- From: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:45:36 +0100
- To: SWD Working SWD <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
The minutes of this week's telecon are now available [1]. Plain text
copy below.
Cheers,
Sean
[1] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
SemWeb Deployment WG
24 Jun 2008
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/
0086.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-irc
Attendees
Present
Sean Bechhofer, Tom Baker, Alistair Miles, Antoine Isaac,
Diego Berrueta, Ralph Swick, Margherita Sini, Daniel Maycock
(part)
Regrets
Quentin, Simone, Jon, Ed, Guus, Vit
Chair
Tom
Scribe
Sean
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Admin
2. [6]SKOS
3. [7]RDFa
4. [8]Recipes
5. [9]Vocabulary Management
6. [10]Preparation for SKOS Last Call
* [11]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Admin
Tom: Telecon next week, Guus to chair.
PROPOSED to accept minutes of the last telecon:
[12]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/17-swd-minutes.html
[12] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/17-swd-minutes.html
RESOLVED to accept the minutes
SKOS
ACTION: Ed to investigate what text could be added to primer re.
concept co-ordination [recorded in
[13]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/22-swd-minutes.html#action02]
[CONTINUES]
[13] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/22-swd-minutes.html#action02
ACTION: Guus to write primer text re: broaderGeneric and equivalence
w/r/t subclass [recorded in
[14]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action08]
[CONTINUES]
[14] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action08
ACTION: Alistair to check the old namespace wrt dereferencing
[recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action03]
[CONTINUES]
[15] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action03
ACTION: Antoine and Ed to add content to Primer about irreflexivity
[recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action06]
[CONTINUES]
[16] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action06
<Ralph> [17]Antoine's proposed text
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/
0094.html
ACTION: Sean to write a proposal to indicate to OWL WG our
requirements for annotation properties [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action07] [DONE]
[18] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action07
<Ralph> [19]Sean's proposed text
[19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/
0089.html
<Ralph> Sean: I plan to discuss this with folks in the OWL WG who
have offices near me
<Ralph> ... if we had rich annotations, that's what we would use for
SKOS
<Ralph> ... it's not clear how much benefit we'd get from just
labels and the documentation properties; hard to reason with these
<Ralph> ... hard to see much benefit from defining complex classes
using the documentation properties
<Ralph> ... both Alistair and I think of these things as being
annotations
<Ralph> ... I'll post this to the OWL WG in a week or so after
collecting comments from SWD WG
<Ralph> ... the OWL WG is interested in our comments as they see
SKOS as a use case for their annotation and punning work
ACTION: Sean to post comment to OWL WG re annotation requirements.
[recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action06]
ACTION: Alistair to update the history page adding direct link to
latest version of rdf triple [recorded in [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/17-swd-minutes.html#action01]
[CONTINUES]
[21] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/17-swd-minutes.html#action01
ACTION: Editors of the Use Cases to clean up the lists of
requirements in light of resolutions [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html#action02]
[CONTINUES]
[22] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html#action02
Antoine: put notes about requirements up on wiki.
... do we change the list of requirements?
... good starting points
Tom: reminder. Requirements to be published as WG Note in December.
... The document as is is a record of our thinking. Should we edit
it to
... reflect our requirements?
Antoine: Main thing to check whether we have met the resolutions
Ralph: Suggest we don't delete requirements. If there are reqs that
we've decided not
... to meet, should say that explicitly.
... Wouldn't bother adding requirements to document. Don't feel so
... strongly, but not necessary to put in there detail abut outher
things that we ended
... up doing.
... Would mark anything additional as additional
... As Tom suggested, more of a historical record. How we resolved
those
<TomB> +1 on Ralph's approach to Use Cases
Ralph: things listed as potential requirements.
<aliman> +1 on what ralph said, say explicitly if don't meet stated
requirements, don't need to add requirements
Tom: Basically cleaning up, not necessarily adding things but making
things neat.
Ralph: Have we gone through and identified everything?
TOm: Ongoing task to get Use case + requirement as WG Note.
Antoine: Would rather consider this action done.
Ralph: another action may be needed.
Antoine: Mostly Guus who wanted this thin done. Spotting
requirements for which
... we haven't done the jobs.
<Ralph> [23]status of SKOS requirement [24]
[23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/
0093.html
[24] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/13-swd-minutes.html#action25
TOm: Action is to get use cases doc as a whole into shape. Then have
two people read through
... and provide views, then declare as note. Could continue action
as it
... covers what needs to be done.
ACTION: Guus to mail his position on issues 72, 73 and 75 to the
list [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/13-swd-minutes.html#action25]
[CONTINUES]
[24] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/13-swd-minutes.html#action25
<TomB> [25]http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/41
[25] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/41
Tom: Agenda shows two issues. Antoine raised ISSUE 41 which he
thought was closed.
Antoine: Use of language tags in examples in all documents. Can't
remember original comment. Long
... time ago. Examples changed in primer to fit the comment. Idea
was to check with original author?
... is this why issue is pending? Confident that the required
changes were made.
Ralph: Issue tracker suggests that this was sorted and we just need
to get in touch with the commentor
Alistair: Can't remember if email was sent.
... sure that commentor was happy.
PROPOSED to declare ISSUE 41 closed.
RESOLVED to close ISSUE 41.
Tom: Two remaining issues
... 84.
<Ralph> [26]ISSUE 84; ConstructionOfSystematicDisplaysFromGroupings
[26] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/84
Antoine: Ongoing. No time to check this. Diego sent proposal for
algorithm a while ago. Noone
... has checked it. Could decide to postpone?
Tom: Would propose to postpone. If this is posted to list, then we
could decide this next week.
Antoine; Even if Diego's algorithm is really cool (which there's
little doubt about :-)
scribe: should it be in documents?
Diego: Based on how thesaurus should be displayed. Don't have access
to ISO
... standard, so work based on things that Alistair included in wiki
page.
<Ralph> in February, Alistair wrote "ISSUE-84
ConstructionOfSystematicDisplaysFromGroupings) --
<Ralph> important, but arguably out of scope.
<Ralph> "
Diego: can't be considered a complete implementation
<Ralph> [27]Issues Review [21]
[27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/
0096.html
[21] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/17-swd-minutes.html#action01
Diego: if someone can help or provide informaiton about systematic
display, would be happy to
... extend implementation. Don't thunk algorithm should be in
documents. It's a toy/example.
Tom: We are agreeing that this is out of scope for inclusion in
specs. Independent of whether we
... can work with Diego to publish in some form.
... Suggest that in the interest of closing issues, Antoine takes an
action to propose postponement.
ACTION: Antoine to propose that we postpone ISSUE 84. [recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action10]
Tom: Issue 86.
<Ralph> [29]ISSUE 86; SkosURIDereferenceBehaviour
[29] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/86
Alistair: We just need a proposal here which will be something along
the lines of adding text to primer/reference following
... Cool URIS, semantic Web recipes etc.
Tom: Basically linking to external resoruces.
... Is this reference, primer or both?
Ralph: Makes sense to have it as a reference issue. It's
... best practice for use of SKOS, so reference.
Tom: Add a sentence or two plus links in reference.
Ralph: Particularly if there are any minimum required behaviours.
E.g.
... you're conforming if you do the following.
Alistair: would be reluctant to bring that into the reference.
Additional level of
... conformance.
Ralph: Makes sense to give some advice.
Alistair: Happy to have no minimum requirements. But would like to
encourage good practice.
<TomB> +1 Alistair
Ralph: Would like to see a proposal on what the recommended
behaviour would be,
... Are concepts different from other stuff?
ACTION: SKOS Reference Editors to propose a recommended minimum URI
dereference behaviour [recorded in
[30]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action11]
Tom: Comment on change of namespace.
... Do we need to do anything?
... Has anyone pointed out this is a major versioning?
Antoine: Comment is slighlty different from the first one. While we
might have a new version,
<Ralph> [31]SKOS comment: change of namespace Laurent LE MEUR
2008-06-17]
[31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/
0064.html
Antoine: we could have used the original as it wasn't really
official.
<Ralph> Sean: could be argued either way; we decided to make the
change
Tom: This posting puts the emphasis on the status of the vocabulary.
The answer really involves explaining that this is
...
a major versining. Simply recording the justification that the
previous version didn't have this status.
scribe: Would be useful to respond along those lines.
Antoine: Maybe a good rsponse would be that akthough the previous
version wasn't a standard,
... it was "de facto"
Ralph: Refrain from using the words "de facto", but this is roughly
the reasons from the face to face.
... Discussions from f2f were that changing existing vocabs would be
a lot of work.
... Meeting record should shw that we considered pain for authors
and developers.
... Should respond or it may turn into Last Call comment. Feel a bit
... bad that we didn't highlight this in the status of the document.
In retrospect we might have
... written a sentence calling this to people's attention
Tom: This will come up, so lets formualte a response now. Can
someone take an action to formulate a resposne
... on the list.
... Look at f2f washinton record to reconstruct this.
<Ralph> [32]SKOS Namespace discussion of 2008-05-06
[32] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#skosnamespace
<aliman> Ralph, I feel bad about that too, I can't believe I didn't
think to add a note on this to the "changes" section of the
reference.
Sean: is it right to do this on the list?
Tom: Yes. Final response will go to the commentor.
Ralph: Draft the response in the fish bowl.
ACTION: Sean to draft response to comment about namespace. [recorded
in [33]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action12]
RDFa
ACTION: Ben to prepare draft implementation report for RDFa (with
assistance from Michael) [recorded in
[34]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14]
[CONTINUES]
[34] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14
Tom: Anyone reporting re RDFa?
Ralph: Telecon last week dealing with last minute LC comment which
was resolved
... with editorial changes only. Substance of comment was
uncertainty about the technical
... direction. Clarified language about use of doc type when DTD
validation is considered important
... by the document author.
... Published CR. Now officially in CR. WOuld like to point out that
<Ralph> [35]Pubrules update: XHTML+RDFa permitted as DTD in non-Recs
[35] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2008AprJun/
0113.html
Ralph: pubrules now permit XHTML+RDFa in documents.
... So anything up to CR can use RDFa. Important milestone.
... Have already met the CR. Two interoperable implementations.
... Hoping for more information about implementations. Only thing we
really need to do is
... respond to comments.
Recipes
ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes
implementations] [recorded in
[36]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]
[CONTINUES]
[36] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20
Ralph: Continues until infrastructure is available.
ACTION: Jon and Ralph to publish Recipes as Working Group Note
[recorded in
[37]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/10-swd-minutes.html#action03]
[CONTINUES]
[37] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/10-swd-minutes.html#action03
Ralph: Jon owes me some text.
Diego: Wondering about what Ralph just said about RDFa in W3C
documents. Does this apply to notes?
... Should we add RDFa to our upcoming documents?
Ralph: Excellent question. Ian's message to chairs says "all TR
except for Recommendations".
... so could do this for Notes.
Tom: Essentially taking header information
Ralph: Basic DC metadata.
... Idea why Recommendations are excluded is because any document
that's expected to be
... updated can use RDFa, but Recs are hard to change, so need to
wait until RDFa is Rec.
Diego: W3C has database with RDF data?
Ralph: yes
Diego: is it a good idea to add metadata inside document?
Ralph: Diego -- make a list of interesting metadata that could be
included
Diego: For instance links between current and previous versions
... would be interesting. So could be added as RDFa
Tom: In terms of process, we're proposing to adopt a uniform
approach for all the new technical documents.
... Recipes, new drafts etc.
... Welcome to Daniel Maycock of Boeing.
... What we should probably do is work out what the metadata will
say,
... maybe using recipes as test case, then adopt that approach for
others. Otherwise will
... end up with inconsistency. If we can get this right, then it's
an example we can point to.
... Worth taking a moment to look specifically at content of the
metadata. Can someone take an action to
... make a proposal.
Diego: Considering adding a page to the wiki about using RDFa on W3C
TR.
Tom: Excellent idea. Even if it's just a page that's simple, thought
through, then
... we could even publish it as a Note.
Ralph: No need to go hog wild (!!). DC is a no-brainer. Maybe also
some other
... things, but good to see a list.
ACTION: Diego to propose minimum RDFa metadata set for WG
deliverables. [recorded in
[38]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action16]
Vocabulary Management
No actions, Vit and Elisa not on the call.
<TomB> vit, would you like to report on Vocabulary Management?
<vit> no news from me
Preparation for SKOS Last Call
Ralph: Objective next week is to decide that we have a LC document?
<Ralph> Ralph: regrets from me for 8 July
Ralph: I will not be here for July 8th.
Tom: Not available for July 8, 15, 22. Need to think about how to
schedule further calls.
... How close to LC?
Alistair: What do we need to do?
Ralph: Anything about which we expect substantive comments, if
there's something
... that we're likely to change, would be good to document those
... explicitly in the LC draft, which would then allow us to fic
them.
Alistair: Flag anythin that might change.
Ralph: Things that we anticipate there will be sufficient comment to
make us change our position.
Alistair: e.g namespace. Don't want to chew up lots of time.
Tom: Should we also flag mapping properties as at risk?
... Where would one flag this?
Ralph: Best place to do that would be in the mapping properties
section. "This section
... /part of section are features at risk"
Tom: Do we need to do this in announcement?
Ralph: Announcement would include status. Don't have to enumerate,
but should say if there are some
... at risk features.
Tom: Who will write that announcment?
Ralph: Chairs and team contact
Alistair: Will need some input on which sections or features should
be marked. Please
... email list.
Tom: Two mentioned: namespace and mapping properties. Are there any
others?
Ralph: Suspect that minutes of f2f will show anything controversial.
<Ralph> [39]ISSUE 71 ParallelMappingVocabulary
[39] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/71
Ralph: Recent decisions more likely to be controversial as these
issues have been around a while.
Alistair: Should we err on the side of caution?
Ralph: If we believe it's controversial and new evidence could
persuade us to change our psoition, then yes.
... if it's controversial and we know we won't change our minds,
then no.
Alistair: So w.r.t namespace, what new evidence would make us change
our mind.
Ralph: If all the authors of SKOS documents complained.
... this is primarily a deployment based decision.
Tom: Kind of hoping that won't happen :-)
... inclined to avoid marking too many things as at risk. Looking at
the Washington record would
... be useful
Ralph: e.g. resolution for mapping stated this explciitly.
ACTION: SKOS Reference Editors to specifically flag features at risk
for Last Call. [recorded in
[40]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action17]
meeting adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Antoine to propose that we postpone ISSUE 84.
[recorded in
[41]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action10]
[NEW] ACTION: Diego to propose minimum RDFa metadata set for WG
deliverables. [recorded in
[42]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action16]
[NEW] ACTION: SKOS Reference Editors to specifically flag features
at risk for Last Call. [recorded in
[43]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action17]
[NEW] ACTION: Sean to draft response to comment about namespace.
[recorded in
[44]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action12]
[NEW] ACTION: Sean to post comment to OWL WG re annotation
requirements. [recorded in
[45]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: SKOS Reference Editors to propose a recommended
minimum URI dereference behaviour [recorded in
[46]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-swd-minutes.html#action11]
[PENDING] ACTION: Editors of the Use Cases to clean up the lists of
requirements in light of resolutions [recorded in
[47]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html#action02]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ed to investigate what text could be added to
primer re. concept co-ordination [recorded in
[48]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/22-swd-minutes.html#action02]
[PENDING] ACTION: Alistair to update the history page adding direct
link to latest version of rdf triple [recorded in
[49]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
[50]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action06]
[PENDING] ACTION: Alistair to check the old namespace wrt
dereferencing [recorded in
[51]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action03]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ben to prepare draft implementation report for
RDFa (with assistance from Michael) [recorded in
[52]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14]
[PENDING] ACTION: Guus to mail his position on issues 72, 73 and 75
to the list [recorded in
[53]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/13-swd-minutes.html#action25]
[PENDING] ACTION: Guus to write primer text re: broaderGeneric and
equivalence w/r/t subclass [recorded in
[54]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
[55]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/10-swd-minutes.html#action03]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of
Recipes implementations] [recorded in
[56]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]
[47] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-swd-minutes.html#action02
[48] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/22-swd-minutes.html#action02
[49] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/17-swd-minutes.html#action01
[50] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action06
[51] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action03
[52] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14
[53] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/13-swd-minutes.html#action25
[54] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-swd-minutes.html#action08
[55] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/10-swd-minutes.html#action03
[56] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20
[DONE] ACTION: Sean to write a proposal to indicate to OWL WG our
requirements for annotation properties [recorded in
[57]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action07]
[57] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#action07
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [58]scribe.perl version 1.133
([59]CVS log)
$Date: 2008/06/24 23:15:30 $
[58] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/
scribedoc.htm
[59] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
--
Sean Bechhofer
School of Computer Science
University of Manchester
sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk
http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/bechhofer
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2008 07:48:09 UTC