meeting record: 2008-06-03 SWD WG telecon

Elisa sent the edited minutes to me 2 days ago -- I apologize for
not posting them until just now.  To make partial amends, I'll
send the notice to this list for her.

The minutes of last week's SemWeb Deployment Working Group
telecon [1] are available for review.  Text snapshot of rev 1.3 follows.



                                SWD WG

03 Jun 2008



   See also: [3]IRC log



          Tom Baker, Ralph Swick, Elisa Kendall, Ed Summers, Alistair
          Miles, Jon Phillips, Ben Adida (IRC only)

          Margherita Sini, Sean Bechhofer, Diego Berrueta Muņoz,
          Antoine Isaac, Guus Schreiber, Michael Hausenblas, Vit
          Novacek, Simone Onofri




     * Topics
         1. Admin
         2. SKOS Reference Planning
     * Summary of Action Items


   <TomB> Previous: [8]


   <TomB> Scribe: Elisa

   Tom: Considering pushing this week's agenda to next week due to low

SKOS Reference Planning



   Alistair: All of the content is there; We need roughly 1/2 day to
   make a few minor changes, add schema files, and that's it. There are
   a couple of issues in the schema files that Sean sent,
   inconsistencies, that may have been due to transforms or tools.
   ... When I was using tripler before, I got some weird behavior that
   I wasn't able to pin down. The problems were minor, so I just need
   another 1/2 day to get the files together and send them to Ralph.

   Tom: Let's do that on the list then. We did decide last week that
   the changes had been incorporated ... whether we need to wait until
   next week or can do that earlier, let's wait until the files are
   posted and then take a decision online.

   <benadida> Hi all, unfortunately I can only join via IRC today.

   Ralph: Do we have a resolution to publish?

   Tom: Yes, if you look at the 5-27 minutes, at the end of the SKOS
   section, the discussion was to publish the draft without formal

   Ralph: Yes

   Tom: I would propose that that also means that we could take the
   decision online and wouldn't need to wait for the next telecon.

   Ralph: I concur with that.

   Tom: We could close issue 83, but I think the call is too small, so
   I don't see any other items on which we could make significant
   progress this week. I suggest that we resolve to use this agenda as
   the starting point for next weeks call, unless anyone has issues on
   which we think we could make progress with such a small call.

   Ralph: What I'm wondering - Ed, do you know where Jon is making
   updates where stuff is fixed?

   Ed: He seems to be pushing them through CVS.

   <JonP> I am

   Ralph: I'm not seeing all of the changes.

   <Ralph> Jon, is there an updated .html document?

   Ralph: ... because some of the changes you had suggested
   consistently used the same domain name ...

   Ed: Alot of the things I was pointing out had to do with the files
   ... I did have a question about ... he was using mydomain in one of
   the examples.

   <Ralph> Jon, e.g. 'yourdomain' vs ''

   Ralph: That was one of the questions I wanted to raise.

   <JonP> There haven't been any updates to the html since we posted
   the last draft.

   <Ralph> (W3C pubrules prefers either or

   <JonP> ...trying to get on the call

   Tom: I wanted to talk about some of the things that might continue
   after the working group, as a question to Ralph, what are the
   opportunities, resources available to ... as far as use of wikis is
   concerned, support for mailing lists, what are the options?

   Ralph: If the working group wants to ask for or sponsor a SKOS
   interest list? I don't have a feeling either way whether that's
   valuable or not. We can certainly host those lists and the wiki as

   If we can, snapshot the state of the working group, not necessarily
   freeze it, but make the point the working group reached clear for a
   couple of years from now... I would prefer generally that we
   establish a separate set of SKOS wiki pages

   Alistair: That would be nice.

   Tom: Maybe the current wiki pages could be frozen.

   Ralph: The esw wiki will at some point be migrated over to ...
   Ralph, so the current difference in wiki platforms will eventually
   go away ... in a single digit number of months.

   Tom: back to recipes ...

   Ralph: I did write an email shortly before the telecon -- it's
   useful for us to be careful about consistency. That's why I asked if
   the updates you're making are visible somewhere ... if the served
   example files are being updated somewhere.

   Jon: It's enough of a pain to update everything that I'm staying
   with the last date where I can. I think I only changed one small
   thing in that document and that was a date. I haven't changed the changes until you can do a review of the document.

   Ralph: I guess I'd like, if you would create a 2008-06-xx.html
   document, the dates can be inconsistent.

   Jon: I haven't actually changed anything in the document since the
   draft that I put up, almost all of the changes I can think of are

   Ralph: So the only thing you can think of is the yourhost ...

   Jon: What's the process at this point? Does this need to go thru any
   additional review?

   Ralph: If Ed and I say that this is ok, then the working group
   should be ok with it.

   Jon: if I make the change and put up the document, it's ok to
   reference the 2008-04 examples, without having to change all of the

   Ralph: Yes.

   <Ralph> (for an updated editor's draft)

   Jon: I just have to make the one change to the document and repost

   <Zakim> aliman, you wanted to ask about URI dereference behaviour
   for SKOS concepts, schemes etc.

   Alistair: I was just looking ahead at the SKOS issues, there is one
   on the URI dereference behavior, and I was wondering if anyone had
   any ideas about how to resolve this relatively painlessly. Perhaps
   we can resolve this to a recipes example.

   Ralph: I definitely thought we would go in the direction of working
   to a recipe.

   <Ralph> [10]issue-86; SkosURIDereferenceBehaviour


   Alistair: 6 is the extended configuration for dereferencing to a

   Ralph: I don't necessarily think we should resolve to recipe 6 in
   particular ...

   Ed: You can imagine someone opting for a simpler one.

   <Ralph> LCSH

   Alistair: What do you do for LCSH?
   ... They have a way of working around doing 303s but still being
   able to dereference each URI.

   <aliman> [11]


   Ralph: How much trouble would I be causing to ask for a write-up for
   this ...

   Ed: It was originally done using one of the recipes, but this
   simplified the server side code. I would be happy to write it up,
   but it would probably need some time to put it together.

   <aliman> ... where [12] is directly


   Alistair: From what I understand, I think its ok, but you do have to
   be a little bit careful, as there is a primary URI, but the risk is
   that if you serve html content, and if that had an anchor in it for
   your concept ... you could end up with a conflict ...

   Ed: I've been trying to make sure that the html references do have
   an anchor with concept, so maybe this is an issue.

   <edsu> [13]


   Ralph: When I do an http get on an URI which is a subject heading,
   it's something that has (see example) ... if I do an http get on
   that, the server may not respond with a 200, as the subject heading
   is not a document.

   Alistair: I'm not sure that's true, because you can't do an http get
   on that directly, you need to do that on the primary URI.

   Ralph: This is exactly the point you made about the difference
   between the html and RDF version, and in this particular design, the
   server can't say 303 for a concept, because it doesn't know you
   asked for the concept. It creates additional confusion if the html
   document has anchors called concept and the RDF has ids called
   concept. This means that the TAG will think that the LCSH approach
   is broken.

   Ed: I definitely understand the issue of having the hash URI that
   has two different representations, I guess I was encouraging Jon to
   promulgate this error ... :).

   Alistair: If there was not an anchor in the html, I thought this
   could be considered a new recipe, as long as there wasn't a direct
   contradiction to web architecture.

   Ralph: That's the difference between recipes 1 and 3 ... the crucial
   difference is that recipe 1 doesn't have any html and recipe 3
   introduces html and a 303.

   Ed: That's originally what I did.

   Ralph: I'm afraid that doesn't work ... appreciating Alistair's
   attempt to massage it.

   <TomB> [14]


   Alistair: The argument was really fine, all of the recipes are more
   cautious with respect to 303s.



   Ralph: It creates dragons for revisions to the vocabulary - you have
   to be sure not to introduce any anchors.

   <Ralph> [16]Cool URIs for the Semantic Web


   Ed: In the Cool URIs document, there was feedback from the TAG ...
   there was something in that document that shifted in its tone at
   some point.

   Alistair: The feedback I had from TimBL had to do with generic
   resources, from what I understand, Tim was saying do a 303, and then
   content negotiate from that point. If you have a generic resource
   then you can bookmark it. I thought back through what we have done
   ... you can't go back through and retrofit that to a document, you
   would have to publish a new document.

   <edsu> [17]


   Ed: This looks like it was the old document, but if you look at
   figure 4, it doesn't look like what we're doing now. Look at figure
   4, so it's in section 4.1, the hash URI section.

   <Ralph> Ralph: the dfki version is old

   Alistair: That's interesting. Then you would be able to fix it by
   making sure that the content location header is correct.

   <aliman> The Content-Location header should be set to indicate if
   the hash URI refers to a part of the HTML document or RDF document.

   Ed: I'm open to changing it if we have a recommendation. I'm willing
   to change it appropriately, and that's the reason I put this
   experimental version out. Maintenance over time is definitely a big

   Alistair: There's quite a bit of difference between the Cool URIs
   document and the recipes we're putting out.

   Ed: I think that was introduced in the stuff that Diego noticed.

   Alistair: We've only got a recipe for the first part of 4.1 and 4.3.

   Ed: But you started this a long time before this came out.

   Ralph: We might need to say something about this other document with
   additional cases.

   Alistair: But the recipes document would get considerably more

   Ralph: We should at least acknowledge the one more useful pattern.

   Ed: The recipes document does point to Cool URIs. This has come up
   before, the potential for RDFa to deliver vocabularies.

   <TomB> Cool URIs or "simple implementation":


   If you did use RDFa to do that, you probably wouldn't be able to
   deliver an RDF/XML graph at the same URI.

   <Zakim> TomB, you wanted to mention OAI ORE example

   Ralph: It will be awhile before we can recommend best practices
   around this.

   Tom: I just wanted to quickly point out that if you click on the
   link to the OAI ORE example, it looks like they have two ways of
   implementing, using the Cool URIs or using a resource aggregation,
   but that's intended to resolve to the information resource, not to
   use the 303 redirect. I mention this because OAI ORE on the one
   hand, LCSH on the other ... these are two implementations people
   will look at for best practices. It would be good to make sure that
   the right precedences are set for these and documented.

   Tom: Could you take an action, Ed, to write a note to the list? It's
   worth trying to nail it down and try to get the reasoning nailed

   <scribe> ACTION: Ed to write up the rationale behind the
   dereferencing behavior for LCSH [recorded in

   Ed: and Alistair can respond

   Tom: I think that's going to be one of the implementation examples
   for SKOS, so we need to make sure everything is in place for doing
   the right thing for the recipes.

   <edsu> aliman++

   <edsu> # for bringing that issue up

   Tom: Meeting Adjourned

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Ed to write up the rationale behind the dereferencing
   behavior for LCSH [recorded in

   [PENDING] ACTION: alistair and sean to add a note about
   irreflexivity to Reference [recorded in
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ed to investigate what text could be added to
   primer re. concept co-ordination [recorded in
   [PENDING] ACTION: Editors of the Use Cases to clean up the lists of
   requirements in light of resolutions [recorded in
   [PENDING] ACTION: Editors to produce a revised working draft for
   next week on which we can vote [recorded in
   [PENDING] ACTION: Guus and Alistair write text for Reference
   indicating understanding of a possible need for future patterns for
   n-Ary label relations [recorded in
   [PENDING] ACTION: Guus to write primer text re: broaderGeneric and
   equivalence w/r/t subclass [recorded in
   [PENDING] ACTION: Margherita to liase with author primer about
   example using plain literals and some with datatype literals
   [recorded in
   [PENDING] ACTION: Sean and Alistair to send a file for the namespace
   [recorded in
   [PENDING] ACTION: seanb to set up wiki for SKOS/OWL patterns
   [recorded in


   [PENDING] ACTION: Alistair to check the old namespace wrt
   dereferencing [recorded in
   [PENDING] ACTION: Antoine and Ed to add content to Primer about
   irreflexivity [recorded in
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ben to prepare draft implementation report for
   RDFa (with assistance from Michael) [recorded in
   [PENDING] ACTION: Guus to mail his position on issues 72, 73 and 75
   to the list [recorded in
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph compose intermediate pages for
   [34] and
   [35] to inform readers of
   the paths to the old and new SKOS documents [recorded in
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph propose resolution to ISSUE-16 "Default
   behavior" [recorded in
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph to review the new Editor's Draft of the
   Recipes [recorded in
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of
   Recipes implementations] [recorded in
   [PENDING] ACTION: Sean to write a proposal to indicate to OWL WG our
   requirements for annotation properties [recorded in
   [End of minutes]


   Change log:
$Log: 03-swd-minutes.html,v $
Revision 1.3  2008/06/10 12:34:34  swick
Copy new and pending actions from 27-May telecon

Revision 1.2  2008/06/10 12:31:08  swick
From Elisa Sun, 08 Jun 2008 11:42:50 -0700

Received on Tuesday, 10 June 2008 12:38:58 UTC