- From: Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>
- Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 10:03:17 -0800
- To: "SWD Working Group" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
The record of this week's SWD telecon [1] is ready for review. The
text version is below.
[1] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-swd-minutes.html
//Ed
----------------------------------
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
SWD WG
26 Feb 2008
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0101.html
See also: [3]IRC log, [4]previous 2008-02-19
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-swd-irc
[4] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/19-swd-minutes.html
Attendees
Present
Ed Summers, Diego Berrueta, Guus Schreiber, Ralph Swick,
Alistair Miles, Clay Redding, Simone Onofri, Vit Novacek,
Daniel Rubin, Margherita Sini, Ben Adida, Elisa Kendall
Regrets
Sean Bechhofer, Antoine Isaac, Quentin Reul, Jon Phipps,
Michael Hausenblas, Tom Baker
Chair
Guus
Scribe
Ed
Contents
* [5]Topics
1. [6]Admin
2. [7]RDFa
3. [8]SKOS
4. [9]Recipes
5. [10]Vocabulary Management
* [11]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Admin
RESOLUTION: to accept [12]minutes of the Feb 19 telecon
[12] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/19-swd-minutes.html
Guus: briefly discuss Face-to-face meeting, day and a half, in
Amsterdam?
... have we made update of charter schedule?
Ralph: we have not yet
... I assume we will ask for charter extension
Guus: charter expires on 1st of April?
Ralph: first or last? ... [checks] ... Our charter expires April 30
Guus: we could have a proposed recommendation for RDFa within the
charter period
Guus: after the charter period i expect minimal work on RDFa
benadida: yes, i think that's a fair statement
Guus: is it realistic to assume by the end of april we will have an
implementation report ready?
benadida: yes, we have 2 priorities: one is IR and the other is
updating the rdfa Primer
Guus: the purpose of the recipes is to publish as a Note
... diego, what is a realistic time for the recipes publication?
diego: in a few weeks we can have a new draft, i don't know what the
schedule is for publishing a w3c note, we need 2 or 3 weeks to make
changes in the current draft
Guus: realistic to shoot for 1st of May?
diego: new draft by the end of march
Ralph: note basically means we don't plan on publishing another
version
diego: no problem to have a note by 1st of May then
Guus: vit: how about the vocabulary management document?
vit: we are requesting feedback on the Vocabulary Management doc
... i cannot estimate how long it will take at this point
Elisa: we have a decent editors draft, which just needs some polish
...waiting on input from a couple of people...
...i think we can publish by the second week of march for internal
review
... beyond that i don't know what it takes to get to working draft
status
Guus: usually publish a working draft first, and then go for note
status -- which is the end point
<Ralph> I see 7 @@TODOs in the [13]4-Feb Vocab Management editors'
draft ]
[13] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/Vocab/principles-20080204
Guus: if we can have a document for review in march, we can publish
as working draft by end of march, and then take the month of april
to get feedback on it, and then publish as note in the beginning of
may
Elisa: i have asked for comments from Tom, Alistair and Ralph for
specific comments and feedback, if I can get that I think we're at a
point where it could be a working draft
Guus: having draft available for internal review shouldn't be later
than middle of march
Elisa: anyone who wants to take a look now is more than welcome
Guus: would like to shoot for first of June as last call for SKOS
documents
... is that a reasonable schedule?
aliman: is it reasonable to think we could publish another draft?
... i think first of june as last call for working draft, would
leave us two months, i think that's a good target
Guus: we can extend a bit, but not too much
... my proposal will be to ask for extension to do skos work to 1st
of July, and then normal schedule to rec
<aliman> sounds ok to me
Guus: will include bring rdfa from proposed rec to rec
Ralph: i can't judge how much the technical work will be, but it
sounds like a plausible proposal to me
... i'm comfortable asking for the extension
... focusing on last remaining big deliverable
<scribe> ACTION: Chairs to draft charter extension proposal for SKOS
until July 1st [recorded in
[14]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-swd-minutes.html#action01]
RDFa
<Ralph> Ben++ for updating RDFa issue tracker quickly :)
benadida: starting to get feedback, going to keep track of comments
in tracker, to make a nice review
... i really want to thank reviewers
Ralph: we should make a schedule for the Primer
benadida: yes
SKOS
Guus: SKOS primer has been published
<Ralph> [15]Announcment text for Request for Comments: SKOS Primer
[Antoine 2008-02-21]
[15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0100.html
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph to publish Feb 12th version of SKOS primer as
working draft [recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action05] [DONE]
[16] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action05
Guus: how are we doing w/ comments to SKOS reference?
aliman: haven't had a chance to review comments in the last week, I
have set up a [17]wiki page to capture all the comments
[17] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosReference20080125
<scribe> ACTION: Sean to propose a way to handle deprecated
properties (updating RDF schema) [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action06]
[CONTINUES]
[18] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action06
<scribe> ACTION: Alistair to propose an approach to clarify which
aspects of the extension module should be in scope for the candidate
recommendation package. [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action09]
[CONTINUES]
[19] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action09
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph to check whether the common interpretation of
rdfs isDefinedBy fits the reasoning that was made in
[20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Oct/0141.h
tml [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action10]
[CONTINUES]
[20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Oct/0141.html
[21] http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action10
<aliman> [22]comments on SKOS reference
[22] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosReference20080125
aliman: i think the text on concept schemes and owl ontologies looks
ok
Guus: i think we need to go on record
<scribe> ACTION: Alistair and Guus to check the text in the primer
on relationship between Concept Schemes and OWL Ontologies.
[recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action13]
[CONTINUES]
[23] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action13
<scribe> ACTION: Antoine to close ISSUE 54 in tracker with links to
resolution [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/19-swd-minutes.html#action15] [DONE]
[24] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/19-swd-minutes.html#action15
-> [25]ISSUE--54 closed, ISSUE-80 opened [22]
[25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0098.html
[22] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosReference20080125
Guus: is it still open?
Ralph: closed now
Guus: issue 40, concept coordination?
aliman: will be working on that in the next couple of weeks
<scribe> ACTION: Alistair to make a proposal for Issue 40 (Concept
Coordination) [recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action09]
[CONTINUES]
[26] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action09
Guus: issues 71 and 74
aliman: we opened them last week, and Antoine has sent emails making
proposals for each
-> [27]on ISSUE-71 and ISSUE-74 [21]
[27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0095.html
[21] http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action10
Guus: why don't we mention skos:exactMatch?
aliman: there isn't a parallel
... if you look at OWL, it does not have any duplicate properties
... if we are going to have parallel vocabularies we should detail
why we need it
... i tried to restate Antoine's position, it seems like there are
lots of general statements, and that the proposal depends on people
doing things a particular way, there are more questions to answer
for why we need the two types of relationships
... in practice you have to manage your graphs, and their provenance
Guus: is there a logical semantic relationship between them?
aliman: like equivalent properties?
Guus: equivalent would be strange
aliman: we need to clarify usage conventions
Guus: asking if broaderMatch as a subproperty of broader might make
sense
<Ralph> [I like Guus' proposal skos:broadMatch rdfs:subPropertyOf
skos:broader]
marghe: i think broadMatch between concepts that belong to different
schemes is ok, to keep them separate
... there is a kind of semantic relation between the parallel
vocabularies, somehow they mean the same things
Guus: i'm going to make an add on proposal to Antoine's proposal
marghe: i'm not sure if they are subproperties
Guus: defining something as subPropertyOf does not exclude the case
that the two properties have the same extension
marghe: if broaderMatch is a subproperty of broader it's a
specialization, but i'm not sure we are specializing
Guus: seems like an issue that would be good for the list
aliman: if your email could include usage conventions i think that
would help
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to add to Antoine's proposal for issue 71, a
proposal for semantic relations between match relations and standard
relations [recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-swd-minutes.html#action02]
Guus: aliman how are we doing with your issue priorities list, do we
need to take actions
aliman: we openened 71 and 74, it would be good if we could open a
couple more
... if we could open indexing relation issues, and notations that
might be a good thing to do at this stage
Guus: for me the thorniest issue is ISSUE-37, SkosSpecialization
<Ralph> [29]issue 37; SkosSpecialization
[29] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/37
aliman: the easy way out of that would be to consider that out of
scope
<Ralph> [30][SKOS] Issues Review [21]
[30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0096.html
[21] http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action10
Guus: i propose we open ISSUE-37 and ISSUE-67
<Ralph> [31]issue 67; StatingFormalDefinitions
[31] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/67
Guus: i will be happy to be owner of 37, and alistair could you own
67?
aliman: could i propose we open indexingrelationship ?
Guus: needs someone to issue a proposal
<Ralph> [32]issue 48; IndexingRelationship
[32] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/48
Guus: if it doesn't do any particular harm, we could leave it in,
it's kind of a weird animal in the skos language, but i don't think
it does any harm
... happy to leave issue 48 in a raised state
... issue-48
... what about SKOS-OWL patterns?
<Ralph> [33]issue 80; SKOS-OWL-Patterns
[33] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/80
Guus: lets leave things for the moment, and review next week
... would it be good to have a mtg in the beginning of may to talk
about remaining issues
... a day and a 1/2 to get things ready for last call draft
... May 8-9 (Thurs, Fri)
Ralph: i have conflict May 7-9
marghe: if it is may 5 i can also join
<Simone> I've conflict for 6 and 8 May
Ralph: i could join first 1/2 of each day remotely if the meeting is
in Amsterdam
Guus: critical for document editors to be there
aliman: free for me at the moment
edsu: i am free
dlrubin: need to look at calendar
Guus: sean and antoine are not here ...
... will come back to this next week
Ralph: i could do the following week
Recipes
Ralph: i think we've take care of resolution to issue-16, but
wordnet implementation is waiting on a database decision at w3c
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph propose resolution to ISSUE-16 "Default
behavior" [recorded in
[34]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14]
[CONTINUES]
[34] http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of
Recipes implementations] [recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]
[CONTINUES]
[35] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20
Vocabulary Management
Elisa: cleaning up validator bugs
-> [36]Editor's Draft 04 February 2008
[36] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/Vocab/principles-20080204
Guus: meeting adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Chairs to draft charter extension proposal for SKOS
until July 1st [recorded in
[37]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-swd-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Guus to add to Antoine's proposal for issue 71, a
proposal for semantic relations between match relations and standard
relations [recorded in
[38]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-swd-minutes.html#action02]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ralph to check whether the common interpretation
of rdfs isDefinedBy fits the reasoning that was made in
[39]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Oct/0141.h
tml [recorded in
[40]http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action10]
[PENDING] ACTION: Alistair and Guus to check the text in the primer
on relationship between Concept Schemes and OWL Ontologies.
[recorded in
[41]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action13]
[PENDING] ACTION: Alistair to make a proposal for Issue 40 (Concept
Coordination) [recorded in
[42]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action09]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ben to prepare draft implementation report for
RDFa (with assistance from Michael) [recorded in [recorded in
[recorded in
[43]http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html#action03]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ralph propose resolution to ISSUE-16 "Default
behavior" [recorded in
[44]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of
Recipes implementations] [recorded in
[45]http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html#action03]
[PENDING] ACTION: Sean to propose a way to handle deprecated
properties (updating RDF schema) [recorded in
[46]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action06]
[PENDING] ACTION: Alistair to propose an approach to clarify which
aspects of the extension module should be in scope for the candidate
recommendation package. [recorded in
[47]http://www.w3.org/2007/12/11-swd-minutes.html#action06]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ralph to check whether the common interpretation
of rdfs isDefinedBy fits the reasoning that was made in
[48]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Oct/0141.h
tml [recorded in
[49]http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action10]
[39] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Oct/0141.html
[40] http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action10
[41] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action13
[42] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action09
[43] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html#action03
[44] http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14
[45] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-swd-minutes.html#action03
[46] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action06
[47] http://www.w3.org/2007/12/11-swd-minutes.html#action06
[48] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Oct/0141.html
[49] http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action10
[DONE] ACTION: Antoine to close ISSUE 54 in tracker with links to
resolution [recorded in
[50]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/19-swd-minutes.html#action15]
[DONE] ACTION: Chairs to put schedule review on agenda [recorded in
[51]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action24]
[DONE] ACTION: Ralph to publish Feb 12th version of SKOS primer as
working draft [recorded in
[52]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action05]
[DONE] ACTION: Ralph to publish rdfa syntax as last call WD
[recorded in
[53]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/19-swd-minutes.html#action05]
[50] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/19-swd-minutes.html#action15
[51] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action24
[52] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action05
[53] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/19-swd-minutes.html#action05
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [54]scribe.perl version 1.133
([55]CVS log)
$Date: 2008/02/27 15:24:14 $
[54] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[55] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Saturday, 1 March 2008 18:03:27 UTC