- From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:13:36 -0500
- 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.
http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-minutes.html
A text snapshot follows.
----
SWD WG
18 Nov 2008
[2]Agenda
[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
Attendees
Present
Tom Baker, Ralph Swick, Ed Summers, Guus Schreiber,
Margherita Sini, Ben Adida, Antoine Isaac, Alistair Miles,
Sean Bechhofer, Diego Berrueta
Regrets
Chair
Tom
Scribe
Ed
Contents
* Topics
1. Admin
2. RDFa
3. Recipes
4. RDFa Metadata Note
5. SKOS
* Summary of Action Items
_____________________________________________________
Admin
RESOLVED to accept minutes of the late telecon
[12]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-swd-minutes.html
[12] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-swd-minutes.html
RDFa
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]
[CONTINUES]
[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
[14] http://groups.drupal.org/node/16597
Recipes
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.h
tml
[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
weeks
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.ht
ml
[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
[18]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-minutes.html#action02]
ACTION: Guus to look at OWL documents for review [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10]
[CONTINUES]
[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 is
[20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa/2008Nov/0004.htm
l ]
[20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa/2008Nov/0004.html
SKOS
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]
[CONTINUES]
[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
rdfs:label
... 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
[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
[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/
[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
classification...
<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
ontology
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
<owl:DatatypeProperty
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
schema
Guus: minimal amount of owl reasoning
... it would perfectly fine to add the rdf triples, can only be a
gain
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
[32]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-minutes.html#action06]
<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
[33]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-minutes.html#action07]
<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.h
tml
[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.h
tml
[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
issue
[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
[38]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Sean to add rdf:type and rdf:Property assertions to
the skos schema [recorded in
[39]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-minutes.html#action07]
[NEW] ACTION: Sean to propose a resolution to ISSUE-135 [recorded in
[40]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-minutes.html#action06]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ben review RDFa Use Cases and propose transition
to Group Note [recorded in
[41]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02]
[PENDING] ACTION: Guus and Jeremy to give concrete implementation
examples of the use of rdfs:label w/ SKOS [recorded in
[42]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#action10]
[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
[44]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]
[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]
[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