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

Meeting record: 2008-01-15 SWD telecon

From: Diego Berrueta <diego.berrueta@fundacionctic.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 08:31:34 +0100
Message-ID: <478DB2D6.70308@fundacionctic.org>
To: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

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

[1] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-minutes.html <http://www.w3.org/2006/10/24-swd-minutes.html>

Topics
   1. [6]Admin
   2. [7]SKOS
   3. [8]RDFa
   4. [9]Recipes
   5. [10]Vocabulary Management
   6. [11]Transitive Broader [informal]

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Antoine to track the resolutions to ISSUE 36 [recorded
   in [54]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-minutes.html#action07]
   [NEW] ACTION: Ben to prepare the email to request the decision for
   publishing on Feb 5th [recorded in
   [55]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-minutes.html#action18]
   [NEW] ACTION: Guus to schedule to discussion on the notation
   (syntax) used in SKOS examples in Reference & Primer in two weeks
   time [recorded in
   [56]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-minutes.html#action06]
   [NEW] ACTION: Jon and Diego to propose a decision on publishing the
   next Recipes draft by next week [recorded in
   [57]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-minutes.html#action23]
   [NEW] ACTION: marghe to review the SKOS primer [recorded in
   [58]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-minutes.html#action04]

   [PENDING] ACTION: Alistair and Guus to prepare material for next
   week on Concept Schemes vs OWL Ontologies [recorded in
   [59]http://www.w3.org/2007/10/30-swd-minutes.html#action04]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Alistair and Guus write draft section in primer on
   relationship between SKOS concepts and OWL classes for OWL DL users
   [recorded in
   [60]http://www.w3.org/2007/11/06-swd-minutes.html#action05]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Alistair send an email to the list by the end of
   next week that the reviewers can agree with and then propose
   publishing as WD by Jan 22 [recorded in
   [61]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/08-swd-minutes.html#action02]
   [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
   [62]http://www.w3.org/2007/12/11-swd-minutes.html#action06]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ben and Michael to address comments by Tom
   [regarding maintenance of wiki document
   [63]http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/RDFa] recorded in
   [64]http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html#action05]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ben to distribute RDFa syntax draft to reviewers
   by Monday [recorded in
   [65]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/08-swd-minutes.html#action10]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ben to prepare draft implementation report for
   RDFa (with assistance from Michael) [recorded in
   [66]http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html#action03]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Diego to review RDFa syntax document [recorded in
   [67]http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action12]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ed to review RDFa syntax document [recorded in
   [68]http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action13]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Guus to write up the issue [of Label Resource] and
   add to the issue list. [recorded in
   [69]http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html#action01]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph propose resolution to ISSUE-16 "Default
   behavior" [recorded in
   [70]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
   [71]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
   [72]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
   [73]http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html#action07]

   [DONE] ACTION: Quentin to review Editor's draft of SKOS Reference
   [recorded in
   [74]http://www.w3.org/2007/11/20-swd-minutes.html#action02]
   [DONE] ACTION: Ralph see if W3C Systems Team can help with question
   on Apache conditional redirects [recorded in
   [75]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/08-swd-minutes.html#action17]
   [DONE] ACTION: Ralph to add pointer to Alistair's mail on grouping
   constructs as a note to resolution of ISSUE-39. [recorded in
   [76]http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action05]
   [DONE] ACTION: Ralph to review recipes document [recorded in
   [77]http://www.w3.org/2007/12/11-swd-minutes.html#action18]
   [DONE] ACTION: Vit to review Editor's draft of SKOS Reference
   [recorded in
   [78]http://www.w3.org/2007/11/20-swd-minutes.html#action03]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Admin

   <scribe> agenda:
   [13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0071.h
   tml

     [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0071.html

   PROPOSED to accept minutes of the Jan 8 telecon:
   [14]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/08-swd-minutes.html

     [14] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/08-swd-minutes.html

   RESOLUTION: accepted minutes

   next telecon: 22 January 2008

SKOS

   <scribe> ACTION: Quentin to review Editor's draft of SKOS Reference
   [recorded in
   [15]http://www.w3.org/2007/11/20-swd-minutes.html#action02] [DONE]

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2007/11/20-swd-minutes.html#action02

   <scribe> ACTION: Vit to review Editor's draft of SKOS Reference
   [recorded in
   [16]http://www.w3.org/2007/11/20-swd-minutes.html#action03] [DONE]

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2007/11/20-swd-minutes.html#action03

   ->
   [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0004.h
   tml Quentin's review of SKOS reference

     [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0004.html

   ->
   [18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0044.h
   tml Vit's review of SKOS reference

     [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0044.html

   aliman: looked at those reviews
   ... neither quentin's nor vit's comments are about technical issues
   ... mostly about wording

   Guus: propose to write a new version and ask the reviewers
   ... send the new draft and a mail explaining how the comments by the
   reviewer's were addressed

   aliman: the schedule is quite aggressive

   guus: you can put TODO's in the document

   tom: there was some discussion on the naming of some properties and
   a class which contain the word "relation"
   ... it might be clearer if we re-order the words
   ... "labelRelated" -->"relatedLabel"

   <Antoine> +1

   Guus: please take this into consideration for the draft

   aliman: I chose the previous name to make a distinction with all of
   the "*Label" relationships

   Guus: we should add a note to explain it

   <vit>
   [19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0004.h
   tml

     [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0004.html

   <Quentin>
   [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0004.h
   tml

     [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0004.html

   aliman: quentin pointed an inconsistency between the text and the
   resolution at the f2f
   ... we can do a quick fix

   Guus: let's add pointers to the issues in the document

   <scribe> ACTION: Alistair send an email to the list by the end of
   next week that the reviewers can agree with and then propose
   publishing as WD by Jan 22 [recorded in
   [21]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/08-swd-minutes.html#action02]
   [CONTINUES]

     [21] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/08-swd-minutes.html#action02

   guus: move on into SKOS primer

   -> [22]http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/DraftPrimer Current
   draft of SKOS Primer

     [22] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/DraftPrimer

   Quentin: I sent the review today

   <edsu>

   Quentin: mainly two comments: 1) we do not make any reference in the
   primer to the semantics
   ... 2) a use case instead of separate examples would be quite useful
   ... other comments are related to the issues to be discussed later

   marghe: I plan to send my review by next week

   guus: the actions on marghe and Quentin to review the SKOS primer
   were not captured last week

   <edsu> Quentin++

   <scribe> ACTION: marghe to review the SKOS primer [recorded in
   [23]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-minutes.html#action04]

   <scribe> ACTION: Alistair and Guus write draft section in primer on
   relationship between SKOS concepts and OWL classes for OWL DL users
   [recorded in
   [24]http://www.w3.org/2007/11/06-swd-minutes.html#action05]
   [CONTINUES]

     [24] http://www.w3.org/2007/11/06-swd-minutes.html#action05

   guus: the deadline for the previous action is 22 Jan

   guus: move to ISSUE 36

   ->
   [25]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0019.h
   tml Antoine on problems with closing ISSUE-36

     [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0019.html

   Antoine: last week we made a resolution about ISSUE 36
   ... actually when looking at the initial wording of the issue
   ... it is about linking relationships with the schema
   ... so the resolution is not complete, part of the problem still
   exists

   GuusS: our resolution last week was an amendment of a previous one
   ... we need to track these resolutions
   ... please look at the initial wording

   <scribe> ACTION: Antoine to track the resolutions to ISSUE 36
   [recorded in
   [26]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-minutes.html#action07]

   <Zakim> aliman, you wanted to comment on label naming and to mention
   I have a placeholder for ... in reference

   aliman: in SKOS reference we have a small note: we haven't made any
   commitment on this issue
   ... it is implied that there will be a section showing a pattern for
   querying

   <Zakim> Tom, you wanted to ask about Tom's comments on Primer (in
   the agenda)

   <Antoine>
   [27]http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptSchemes/Min
   imalProposal?action=recall&rev=1

     [27] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptSchemes/MinimalProposal?action=recall&rev=1

   aliman: the reference has a section on SKOS and named graphs

   GuusS: to Antoine: write what you think the resolution to issue 36
   should be

   Tom: there was some discussion on the syntax of the examples
   ... graphs represented as pictures might be more readable
   ... it depends on the intended audience

   <Ralph> I heard Tom express concern that N3 could be _less_ readable
   ?

   Tom: which components of SKOS are basic and which are advanced?

   Tom: which document should be cited for N3?

   <Ralph> [28]Notation3 (N3): A readable RDF syntax

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

   <Ralph> [29]Turtle - Terse RDF Triple Language

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

   <edsu> Ralph: nice!

   GuusS: it makes sense to use the same notation in both documents
   ... unless there is a very good reason
   ... many people will read first the primer and then the reference
   ... i suggest to the editors to look at the pointers by Ralph

   Antoine: we need to sync with aliman and seanb

   <scribe> ACTION: Guus to schedule to discussion on the notation
   (syntax) used in SKOS examples in Reference & Primer in two weeks
   time [recorded in
   [30]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-minutes.html#action06]

   GuusS: move to issue 44, only a few minutes for this

   ->
   [31]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0052.h
   tml This and other threads in the mailing list

     [31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0052.html

   Antoine: there is some discussion on if broader/narrows should be
   transitive
   ... some people are not convinced by our decision during the f2f

   GuusS: I suggest that in the reference we state that broad/narrower
   are not transitive, discuss the rationale, and point to a
   specialization in which we define a transitive broad/narrower

   aliman: there is a need for both of them (transitive and
   non-transitive) in different use cases
   ... this is common pattern
   ... a design pattern to solve this is two have a non-transitive
   property and a transitive subproperty

   GuusS: I agree, I know this pattern
   ... but technically it cannot be a subproperty, it leads to
   inconsistent semantics

   aliman: one of the rules of thumb in OWL reference is "do not mess
   with the vocabulary"
   ... I wonder if we should have rules of thumb for SKOS

   GuusS: this is a different matter, SKOS is not a language like OWL

   seanb: alistair's point is that if we allow users to make
   assumptions about the vocabulary, we can put interoperability at
   risk

   GuusS: I suggest to leave this for now

   <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
   [32]http://www.w3.org/2007/12/11-swd-minutes.html#action06]
   [CONTINUES]

     [32] http://www.w3.org/2007/12/11-swd-minutes.html#action06

   <scribe> ACTION: Alistair and Guus to prepare material for next week
   on Concept Schemes vs OWL Ontologies [recorded in
   [33]http://www.w3.org/2007/10/30-swd-minutes.html#action04]
   [CONTINUES]

     [33] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/30-swd-minutes.html#action04

   <scribe> ACTION: Guus to write up the issue [of Label Resource] and
   add to the issue list. [recorded in
   [34]http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html#action01]
   [CONTINUES]

     [34] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html#action01

   <scribe> ACTION: Ralph to add pointer to Alistair's mail on grouping
   constructs as a note to resolution of ISSUE-39. [recorded in
   [35]http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action05] [DONE]

     [35] http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action05

   <Ralph> [36]resolution of ISSUE-39

     [36] http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action05

   <Ralph> "RESOLUTION: Accept Antoine's proposal
   [37]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Dec/0083.h
   tml as a resolution to ISSUE-39."

     [37] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Dec/0083.html

   Ralph: do you agree with closing the issue?

   <scribe> ACTION: Ralph to check whether the common interpretation of
   [recorded in
   [38]http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action10]
   [CONTINUES]

     [38] http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action10

   GuusS: the second action is a duplicate, sorry

RDFa

   ben: we hope we can have something for the reviewers in a couple of
   days

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

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

   <scribe> ACTION: Ben to prepare draft implementation report for RDFa
   (with assistance from Michael) [recorded in
   [41]http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html#action03]
   [CONTINUES]

     [41] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html#action03

   <scribe> ACTION: Ben to distribute RDFa syntax draft to reviewers by
   Monday [recorded in
   [42]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/08-swd-minutes.html#action10]
   [CONTINUES]

     [42] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/08-swd-minutes.html#action10

   <scribe> ACTION: Diego to review RDFa syntax document [recorded in
   [43]http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action12]
   [CONTINUES]

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

   <scribe> ACTION: Ed to review RDFa syntax document [recorded in
   [44]http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action13]
   [CONTINUES]

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

   GuusS: if the document is available by the end of this week, we have
   to postpone the decision by one week
   ... the decision might be scheduled for Feb 5th

   <Zakim> Tom, you wanted to ask if there is an action on the RDFa
   editors to request a decision

   <scribe> ACTION: Ben to prepare the email to request the decision
   for publishing on Feb 5th [recorded in
   [45]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-minutes.html#action18]

Recipes

   <scribe> ACTION: Ralph to review recipes document [recorded in
   [46]http://www.w3.org/2007/12/11-swd-minutes.html#action18] [DONE]

     [46] http://www.w3.org/2007/12/11-swd-minutes.html#action18

   ->
   [47]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0062.h
   tml Ralph's review of the Recipes

     [47] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0062.html

   <scribe> ACTION: Ralph see if W3C Systems Team can help with
   question on Apache conditional redirects [recorded in
   [48]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/08-swd-minutes.html#action17] [DONE]

     [48] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/08-swd-minutes.html#action17

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

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

   <scribe> ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of
   Recipes implementations] [recorded in
   [50]http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html#action03]
   [CONTINUES]

     [50] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html#action03

   jon: the reviews are great, we are working on integrating their
   comments
   ... we are still shooting for a pre-publication next week
   ... w.r.t. the comments from W3C Systems Team, not sure what to do

   GuusS: if you can integrate ralph's and ed's comments, we are in a
   position to publish a new draft
   ... decision in Jan 29

   <scribe> ACTION: Jon and Diego to propose a decision on publishing
   the next Recipes draft by next week [recorded in
   [51]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-swd-minutes.html#action23]

   GuusS: (to the editors) make sure that the WG has the proposal

Vocabulary Management

   Elisa: planning to hold a call later this week and to work on our
   action

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

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

   [adjourned]

Transitive broader [informal]

   <Ralph> scribenick: ralph

   Antoine: the idea is that transitive broader be a superproperty of
   broader
   ... if we do that then statements using broader cannot be retrieved
   using the super property
   ... the standard modelling pattern is good but we have a
   standardization problem

   Daniel: so there really aren't two types of 'broader'
   ... to me, there's only one kind of 'broader'

   Sean: seems to me from reading the discussion that people want to be
   able to query against 'broader' and get transitive closure on query
   ... so there's really only one 'broader' but there's a way to query
   over a more general notion
   ... the general notion would not be used in assertions

   Daniel: I don't see a difference between query and assertion

   Sean: there may be inferences I can draw from assertions

   Daniel: in the OWL community you make limited assertions and do a
   lot of inferencing

   Alistair: if transitive form is superproperty we could have a
   convention that we only ever assert the subproperty
   ... but the superproperty is available for query

   <Quentin>
   [53]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/thes/1.0/guide/20040504
   /#3.9

     [53] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/thes/1.0/guide/20040504/#3.9

   Guus: [worries about community usage]

   Alistair: choice of which is subproperty and which is superproperty
   ... direct one could be 'broader' -- the one that people use --
   which would affect existing SKOS data

   Sean: is there really an analog for the transitive closure of
   'broader' in current thesauri ?
   ... if I have a paper thesaurus, I don't really have a transitive
   closure without having to do a lot of work
   ... the transitive closure is not actually represented anywhere

   Alistair: agree, but the point is the practicalities
   ... in certain applications it is convenient to compute the
   transitive closure and then query it

   Sean: that's fine, which suggests the pattern of using direct
   'broader' in assertions and a transitive 'broader' that I use in
   queries

   Guus: whatever we do, the transitive property should be a
   superproperty of the direct one else the semantics are wrong
   ... the direct property: "a is a direct broader term of b", without
   saying anything about transitivity
   ... remember that transitivity does not inherit

   Daniel: I'm worried about this confusing the community

   Guus: Sean points out that the community does not currently have
   this logical notion; they do it at query time

   Sean: yes, I'm suggesting non-transitive 'broader' used in
   assertions and a different, transitive, relation that is only used
   in query
   ... I hope this satisfies those who want 'broader' to be transitive
   in some way

   Alistair: I agree

   Guus: but be clear that this is not [currently] being used in a pure
   logical way; it's a procedural thing

   Ed: there's an example at the end of the primer, but it doesn't
   follow this pattern and would need to be changed

   Quentin: the transitive version of broader and narrower should be
   present; we're speaking of creating knowledge organization systems
   so these should be taken logically
   ... in some application the developer might want to use SKOS as a
   simple representation and might want some very simple logical
   inference
   ... without requiring the full capabilities of OWL
   ... their concept of hierarchy is a simplification of subsumption
   ... this might just mean that we need to look at a SKOS extension
   ... but I know there is opposition to extensions as they require
   additional namespaces

   Guus: if you're going to write an assertion, e.g. in a namespace
   document, you use 'broader' and if you want to write a query you can
   use 'broaderTransitive'

   Alistair: if we do have 'broaderTransitive' or 'broaderClosed' in
   SKOS then two of the semantic conditions in the data model become
   very easy to state
   ... e.g. 'skos:related disjointfrom skos:broader'
   ... and to assert some irreflexive relations
   ... I would like to see a broaderTransitive/broaderClosed
   superproperty described normatively
   ... rather than omitting it or leaving it to a community extension

   Antoine: agree

   Sean: agree, and it would reduce the repetition of this discussion

   Guus: any chance of getting this written up for discussion next
   week?

   Alistair: are you suggesting we introduce two new terms in the SKOS
   vocabulary and include them in the editor's draft?

   Guus: yes, in particular the editor's draft we're going to review
   next week

   Ralph: I'd recommend sending this to the WG in a separate email

   Sean: related to ISSUE 44

   <aliman> Al's notes ...

   <inserted> scribenick: aliman

   quentin: transitive version of broader should be present -- speaking
   of creating KOS, forcing applications to take them logically. In
   some systems & applications, use SKOS as simple representation, and
   simple inference with it (not full OWL). SKOS vocab to do thesauri,
   taxonomies, hierarchies, concept of hierarchy very simplification of
   subsumption, as broader is loose meaning. SKOS...

   transitive as super ...

   antoine: problem, all statements asserted using transitive broader
   cannot be retrieved by

   daniel: aren't two types of broader?

   sean: if use pattern (transitive super) don't use that for
   assertions, use for querying? people want to query against broader,
   and get transitive when query; assertions about direct;

   daniel: assertions vs. query?

   sean: assertions -- directly asserted; may be inferences I can draw.

   daniel: proposing two different types of broader, confusing. agree
   with you, make minimal assertions, do the rest by inference,
   legitimate.

   guus: BT standard term in thesaurus community; what people state as
   BT is always direct broader; so by definition, our semantics of
   broader, if it is equal to BT, then it needs to be not transitive,
   otherwise people get confused.

   quentin: as a sub-property, examples described as in skos core
   guide?

   guus: sub-property has to be direct; if do that, what we call
   broader, will not be same semantics as thesauri, because only assert
   direct one. that's only way semantics.

   aliman: other way around from guus, would affect existing SKOS data;
   if do as guus says,

   sean: analog for transitive closure of broader in thesauri? If have
   a paper thesaurus, don't really have transitive closure, not
   represented...

   aliman: required

   sean: to have skos:broader as direct, and introduce some new
   super-property as transitive closure

   quentin: I would agree as well.

   guus: I you want to have a transitive and a direct, then transitive
   is always super-property. transitivity doesn't inherit

   daniel: existing relations so, worried about confusing the
   community. How do you know which to use?

   guus: sean is saying, in community, don't have logical notion. Do it
   at query/computation time.

   sean: broader used in assertions, not transitive, then property used
   in query which is transitive. relatively clear statement, answers
   concerns of people requiring broader to be transitive.

   guus: clear not being used in a logical sense; if want to get
   closure, have to do procedural thing; haven't seen logical use of
   thesauri yet.

   sean: needs some careful explanation in reference and primer.

   ed: in tail end of primer, example of doing it not the right way,
   will have to be changed.

   antoine: will not be huge effort
   ... extension described in docs earlier, need to look at again.

   guus: broader & broaderTransitive should be in spec, if write docs,
   use broader, if want to query, use broaderTransitive. If SKOS spec
   specifies broaderTransitive.

   aliman: makes some conditions easier to state

   guus: comes down to wording

   aliman: would like to see super-property in the spec

   antoine: i agree

   sean: i agree

   guus: i agree too ... can we have this in some short form in
   editor's. Two new URIs in SKOS vocabulary. Suggest broaderTransitive
   rather than broaderClosed

   ralph: recommend separate email on this -- here's what we've done to
   editor's draft and why

   guus: who is issue owner? temporary resolution of issue 44. I'll
   write it tonight.

 

-- 
Diego Berrueta
R&D Department  -  CTIC Foundation
E-mail: diego.berrueta@fundacionctic.org
Phone: +34 984 29 12 12
Parque Cientifico Tecnologico Gijon-Asturias-Spain
http://www.fundacionctic.org
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2008 07:32:00 UTC

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