RE: Summer telecons [was: meeting record: 2008-07-01 SWD WG telecon]

I propose myself as reviewer... Let me which document I have to look at.

I will be available for proposed conferences (I actually will be in India) so
I have to check time difference...

Regards
Margherita

-----Original Message-----
From: public-swd-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-swd-wg-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Guus Schreiber
Sent: 09 July 2008 13:21
To: SWD Working SWD
Subject: Summer telecons [was: meeting record: 2008-07-01 SWD WG telecon]


All,

--------------------------------------------------------
Synopsis: proposed telecons on July 29, Aug 5 and Aug 19
--------------------------------------------------------

At the telecon last week we resolved all the remaining issues related to 
SKOS. Unfortunately, we had no telecon time left to plan the details of 
the summer-period telecons. This message contains a proposed schedule.

Three steps are now needed to get to a SKOS Last Call document:

1. SKOS Reference editors to produce a proposed Last Call version
Alistair/Sean: can you give a date when you think a proposed LC version 
of SKOS Reference will be available?  The planning below assumes it will 
become available by August 4.

2. Reviews of the draft by WG participants (at least two)
I have offered to act as reviewer. We need at least one more reviewer. 
Please volunteer.

3. Last Call decision at SWD telecon: this cannot be much earlier than 
middle August.

In parallel, the editor of the SKOS Primer should make sure a Primer 
version consistent with the Reference is available around the same time.

For RDFa we agreed to reserve telecon time early August to take a PR 
Request decision.

I propose the following telecon planning:

29 July
   * editorial issues SKOS Reference
   * progress SKOS Primer
   * appointment of reviewers
   * RDFa implementation report

5 August
   * RDFa: decision on PR request
   * start of internal review SKOS Reference.
   * Discussion on SKOS Primer planning

19 August
   * Decision on SKOS Last Call

Guus


Jon Phipps wrote:
> 
> The minutes of last week's SemWeb Deployment Working Group telecon [1] 
> are available for review.  A text snapshot follows. Note that many of 
> the actions weren't formally reviewed so most have simply been 
> continued.
> 
>   [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/07/01-swd-minutes.html
> 
> W3C
> SemWeb Deployment WG
> 01 Jul 2008
> 
> Agenda 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/0108.html
> 
> See also: IRC log
> http://www.w3.org/2008/07/01-swd-irc
> 
> Attendees
> 
> Present
>     Elisa Kendall, Jon Phipps, Ralph Swick, Danial Rubin, Diego
> Berrueta, Ed SUmmers, Alistair Miles, Guus Schreiber, Sean Bechhofer, 
> Clay Redding, Daniel Maycock, Antoine Isaac, Ben Adida, Tom Baker
> Regrets
>     Simone Onofri, Margherita Sini, Quentin Ruel
> Chair
>     Guus
> Scribe
>     Jon
> 
> Contents
> 
>     * Topics
>          1. ADMIN
>          2. RDFa
>          3. Recipes
>          4. Vocabulary Management
>          5. SKOS
>     * Summary of Action Items
> 
> <Ralph> Previous: 2008-06-24 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html
> 
> 
> ADMIN
> 
> Guus: This is the last scheduled telecon
> 
> PROPOSED to accept minutes of the last telecon:
> http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html
> 
> RESOLUTION: to accept minutes of the last telecon
> 
> 
> RDFa
> 
> Ralph: Nothing we particularly need to talk about
> 
> <Ralph> meeting record: 2008-06-26 RDFa telecon
> 
> Ralph: On schedule for August proposed rec
> 
> Guss: We need to schedule a meeting for about that time.
> 
> <scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Ben to prepare draft implementation report
> for RDFa (with assistance from Michael) [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14]
> 
> 
> Recipes
> 
> Guus: what's the progress on getting the Note published?
> 
> Jon: I have updated the Status paragraph but didn't get a chance to 
> send
> the notification
> ... Ralph should look at it
> ... Diego found some additional errors in the example document, which 
> I'll fix right after the meeting
> 
> <scribe> ACTION: Jon and Ralph to publish Recipes as Working Group 
> Note
> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/10-swd-minutes.html#action03] in 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/06/10-swd-minutes.html#action03] [CONTINUES]
> 
> <scribe> ACTION: [DONE] Diego to propose minimum RDFa metadata set for
> WG deliverables. [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action16]
> 
> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action16]
> 
> Diego: see ->
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/0104.html 
> "adding metadata with RDFa to W3C TR" [Diego 2008-06-29]
> 
> <scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet 
> implementation
> of Recipes [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]
> 
> 
> Vocabulary Management
> 
> Guus: realistic timescale?
> 
> Elisa: almost done, just need to validate
> ... should have by next week
> 
> Guus: we may start reviewing between telecons, but will have to see 
> how
> that works out
> 
> Elisa: several people have found the doc to be valuable
> ... we were going to include some recommendation about the SKOS 
> namespaces ... but will figure that out once we've started reviewing
> 
> 
> SKOS
> 
> Guus: Antoine sent email on ISSUE-84
> 
> <Ralph> Proposal to postpone ISSUE-84
> ConstructionOfSystematicDisplaysFromGroupings [Antoine 2008-07-01]
> 
> Antoine: considering that issue-84 is too complex to deal with in the
> time available
> ... issue-84 is borderline wrt SKOS application and I propose to postpone
> 
> PROPOSED: postpone ISSUE-84, reason given in message 0001 of July 2008
> 
> <Ralph> +1
> 
> RESOLUTION: postpone ISSUE-84, reason given in message 0001 of July 
> 2008
> 
> Ralph: I'll update the issue list right now, no action needed
> 
> Guus: looking at ISSUE-86
> 
> SeanB: action on me and Alistair to compose some text, Alistair has 
> seen ... suggestion is to follow practices from CoolUris and include 
> in Appendix ... proposed resolution is to make no requirements but 
> recommend authors should follow the recipes and CoolUris
> 
> Guus: ISSUE-72, ISSUE-73, ISSUE-75
> 
> aliman: just sent a mail suggestion some positions for each ... for 
> issue-72, we make no statement ... for issue-75 suggest that we don't 
> assert any property chains for exact match
> 
> <Ralph> exactMatch issues: ISSUE-72 ISSUE-73 ISSUE-75 [Alistair 
> 2008-06-24]
> 
> aliman: issue-73, when we say related, we're saying there's an
> associative relationship, and from that perspective it's worth stating 
> that they're disjoint
> 
> <aliman>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/0097.html -> 
> suggestions for exactMatch issues
> 
> Antoine: from the pint that we've already asserted semantics for
> matching properties
> ... I was afraid that Alistair's position was a step backward
> ... I don't have a strong objection but am uncomfortable
> 
> <Ralph> current specification of skos:exactMatch
> 
> Antoine: I support exactMatch disjoiint with related but not
> broadertransitive
> 
> aliman: i could live with not saying that exactmatch is not disjoint
> with any other property, but that users should check
> 
> edsu: no opinion about this
> 
> aliman: one of the difficulties is that we don't have any obvious use 
> cases
> 
> Guus: that means we should follow the least commitment strategy
> 
> aliman: that means that we should say nothing formally on any of these
> issues
> 
> Antoine: would really like to make exactmatch transitive
> 
> Daniel: What are the arguments against saying transitive
> 
> <Ralph> We currently say "[skos:exactMatch] is typically used to
> indicate that two concepts are sufficiently similar that they can be 
> used interchangeably in an information retrieval application."
> 
> aliman: making no statement allows people to draw their own 
> conclusions ... if we _say_ that its transistive then we specify that 
> you're drawing conclusions across mappings
> 
> Daniel: it would seem that you would want that to be transitive
> 
> aliman: I've never looked at the data, so that was my reluctance
> 
> Daniel: if there was another semantics for exactMatch then we should
> have another property
> 
> Ralph: I agree
> 
> edsu: but of course this may map across a number of concepts ... if 
> it's transitive then there's bound to be drift
> 
> Daniel: exactMatch has a specific semantics that would seem to require
> transitivity
> 
> SeanB: if you make the explicit statement that they're transitive, 
> then
> you have the possibility of rendering errors
> ... given the "sufficiently similar" wording
> 
> <Ralph> aliman: exactMatch is more for a specific application to use
> rather than a general statement
> 
> Daniel: then we need a different property
> ... exactmatch implies exact
> 
> Ralph: why don't we have a different property "similarMatch"
> 
> aliman: I can see both points of view
> 
> Guus: I can see Daniel's point that it needs to be transitive
> 
> SeanB: but "sufficiently similar" isn't exact enough
> 
> aliman: there may be assertions across mappings that requires careful
> checking of data
> 
> Daniel: exactmatch need to be exact
> 
> aliman: but this isn't an exact world
> ... these shouldn't ever be used in concept schemes
> 
> Ralph why not similarMatch
> 
> Daniel: How about nearlyExactMatch
> 
> <Ralph> Tom: "closeMatch"
> 
> Ralph: closematch
> 
> <Antoine> +1 with not changing the name
> 
> Guus: unless we have strong reasons I'd rather not change the name
> 
> many variations bandied about
> 
> Ralph: ok with exactMatch as long as there's an addition that exact ==
> close to
> 
> Guus: this is why we're not using owl:sameAs
> 
> aliman: this is an issue of quality of exactness of match
> 
> Guus: propose to not change the name but add wording
> 
> <Ralph> PROPOSE: keep the name "exactMatch" but add a sentence saying
> that "exact" in this context means "sufficiently similar to" and not 
> "identical to".
> 
> aliman: transitivity is just one entailment
> 
> <Ralph> PROPOSE: keep the name "exactMatch" but add a sentence saying
> that "exact" in this context means "sufficiently similar to" and not 
> "identical to" and this relation is not transitive.
> 
> SeanB: seems like there's an inconsistency when you say woolily 
> similar,
> but then say it's transitive, then you introduce the opportunity to 
> compound errors
> 
> Guus: reluctant to change the name because it's already been deployed
> 
> <ed> Ralph++
> 
> Guus: who would be in favor of "closeMatch"?
> 
> aliman: these things should be so similar that you can swap em
> 
> <Ralph> I prefer "closeMatch" but would not object to keeping the name
> with the fuller explanation
> 
> SeanB: do you have to qualify the map
> 
> Guus: change the wording of exactmatch to say that it is sufficiently
> close and not transitive
> 
> Ralph: why would you feel that a transitive exact is better than 
> owl:sameAs
> 
> <seanb> ++1 for what Antoine is saying
> 
> <aliman> ++1
> 
> Antoine: owl:sameAs comes with additional formal semantics that don't
> apply here
> 
> SeanB: what we're trying to represent here is application behavior, 
> and
> very different from sameAs
> 
> Guus: straw poll
> 
> <Ralph> I don't feel a need for _both_ transitive exactMatch and also
> closeMatch
> 
> Guus: exactMatch is transitive
> 
> <Ralph> -1 to both transitive exactMatch and close
> 
> <seanb> This appeals to me as a solution, but I'm not a system 
> developer
> :-)
> 
> Guus: introduce closeMatch as subproperty of exactMatch that is not
> transitive
> 
> Ralph: not sure if there's a use case to have both
> 
> Guus: typically exactmatch would be 1 to 1
> 
> aliman: we have no use cases for mapping across vocabularies ... not 
> sure if it's a lack of use case or lack of data ... I can live without 
> exactMatch
> 
> Daniel: why can't we have both
> ... wouldn't this represent a good compromise
> 
> aliman: if we keep both then closeMatch can't be a subproperty
> 
> <aliman> i was wrong, exactmatch could be a sub-prop of closeMatch
> 
> Alistair agrees with SeanB that this isn't necessarily so
> 
> <Ralph> I can live with both transitive exactMatch and closeMatch
> 
> Daniel: I can live with the last proposal of 2 properties, whether one
> is a subproperty or not
> 
> all agree with 2 properties
> 
> PROPOSED: ISSUE-72 is resolved by 1) adding to the skos data model a
> property "closeMatch" which is not transitive. 2) add to skos data model 
> that exactMatch is transitive
> 
> <aliman> PROPOSED: ISSUE-72 is resolved by 1) adding to the skos data
> model a property "closeMatch" which is not transitive. 2) add to skos 
> data model that exactMatch is transitive
> 
> <Ralph> +1
> 
> seconded Daniel
> 
> RESOLUTION: ISSUE-72 is resolved by 1) adding to the skos data model a
> property "closeMatch" which is not transitive. 2) add to skos data model 
> that exactMatch is transitive
> 
> Guus: reference editors please add wording for this
> ... leave it to them to figure out subproperty relationship ... but 
> first want to have it right in the reference
> 
> <scribe> ACTION: Alistair and Sean to propose text to implement the
> resolution of issue-72 [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/07/01-swd-minutes.html#action05]
> 
> Guus: issue-73...
> 
> <Ralph> ISSUE-73 ExactMatchDisjoints
> 
> aliman: think this changes now and we can take a stronger position
> 
> PROPOSED: issue-73 is resolved by skos:exactMatch is disjoint with
> skos:broaderTransitive and skos:related
> 
> Alistair seconds
> 
> RESOLUTION: issue-73 is resolved by skos:exactMatch is disjoint with
> skos:broaderTransitive and skos:related
> 
> Guus: last issue, issue-75
> ... property chain axioms
> 
> <Ralph> ExactMatchInclusions
> 
> SeanB: my inclination is to not do this, but could go either way
> 
> Guus: don't see any need to define this here
> ... I'm happy with the proposal that for the moment there are no
> property chain axioms
> 
> Antoine: I could support this
> 
> Guus: Close this issue by asserting that there are no property chain
> axioms until there is evidence to support such axioms
> ... would be useful to include the rationale
> 
> PROPOSED: Close Issue-75 by asserting that there are no property chain
> axioms until there is evidence to support them
> 
> <Ralph> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-75 by asserting that there are no 
> property
> chain axioms as there is no evidence yet to support them
> 
> Antoine seconds
> 
> RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-75 by asserting that there are no property 
> chain
> axioms as there is no evidence yet to support them
> 
> <Ralph> ISSUE-86
> 
> <seanb>
> 
> SeanB: We haven't yet closed ISSUE-86
> 
> sean reads text of email
> 
> Ralph: "makes no requirement" is not as strong as "strongly suggests"
> 
> seanb: happy to strongly suggest
> 
> Ralph: I'd prefer "does not require but strongly recommends"
> 
> <ed> Ralph++
> 
> <Ralph> PROPOSE: Close ISSUE-86 with and Appendix saying "URIs are 
> used
> to identity resources of type skos:Concept and skos:ConceptScheme. The 
> SKOS Reference does not require specific behaviour when dereferencing 
> those URIs. It is, however, strongly recommended that publishers of 
> vocabularies follow the guidelines for Best Practice Recipes [REF] and 
> Cool URIS [REF]."
> 
> sean seconds
> 
> RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-86 with and Appendix saying "URIs are used to
> identity resources of type skos:Concept and skos:ConceptScheme. The SKOS 
> Reference does not require specific behaviour when dereferencing those 
> URIs. It is, however, strongly recommended that publishers of 
> vocabularies follow the guidelines for Best Practice Recipes [REF] and 
> Cool URIS [REF]."
> 
> Guus: planning of telecon: 22July and another a week later ... 22 July 
> for SKOS candidate recommendation, the other for RDFa
> 
> <seanb> I am definitely not here on the 22nd July
> 
> seanb: not available 22 July
> 
> aliman: one more week would be better
> 
> <Ralph> [I'm at risk during August]
> 
> Guus: like to have reviewers no, version available for review bu 
> August ... happy to review reference ... chairs will look at this and 
> be intouch ... editors please start implementing the changes
> 
> <scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Ed to investigate what text could be added 
> to
> primer re. concept co-ordination [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/04/22-swd-minutes.html#action02]
> 
> <scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Guus to write primer text re: 
> broaderGeneric
> and equivalence w/r/t subclass [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action08]
> 
> <scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Alistair to check the old namespace wrt
> dereferencing [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action03]
> 
> <scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Antoine and Ed to add content to Primer 
> about
> irreflexivity [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action06]
> 
> <scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Alistar to update the history page adding
> direct link to latest version of rdf triple [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/06/17-swd-minutes.html#action01]
> 
> <scribe> ACTION: [DONE] Editors of the Use Cases to clean up the lists
> of requirements in light of resolutions [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html#action02]
> 
> see 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/0093.html
> 
> <scribe> ACTION: [DONE] Antoine to propose that we postpone ISSUE 84.
> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action10]
> 
> <scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] SKOS Reference Editors to specifically flag
> features at risk for Last Call. [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action17]
> 
> <scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Sean to draft response to comment about
> namespace. [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action12]
> 
> <scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Sean to post comment to OWL WG re 
> annotation
> requirements. [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action06]
> 
> <scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] SKOS Reference Editors to propose a
> recommended minimum URI dereference behaviour [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action11]
> 
> ADJOURNED
> Summary of Action Items
> [NEW] ACTION: Alistair and Sean to propose text to implement the
> resolution of issue-72 [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/07/01-swd-minutes.html#action05]
> 
> [PENDING] ACTION: Alistair to check the old namespace wrt 
> dereferencing
> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action03]
> [PENDING] ACTION: Alistar to update the history page adding direct link 
> to latest version of rdf triple [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/06/17-swd-minutes.html#action01]
> [PENDING] ACTION: Antoine and Ed to add content to Primer about 
> irreflexivity [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action06]
> [PENDING] ACTION: Ben to prepare draft implementation report for RDFa 
> (with assistance from Michael) [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14]
> [PENDING] ACTION: Ed to investigate what text could be added to primer 
> re. concept co-ordination [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/04/22-swd-minutes.html#action02]
> [PENDING] ACTION: Guus to write primer text re: broaderGeneric and 
> equivalence w/r/t subclass [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action08]
> [PENDING] ACTION: Jon and Ralph to publish Recipes as Working Group Note 
> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/10-swd-minutes.html#action03] in 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/06/10-swd-minutes.html#action03]
> [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation of 
> Recipes [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]
> [PENDING] ACTION: Sean to draft response to comment about namespace. 
> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action12]
> [PENDING] ACTION: Sean to post comment to OWL WG re annotation 
> requirements. [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action06]
> [PENDING] ACTION: SKOS Reference Editors to propose a recommended 
> minimum URI dereference behaviour [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action11]
> [PENDING] ACTION: SKOS Reference Editors to specifically flag features 
> at risk for Last Call. [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action17]
> 
> [DONE] ACTION: Antoine to propose that we postpone ISSUE 84. [recorded
> in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action10]
> [DONE] ACTION: Diego to propose minimum RDFa metadata set for WG 
> deliverables. [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action16]
> [DONE] ACTION: Editors of the Use Cases to clean up the lists of 
> requirements in light of resolutions [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html#action02]
> 
> [End of minutes]
> Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
> $Date: 2008/07/08 02:03:55 $
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 12:07:37 UTC