- From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:20:10 +0200
- To: "Sini, Margherita (KCEW)" <Margherita.Sini@fao.org>
- CC: SWD Working SWD <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4874C91A.7030106@cs.vu.nl>
Sini, Margherita (KCEW) wrote: > I propose myself as reviewer... Let me which document I have to look at. Margherita, Great! I assume we can work out the timed diff. Guus > > 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 14:20:50 UTC