- From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 12:16:10 -0400
- To: public-swd-wg@w3.org
The minutes of today's SemWeb Deployment Working Group telecon
are ready for review. Thanks to Ed for scribing.
http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html
A text snapshot follows.
----
SWD WG
07 Oct 2008
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0099.html
See also: [3]IRC log, previous [4]2008-09-30
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-irc
[4] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html
Attendees
Present
Tom Baker, Ed Summers, Diego Berrueta, Ralph Swick,
Margherita Sini, Ben Adida, Alistair Miles, Guus Schreiber,
Sean Bechhofer, Jeremy Carroll
Regrets
AntoineIsaac, Jon Phipps, Quentin Reul, Daniel Rubin
Chair
Tom
Scribe
Ed
Contents
* [5]Topics
1. [6]Admin
2. [7]RDFa
3. [8]Recipes
4. [9]RDFa Metadata Note
5. [10]SKOS
* [11]Summary of Action Items
_____________________________________________________
Admin
RESOLUTION: to accept [12]minutes from Sep-30 telecon
[12] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html
TomB: Guus will chair next week's meeting [14 Oct]
RDFa
<Ralph> [13]record of 2-Oct RDFa TF telecon
[13] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/02-rdfa-minutes.html
ACTION: All to remind respective AC Reps to respond to RDFa Proposed
Rec Call for Review [recorded in
[14]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action01] [DONE]
[14] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action01
ACTION: Ben review RDFa Use Cases and propose transition to Group
Note [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02]
[CONTINUES]
[15] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02
<benadida> draft -->
[16]http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20081004/
[16] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20081004/
benadida: wanted to ask about moving to REC
... we've received comments, two required no change to the draft
(typos, clarifications)
... since these are only typos there's no need for additional
review, right Ralph?
Ralph: we can make editorial changes
TomB: is there a formal requirement to also record the editorial
changes?
Guus: yes in the changes section
benadida: yes Shane has done this, and included a diff
Ralph: i've submitted the request for transition, and we'll see when
the necessary parties are available to discuss
... the last deadline for requesting publication is next monday,
before the the tpac meeting
Guus: would be nice to publish the primer as a note at the same time
benadida: we haven't looked at the use cases in a while, and i
wouldn't want to produce inconsistency ... but the primer will be
ready for submission by the end of the week ... minor editorial
changes
Ralph: that sounds like you are making a proposal that the group
transition the Primer to a WG Note
benadida: i didn't realize there was a transition to note, but if so
yes
Guus: what is the most likely date for transition to REC?
Ralph: i would expect a decision at the end of this week
Guus: can we control the day of announcement?
Ralph: yes, but to meet next weeks publishing moratorium we need to
do it before noon on monday
JeremyCarroll: a working draft is a work in progress, unfinished --
a working group note is a statement that the document is adequate
benadida: it's sufficiently completed that it could transition to
Note (the Primer)
Guus: if there are editorial changes nobody is going to object
TomB: are we saying we need to delay?
benadida: i think that most people who read the press release won't
notice ... we can transition Primer later
Ralph: what's your best guess about the changes to the Primer?
benadida: i think that the liklihood of the primer getting a couple
new paragraphs is about 70%
<JeremyCarroll> Jeremy: on RDFa call belief was that there was
enough non-W3C material to play this role
benadida: it's purpose is to get people interested and curious, will
do a couple well focused paragraphs, no more than that
<JeremyCarroll> I suggest we formally approve Primer for WG Note
now, subject to confirmation next week
TomB: should we formulate a proposal to transition the syntax
document to REC? leaving the Primer as a working draft?
... so can we approve the Primer working draft for note now?
<Guus> +1 for Jeremy's proposal
Ralph: i'm comfortable with the proposal to transition the primer to
note now
PROPOSED: the syntax editors use their judgement in correcting typos
in preparation of recommendation version of RDFa Syntax
<Ralph> +1
JeremyCarroll: what about the comment yesterday, regarding the colon
... looks like the sort of thing that could cause implementation
difficulties
<Ralph> [17]RDFa review ... too late, but maybe still helpful for
the group [Axel Polleres 2008-10-06]
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Oct/0075.html
JeremyCarroll: correcting an alignment between some english text and
xml schema definitions ...
TomB: benadida you can take that into account?
benadida: sure, will get mark and shane to take a look
<JeremyCarroll> +1
RESOLUTION: the syntax editors use their judgement in correcting
typos in preparation of recommendation version of RDFa Syntax
<benadida> PROPOSE that RDFa Primer in its last WD state, with some
minor editorial edits at editors' discretion, be transitioned to
Note.
PROPOSED: that the RDFa Primer, with some minor editorial changes at
editors discretion be published as Working Group Note
<Ralph> +1
RESOLUTION: that the RDFa Primer, with some minor editorial changes
at editors discretion be published as Working Group Note
+1
TomB: so where are use cases?
benadida: i wouldn't ask for this sort of discretion on the use
cases ... no decision at this time
TomB: great progress here
Recipes
ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes
implementations] [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]
[CONTINUES]
[18] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20
<Ralph> [19]Re: [Recipes] Open issues in Recipes [Diego 2008-10-04]
[19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0067.html
TomB: there are some open and raised issues that Diego wrote about:
[20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0067.h
tml
[20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0067.html
berrueta: except for 3 or 4 of the issues we can close without too
much discussion
... i think we can close issue-16 through issue-23
TomB: can we give someone an action to record this in tracker?
PROPOSED: resolved issue-16 through issue-23 and issue-58 are closed
as per
[21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0067.h
tml
[21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0067.html
Ralph: are you certain Carl's comments in ISSUE-18 have been
resolved?
berrueta: yes
RESOLUTION: resolved issue-16 through issue-23 and issue-58 are
closed as per
[22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0067.h
tml
[22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0067.html
ACTION: diego to close recipe issues issue-16 through issue-23 and
issue-58 citing email [recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#action04]
RDFa Metadata Note
<berrueta>
[24]http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/AddingRDFaToTR?action=AttachF
ile&do=get&target=tr-metadata-20081002.html
[24] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/AddingRDFaToTR?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=tr-metadata-20081002.html
ACTION: Diego to update "Minimum RDFa metadata set for WG
deliverables" draft in the wiki [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action04] [DONE]
[25] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action04
TomB: is it ready to be reviewed?
berrueta: i think before a formal review, we may want to discuss
some of the points in a telecon
TomB: lets add it to an upcoming telecon, and move on for today
berrueta: ok
SKOS
seanb: didn't we send email asking for feedback a while ago?
... didn't alistair do that?
ACTION: SKOS Reference editors to send mail asking for feedback from
users [recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-swd-minutes.html#action06] [DONE]
[26] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-swd-minutes.html#action06
ACTION: Alistair enter Last Call issues from Erik Hennum's 28 June
mail [recorded in
[27]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action06] [DONE]
[27] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action06
[28]http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=f032cc0
60810061047w443e49b8qeedace3b6d009adc%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=db
pedia-discussion
[28] http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=f032cc060810061047w443e49b8qeedace3b6d009adc%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=dbpedia-discussion
ACTION: Ed to ask dbpedia to send a message in support of SKOS
[recorded in
[29]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action07] [DONE]
[29] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action07
TomB: that leaves us with the long list of issues, many of which we
can just go down the list
seanb: i think a lot of these issues alistair and i can deal with,
there are a couple that would merit some discussion to get people's
input first
TomB: i thought we could quickly go through the easy ones
aliman: maybe we could focus on the trickier ones
TomB: sure, where would you like to start
seanb: issue-175 and issue-153 to do w/ the skos namespace
<aliman> [30]ISSUE-153
[30] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/153
<aliman> [31]ISSUE-175
[31] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/175
seanb: tbl indicated he was not in favor of changing the namespace,
and jeremy also indicated that he would've been opposed to changing
the namespace
JeremyCarroll: implementors using the namespace before REC do so at
their own risk, so generally i would be against changing namespaces,
whatever we do will leave someone unhappy, tbl's comment has more
weight than mine, and if he wants to stick with the old one, lets
stay with the old one
seanb: also a comment from simon about maintaining the old namespace
... there is the caveat that we are changing the semantics
GuusS: given the history of skos i don't agree w/ jeremy's point ...
until a few years ago it wasn't clear this was going to be a REC
track effort
<Ralph> [I agree with Guus' point about the history of SKOS and the
2005 namespace]
GuusS: i have changed my opinion, after reading tim and simon's
comments ... from pragmatic reasons it's more important to keep the
namespace
<aliman> I'm trying to find simon's mail...
[32]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0036.h
tml -> simon's comments
[32] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0036.html
seanb: i would be in favor of keeping the same namespace
aliman: i'm leaning in the same direction
<Ralph> "If you change the semantics at
<Ralph> any point, my tools still work and always give the right
answer
<Ralph> according the published spec, it's up to the user to be
aware of what
<Ralph> the SKOS semantics entail. So for this reason I would be in
favor of
<Ralph> keeping the old namespaces and just changing the semantics.
<Ralph> "
<Ralph> --
[33]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0036.h
tml
[33] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0036.html
TomB: do i correctly understand that retain skos:broader and change
the semantics
Ed: is there any concern about existing uses of skos:subject, etc?
... that these will no longer resolve to anything?
Guus: it's not a real problem; people could still use it
... in OWL the decision was that people could use old terms and the
tool should give a warning
Sean: so no explicit deprecation?
Guus: I prefer not to explicitly deprecate the old terms
Sean: that's my position as well; don't deprecate
Guus: could have a namespace change history in the documentation
GuusS: for historic reasons it would be nice to note when things
changed
TomB: did we ever take a decision to stop resolving the old
documentation ...
Ralph: would you object to using the rdfs:description property to
say in effect, this has been deprecated ... keep it in the namespace
document, was in 2005 but not in standard SKOS?
TomB: we're talking about adding a short section to the Reference
... adding a new section and coming up with a policy for dealing w/
the deprecated terms feels like a fairly substantial change
GuusS: i think an appendix wouldn't be a major change
Ralph: i could see some concerns about removing things from a
namespace document, but I don't know, we could argue that's part of
the same question
TomB: could one of the editors write up this appendix?
seanb: i can do that
<JeremyCarroll> Jeremy: reviewers have been asked specifically about
ns change, if no one spoke up supporting it, thati indicates a lack
of concern about old properties
Ralph: have we resolved to keep the old namespace?
<seanb> +1 for Jeremy's point
GuusS: perhaps the editors could propose the resolution?
seanb: as a mechanism for this, could we propose this as a draft
response to the issue?
GuusS: take the issues you think are significant, and address them
together, and propose a solution
<Ralph> [34]6-May F2F discussion of the namespace
[34] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#skosnamespace
ACTION: sean to propose resolutions to outstanding issues, bundling
editorial issues where necessary [recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#action09]
TomB: are there any other issues we can pick off?
seanb: there was [36]ISSUE-135 which relates to labeling properties
[36] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/135
<JeremyCarroll> (yes please)
seanb: implementors are keen to have this relationship with
rdfs:label
... a while ago i looked through the mailing list and couldn't find
a whole lot, found one frmo tbl about tabulator, but was wondering
if we could get something clearer from implementors
<JeremyCarroll> I'll ask Holger
GuusS: you could a message from me or one of my people
<JeremyCarroll> and me
ACTION: Guus and Jeremy to give concrete implementation examples of
the use of rdfs:label w/ SKOS [recorded in
[37]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#action10]
<JeremyCarroll> (thanks)
GuusS: there are good reasons for keeping it
aliman: this is also higlighted in his analysis ... don't know if
this is a problem that will go away with owl2
TomB: we've reached the top of the hour
GuusS: sean, alistair i'll be around for another 10 minutes to
discuss other issues
<Ralph> [adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Diego to close recipe issues issue-16 through issue-23
and issue-58 citing email [recorded in
[38]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Guus and Jeremy to give concrete implementation
examples of the use of rdfs:label w/ SKOS [recorded in
[39]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#action10]
[NEW] ACTION: Sean to propose resolutions to outstanding issues,
bundling editorial issues where necessary [recorded in
[40]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#action09]
[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: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of
Recipes implementations] [recorded in
[42]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/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20
[DONE] ACTION: Alistair enter Last Call issues from Erik Hennum's 28
June mail [recorded in
[43]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action06]
[DONE] ACTION: All to remind respective AC Reps to respond to RDFa
Proposed Rec Call for Review [recorded in
[44]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action01]
[DONE] ACTION: Diego to update "Minimum RDFa metadata set for WG
deliverables" draft in the wiki [recorded in
[45]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action04]
[DONE] ACTION: Ed to ask dbpedia to send a message in support of
SKOS [recorded in
[46]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action07]
[DONE] ACTION: SKOS Reference editors to send mail asking for
feedback from users [recorded in
[47]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-swd-minutes.html#action06]
[43] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action06
[44] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action01
[45] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action04
[46] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action07
[47] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-swd-minutes.html#action06
[End of minutes]
_____________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [48]scribe.perl version 1.133
([49]CVS log)
$Date: 2008/10/07 16:14:35 $
[48] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[49] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2008 16:17:19 UTC