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

meeting record: 2008-11-18 SWD WG telecon

From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:13:36 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: public-swd-wg@w3.org

The minutes of today's Semantic Web Deployment Working Group telecon
 are ready for review.  Thanks, Ed, for scribing this meeting.


A text snapshot follows.


                                SWD WG

18 Nov 2008


      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0073.html

   See also: [3]IRC log, previous [4]2008-11-04

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-irc
      [4] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-swd-minutes.html


          Tom Baker, Ralph Swick, Ed Summers, Guus Schreiber,
          Margherita Sini, Ben Adida, Antoine Isaac, Alistair Miles,
          Sean Bechhofer, Diego Berrueta




     * Topics
         1. Admin
         2. RDFa
         3. Recipes
         4. RDFa Metadata Note
         5. SKOS
     * Summary of Action Items


   RESOLVED to accept minutes of the late telecon

     [12] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-swd-minutes.html


   ACTION: Ben review RDFa Use Cases and propose transition to Group
   Note [recorded in

     [13] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02

   benadida: we're continuing on a bi-weekly basis -- life after rec
   ... the folks at drupal the cms, have prepared a timeline for rdfa
   in drupal


     [14] http://groups.drupal.org/node/16597


   TomB: you have proposed some resolutions to remaining issues?

   <Ralph> [15][Recipes] proposed resolution for remaining issues

     [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0003.html

   Diego: should we go through them one by one?

   TomB: i don't think so, unless there is discussion

   Ralph: i concur with all 4 proposals

   TomB: would anyone like to discuss?

   RESOLVED to postpone issues 24, 30 and 98 and close 60 as per

     [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0003.html

RDFa Metadata Note

   Diego: might be helpful to get other people in the working group
   looking at it, not sure if the timing is right ... would like to
   discuss the document at some point

   TomB: i agree we would need to assign reviewers to move this towards
   note status, but right now we have our hands full w/ skos
   ... lets move on with skos for now, and come back to it in a few

   seanb: is it right we can't add RDFa to REC documents?

   Ralph: that is currently the state, pubrules don't allow it, i can
   revisit that

   seanb: aliman and i discussed this, i figure it wouldn't take long
   to put this in our SKOS Reference, and i think it would send the
   right message
   ... would be willing to fold it in

   Ralph: would be wonderful

   TomB: Ralph could you check on the rdfa usage in the pubrules? is
   that within the scope of this working group?

   Ralph: i can take an action for that

   seanb: i tried to do this with my docs, and i had html entities
   which caused some problems with the rdfa dtd

   Diego: is this for existing html entities? I haven't seen it

   Ralph: i remember danbri saying he used numeric entities ...


     [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2008Nov/0151.html

   ACTION: Ralph to report on use of RDFa metadata in Recommendations.
   [recorded in

   ACTION: Guus to look at OWL documents for review [recorded in

     [19] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10

   <Ralph> [for Sean; the message from DanBri that mentioned using
   numeric entity rather than &nbsp; is
   l ]

     [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa/2008Nov/0004.html


   TomB: lets start with the actions, and go back to discussion

   ACTION: Guus and Jeremy to give concrete implementation examples of
   the use of rdfs:label w/ SKOS [recorded in

     [21] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#action10

   ACTION: Guus to propose answer for issue 186 [recorded in
   [22]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action02] [DONE]

     [22] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action02

   <Ralph> [23]ISSUE 186 - draft response [Guus]

     [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0079.html

   TomB: ok lets start with ISSUE-135

   <Ralph> [24]issue 135; rdfs:label

     [24] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/135

   seanb: this is concerneing the subproperty relationship with
   ... and whether pushing out of owl DL is a good idea
   ... we already have things outside of owl DL so this isn't the issue
   ... one way of tackling this would be to assert that they are
   annotation properties
   ... might be easier to migrate to owl2
   ... i think of the labling properties as annotation properties, i'm
   not clear if this would constitute a substantial change, would be
   interested in what alistair and others have to say

   Guus: rdfs:label is currently an annotation property?

   <Ralph> [25]OWL Annnotations

     [25] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#Annotations

   seanb: pretty sure

   Guus: i can't see a real reason against it

   Antoine: would it have consequences with what we say about the range
   of the property?

   <Ralph> "The sets of object properties, datatype properties,
   annotation properties and ontology properties must be mutually
   disjoint. Thus, in OWL DL dc:creator cannot be at the same time a
   datatype property and an annotation property." --

     [26] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#Annotations

   <Ralph> "The object of an annotation property must be either a data
   literal, a URI reference, or an individual." --

     [27] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#Annotations

   seanb: i believe that one can specify ranges of annotation
   properties in owl2

   Guus: it only makes sense if we can specify value restrictions,
   cardinality and sub-properties

   seanb: as i understood it we would be able to range/domain and
   sub-properties -- not sure about cardinality

   Guus: the non-owl user will ignore this anyway

   Ralph: i think it's pretty useful to have subproperty of
   relationship there, i think it doesn't make sense to have it any
   other way

   seanb: i imagine most applications will be using sub-property anyway
   to get the behavior that they want

   aliman: i don't know what's happening w/ owl2 --- just heard bits
   and pieces about annotations

   seanb: i'm hearing that this is a potential solution to this issue

   Guus: i support it

   Ralph: +1

   aliman: abstain

   <aliman> In [28]http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/#Annotations I see
   nothing about annotation property axioms...

     [28] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/#Annotations

   Guus: your question is then 'does this change our design' ... i
   consider it a small refinement

   <aliman> specifically ..

     [29] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-owl2-syntax-20081008/

   Ralph: any implementation that was conformant is still conformant
   ... we've done due diligence to adding this to our issues list

   seanb: we would be removing the assertion that it's a datatype
   property, and adding the new assertion

   Guus: we can just say this was an error, and correct the error

   seanb: are you happy with that alistair?

   aliman: i don't know

   TomB: if it's a small refinement that's ok -- but could it be
   arguedthat this is a substantial change?

   seanb: i'm uncomfortable with labeling it as an error ... it seemed
   like a more appropriate way of typing the property

   TomB: if i can ask simple question, why is this not an rdf:property?
   ... an alternative would be just to remove the datatype assertion

   aliman: i never had a strong preference one way or the other ... but
   others do rely on it

   Guus: if owl people can add the triple we are fine
   ... if we remove the owl:datatype statement we are fine
   ... a less commmitting resolution

   <Ralph> [30]skos:*Label Class & Property Definitions

     [30] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#L1329

   seanb: but why don't we do that with *everything* ?

   <aliman> From SKOS Reference:

   <aliman> """

   <aliman> We can, therefore, use OWL to construct a data model for
   representing thesauri or classification schemes "as-is". This is
   exactly what SKOS does. Taking this approach, the "concepts" of a
   thesaurus or classification scheme are modeled as individuals in the
   SKOS data model, and the informal descriptions about and links
   between those "concepts" as given by the thesaurus or

   <aliman> ...scheme are modeled as facts about those individuals,
   never as class or property axioms. Note that these "facts" are facts
   about the thesaurus or classification scheme itself, such as
   "concept X has preferred label 'Y' and is part of thesaurus Z;

   <aliman> """

   Ralph: seems we only used this with notations

   aliman: early on we made a decision that skos would be an owl full

   Guus: maybe we should separate the issues? i don't think use of
   annotation properties would change the design

   seanb: it does open the can of worms: should perhaps other
   properties in skos be annotation properties

   <Ralph> [our RDF does in fact only explicitly state
   rdf:about="[31]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/skos#altLabel" />

     [31] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/skos#altLabel

   aliman: if you are dealing with individuals in a KOS you don't even
   need annotation properties ... the only use cases where you need
   annotations are when you start taking bits and pieces of skos and
   using them elsewhere

   TomB: maybe we can take a decision on the next call, I would rather
   we not rush into this ... get a proposed resolution up on the list

   Guus: are there other cases where skos properties where they are
   subproperties of owl annotation properties?

   seanb: no

   TomB: it would be good to have this proposal in writing, and to make
   clear it doesn't change conformance
   ... that we can consider in the next call

   Ralph: we have declared everything in reference to owl, and not rdf
   -- so it requires owl reasoning ...

   seanb: well it requires knowledge of the relationshiops to the owl

   Guus: minimal amount of owl reasoning
   ... it would perfectly fine to add the rdf triples, can only be a

   Ralph: if you have RDFS reasoning and have the OWL schema loaded
   you'll be in good shape -- would be good enough

   <aliman> fine with me to add p rdf:type rdf:Property assertion to
   schema for all property p in SKOS vocabulary

   ACTION: Sean to propose a resolution to ISSUE-135 [recorded in

   <Ralph> +1 to meeting next week to close issues

   ACTION: Sean to add rdf:type and rdf:Property assertions to the skos
   schema [recorded in

   <aliman> +1 to meet next week

   RESOLVED to meet on November 25th

   seanb: issue-147


     [34] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0064.html

   aliman, Antoine, Guus : support

   RESOLVED close issue #147 per

     [35] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0064.html

   <Ralph> [36]issue 147; Notations as plain literals

     [36] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/147

   seanb: can anyone look at the [37]current version of the reference
   where i stuck in some text as an appendix about the namespace change

     [37] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20081001/

   seanb: it's the latest working version

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Ralph to report on use of RDFa metadata in
   Recommendations. [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Sean to add rdf:type and rdf:Property assertions to
   the skos schema [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Sean to propose a resolution to ISSUE-135 [recorded in

   [PENDING] ACTION: Ben review RDFa Use Cases and propose transition
   to Group Note [recorded in
   [PENDING] ACTION: Guus and Jeremy to give concrete implementation
   examples of the use of rdfs:label w/ SKOS [recorded in
   [PENDING] ACTION: Guus to look at OWL documents for review [recorded
   in [43]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of
   Recipes implementations] [recorded in

     [41] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02
     [42] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#action10
     [43] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10
     [44] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20

   [DONE] ACTION: Guus to propose answer for issue 186 [recorded in

     [45] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action02

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [46]scribe.perl version 1.133
    ([47]CVS log)
    $Date: 2008/11/18 18:11:45 $

     [46] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [47] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2008 18:13:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:54 UTC