to Last Call for RDFa

<msporny> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080218/

PROPOSED: that RDFa syntax editors' draft 18 Feb 2008 
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080218/ be published as 
last call working draft.

manu: that URL responds to diego and ivan's latest

tomb: diffs between version of 17th and 18th?

manu: diffs are still done against Jan 25 (ed & diego reviewied) so all 
diffs are covered between one that xhtml reviewed, one that ed revied, 
one that diego reviewed.

<msporny> 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Feb/0087.html

manu: diffs between 17 and 18 are mostly ivan's comments, issues 
responded to in 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Feb/0087.html 
are diffs between 17 and 18

<msporny> 
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080218/rdfa-syntax-diff.html

manu: doc put out on 25 jan, ed & diego reviewed. we put a new one out 
on 17 feb addressing ed & diego. ivan came in with new set of changes, 
feb 18 draft is response to ivan's comments. so one on 18 has ed's 
diego's and ivan's comments integrated.
.... 18th feb version is approved in TF, what we've been talking about in 
this telcon.

Ed: I'll second the proposal.

tomb: any objections?

RESOLUTION: that RDFa syntax editors' draft 18 Feb 2008 be published as 
last call working draft.

<scribe> ACTION: ralph to publish rdfa syntax as last call WD [recorded 
in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/19-swd-minutes.html#action05]

ralph: are we resolved 4 april as end of last call?
.... (longer than 4 weeks) ... any reason to do it sooned?

tomb: today is 19 ...

ralph: could be published by friday 22, so 4 weeks from then is friday 
march 21

ed: what is normal last call period?

ralph: 4-6 weeks
.... my only issue with march 21, I had specifically mentioned 4 april to 
tag and wai, neither of them indicated and hardship, but reluctant to go 
back and say only 4 weeks

manu: can set at 4 and extend to 6? in email i sent this morning, there 
are no other w3c groups that have reviewed ...

ralph: both tag and wai are interested, not dependendant but interested.

tomb: deadline april 4?

ralph: i think tf was interested in more time to respond to any 
questions raised during last call.

mark: flavour of discussions the other day, great for tag & wai, but 
lots of comunities may pay attention now, so good to get those things in 
asap, so can respond.

tomb: one consideration is time to address issues. but also issue of 
giving potential reviewers enough time. groups out there will pay 
attention & review. so if give just 4 weeks, wonder if it allows enough 
time for other groups to do reviews. looks like tradeoff between time 
for reviewers and tf to respond.

ralph: mark, could you characterise nature of substantive changes that 
affect implementations between this editor's draft and previous WD.

mark: easier to implement. rules much more reflect implementation. 
looking positive. community i'm thinking of is microformats community, 
some people would like to review, not sure what we gain by giving them 
more than 4 weeks, so not sure 4 weeks any worse than 6.

tomb: xhtml2 wg opinion on length of review?

mark: didn't discuss

ralph: if we want to go ahead with march 21, i can send followup 
messages to wai and tag, noting the earlier date, if they have an issue 
they can come back to us. we have option to extend last call, ample 
precedent.

PROPOSED: to have 4 week period for last call for rdfa syntax with 
option to extend

tomb: any objections?
.... [none]

RESOLUTION: to have 4 week period for last call for rdfa syntax (ending 
march 21) with option to extend

<scribe> 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]
SKOS

<scribe> 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] [CONTINUES]

<scribe> 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] [CONTINUES]

ralph: in progress

<scribe> 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]

<scribe> 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]

<scribe> 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]

<scribe> 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]

tomb: deprecated properties, issue to decide what to do covered in 
sean;s action
.... moving on to open SKOS issues ...

<scribe> ACTION: Alistair and Antoine to propose priorities on how to 
resolve issues 48 through 84 [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action12] [DONE]

tomb: I pasted link to top 10 (actually top 13 or so), need to focus on 
getting these issues resolved over next few weeks.
.... taking first one on list, issue 54 ...

<scribe> 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] [DONE]

antoine: idea was, two aspects to issue on concept semantics, one to 
have declaration of skos concept class in terms of owl class etc., done, 
other aspect is relationship between instances of skos concept and 
instances of owl class, and this could be taken on in issue 80 (skos - 
owl patterns), so proposed to close issue 54 because first aspect is 
solved, and second can be dealt with in issue 80.

PROPOSED: Section 3 of the SKOS reference is adopted as a partial 
solution to ISSUE-54. ISSUE-54 is CLOSEd. ISSUE-80 is now OPENed.

aliman: sounds good to me

tomb: any objections?

RESOLUTION: Section 3 of the SKOS reference 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-skos-reference-20080125/#L1289 is adopted 
as a partial solution to ISSUE-54. ISSUE-54 is CLOSEd. ISSUE-80 is now 
OPENed.

<scribe> ACTION: antoine to close ISSUE 54 in tracker with links to 
resolution [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2008/02/19-swd-minutes.html#action15]

tomb: moving on to priority 5, issues 74 & 71, there's a link to a 
posting from alistair (by way of antoine), and discussion by antoine.

antoine: start with issue 71, about question of parallel mapping 
vocabulary, or whether keep to semantic relations vocabulary, 
skos:broader, skos:related, skos:narrower. question is whether to keep 
this one for mapping purposes, or whether to create specifici mapping 
vocbaulary (skos:broadMatch, skos:narrowMatch, skos:relatedMatch). Issue 
74 is about conventions for using mapping properties....
.... If adopt parallel mapping vocabulary, there is a question of whether 
mapping properties are for linking concepts from different concept 
schemes, and paradigmatic for linking within concept schemes, as said in 
SKOS reference now. Question is, do we keep this stance as a recommendation.
.... my point, also in skos primer, my position is we can actually use 
mapping relation within a concept scheme, and paradigmatic relations 
between concept schemes, because there is a fundamental difference 
between motiviation. paradigmatic relations have strong motivation 
level, while mapping relations more fuzzy, not supposed to be endorsed 
by creators. discussion about this skos list a...
.... while ago.

tomb: I see you propose a resolution, we're close to top of hour. don't 
have time to close this. would you like to put this resolution to close 
74, move forward to next telcon? discussion on list.

antoine: would be nice if people on list could react, i'm quite 
convinced by current position, supported by positions expressed on skos 
list. would like to hear about wg disagreeing with this. alistair has 
views different from mine.

tomb: move forward, discuss on list.

sean: can I make a quick request. finding it difficult to follow 
arguments, in some messages discuss both issues. would it be possible to 
state resolutions you propose in separate emails, want to be clear about 
what you're proposing. in 0062, resolution to two issues, a little 
confusing. possible to have resolution to each issue in separate message?

antoine: really wanted potential resolution to be put in context, but 
can separate them. wanted to link possible resolution.

tomb: let's take this forward, try to resolve next week, antoine you 
could consider breaking out two individual messages, otherwise we'll 
need to separate them out during the call when we try to resolve them
.... issue 47, antoine you have proposed solution. can you suggest a way 
forward?
.... you're proposal is issue 71 is closed...
.... sorry i'm getting confused, issue 47 can you suggest a way forward?

antoine: yes, there are two solutions on table, proposed to close issue 
by adopting one, to represent provenance of mappings as provenance of 
concept schemes as we've decided as per issue on concept scheme 
provenance. propose to adopt similar for provenance of mappings. it's in 
the mail. problem is, it also requires decsion on 71 and 74.

tomb: there is would be helpful to have clear proposed resolution. you 
have two solutions. let's decide first on 71, then move forward with 
this [47].
.... alistair you also had in your mail comments on some of the other 
issues we haven't covered today. if in general if we could split out 
proposed solutions to separate threads, then could put onto agenda 
several days before the call, give people a chance to prepare.
RECIPES

<scribe> New WD published:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-swbp-vocab-pub-20080123/

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

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

<scribe> 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 - see 
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/Deliverables#VocabularyMgt

2008-02-05. New Editor's draft posted at:

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

<scribe> 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] [DONE]

tomb: elisa, how should we proceed?

elisa: ralph alerted me to errors in the doc. sent emails to yourself 
and alistair, some other folks too, so i'm waiting on input and clean up 
what i have. hoping get some feedback in next couple of weeks, then post 
one more editor's draft and then ask for reviews.

antoine: about these skos issues, i have a small item for moving 
forward, can we open 71 and 74. they are still raised.

tomb: let's open issues, put on agenda for next week

antoine: i can take 71

alistair: fine with me (i'll take 74)

tomb: we are adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Antoine to close ISSUE 54 in tracker with links to 
resolution [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2008/02/19-swd-minutes.html#action15]
[NEW] ACTION: Ralph to publish rdfa syntax as last call WD [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2008/02/19-swd-minutes.html#action05]

[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 [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html#action03]
[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 to publish Feb 12th version of SKOS primer as 
working draft [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action05]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of 
Recipes implementations] [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html#action03]
[PENDING] 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]

[DONE] ACTION: Alistair and Antoine to propose priorities on how to 
resolve issues 48 through 84 [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action12]
[DONE] 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]
[DONE] 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]
[DONE] ACTION: Ralph to ask task force to recommend appropriate time 
frame [for Last Call review] [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action16]
[DONE] ACTION: Ralph to let the Task Force know that SWD requires 
extended response on editor's draft [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action04]
[DONE] 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]

[End of minutes]

-- 
Alistair Miles
Senior Computing Officer
Image Bioinformatics Research Group
Department of Zoology
The Tinbergen Building
University of Oxford
South Parks Road
Oxford
OX1 3PS
United Kingdom
Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
Email: alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1865 281993
Received on Friday, 22 February 2008 05:44:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:48 UTC