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

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

From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:20:10 +0200
Message-ID: <4874C91A.7030106@cs.vu.nl>
To: "Sini, Margherita (KCEW)" <Margherita.Sini@fao.org>
CC: SWD Working SWD <public-swd-wg@w3.org>


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:52 UTC