- From: Alistair Miles <alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:12:46 +0000
- 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