- From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:29:03 -0400
- To: public-swd-wg@w3.org
The minutes of today's meeting are now available:
http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html
A text snapshot follows.
----
SemWeb Deployment WG
30 Sep 2008
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0049.html
See also: [3]IRC log, previous [4]2008-09-16
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-irc
[4] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/16-swd-minutes.html
Attendees
Present
Tom Baker, Ralph Swick, Guus Schreiber, Diego Beruetta, Ed
Summers, Jon Phipps, Margherita Sini, Daniel Rubin, Sean
Bechhofer, Alistair Miles, Antoine Isaac, Ben Adida, Jeremy
Carroll
Regrets
Elisa Kendall, Simone Onofri
Chair
Guus
Scribe
Ralph
Contents
* Topics
1. Admin
2. RDFa
3. Recipes
4. RDFa Metadata Note
5. CURIE
6. Vocabulary Management
7. SKOS
* Summary of Action Items
_____________________________________________________
Admin
Guus: schedule for future telecons?
Tom: haven't created a proposal yet
<TomB> +1 for 7 October next call
RESOLUTION: next telecon 7 October
scribe: Tom to chair, Ed to scribe
Jon: I'm at risk for 7 Oct
Antone: regrets for 7 Oct
PROPOSED: accept [14]16-swd-minutes as minutes of previous meeting
[14] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/16-swd-minutes.html
Sean: I'd indicated my regrets for 16 Sep
RESOLUTION: [15]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/16-swd-minutes.html
accepted as minutes of previous meeting, amended to show Sean's
regrets
[15] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/16-swd-minutes.html
RDFa
Ben: no specific update; we have to schedule the last step
... only minor comments received during PR; some typos
... I need to tweak the Primer
... we've had positive comments on the Primer but some recent
comments say there's not enough in it
... we want to have an updated version to publish with the REC
Ralph: It's important that WG members get their AC reps to respond
to the Call for Reviwe
ACTION: All to remind respective AC Reps to respond to RDFa Proposed
Rec Call for Review [recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action01]
Guus: schedule also says we'll publish RDFa Use Cases as WG Note
Ben: yep, we should see if it needs any updates
ACTION: Ben review RDFa Use Cases and propose transition to Group
Note [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02]
Recipes
Guus: I think we're done here
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation
[of Recipes implementations] [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]
[18] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20
RDFa Metadata Note
Guus: was this discussed at the previous telecon?
Diego: there's a new version in the Wiki
... but I haven't yet discussed this draft with Ed
... hope to discuss with Ed in the next few days and then have a
version for the WG
ACTION: Diego updates "Minimum RDFa metadata set for WG
deliverables" draft in the wiki [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action04]
Ed: I read the previous draft and found a few minor things, would
like to talk about this in a telecon; in particular, talk about the
various vocabularies to use
Diego: I propose that Ed and I talk about it during the week and we
put it on the agenda for 7 October
CURIE
ACTION: [DONE] Jeremy to send a review to XHTML2 with comments
[recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/16-swd-minutes.html#action06]
[20] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/16-swd-minutes.html#action06
-> "[21]CURIE review from SWD WG" [22]
[21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0042.html
[22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0014.html
Vocabulary Management
Guus: no status change
SKOS
Alistair: [reviews comments received]
... comment about disjointness of ConceptScheme and Concept
... hasTopConcept v. hasTopConceptOf
... mappings
<aliman> [22]public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0014
[22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0014.html
<aliman> [23]public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0015
[23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0015.html
-> [24]Last Call Comment: S9 skos:ConceptScheme is disjoint with
skos:Concept [issue 129]
[24] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/129
<aliman> [25]public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0026
[25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0026.html
-> [26]Last Call Comment: skos:hasTopConcept and skos:topConceptOf
[issue 130]
[26] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/130
<aliman> [27]wiki/SKOS/LastCall#preview
[27] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/LastCall#preview
Alistair: I've linked all these messages from [28]LastCall#preview
[28] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/LastCall#preview
<aliman> [29]public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0037
[29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0037.html
Alistair: Quentin spotted an error in an example
<aliman> [30]public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0044
[30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0044.html
<aliman> [31]public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0055
[31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0055.html
Alistair: several comments from Michael Schneider, I broke out into
separate issues
-> [32]SKOS Issues Raised
[32] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/raised
<aliman> 5 external last call comments
Sean: I expect a comment from Peter Patel-Schneider about some of
the OWL
<Ralph> Alistair++ for entering these into tracker
Antoine: I found another, from 28 June; from Erik Hennum of IBM
Alistair: I was wondering whether this should be entered as if it
were a Last Call comment
Ralph, Guus: yes, we should include Eric's message among Last Call
comments
Alistair: I'll generate issues for it
Guus: I don't see many comments from the thesaurus or representation
fields
... should we extend Last Call to get more comments?
Ralph: is the esw-thes list sufficiently represented? Could we get
more expressions of support?
Alistair: we could definitely get more expressions of support
Ralph: that would be helpful
Guus: do we have input on our features at risk?
Alistair: yes, in particular from Kjetl
ACTION: Alistair enter Last Call issues from Erik Hennum's 28 June
mail [recorded in
[33]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action06]
Sean: we've had no comments about the namespace
-> "[34]SKOS comment" [27]
[34] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jun/0103.html
[27] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/LastCall#preview
Margherita: I have not yet had time to update [my work] with the
latest SKOS
... I might ask folk in the Fisheries Department; they have a
glossary and other resources
Guus: I'll ask some folk here to comment
Ed: Clay and I are the primary Library of Congress folk working with
SKOS right now
... I might be able to get a general note of support but unlikely to
get specific comments on the namespace
Ralph: it would be good to get a consensus from esw-thes on the
namespace question
Alistair: I can ask that list explicitly; I've just sent a reminder
Guus: I am worried that we don't have enough input on the features
at risk
Ralph: right, folks who like what we've proposed may feel they don't
need to comment but the opposite is true
Jon: Ed and I have presented SKOS at CAUSE conferences, including
noting the features at risk
... there have been no objections
Guus: it would be helpful to send a mail with that
<Zakim> TomB, you wanted to suggest to Ed that a note of support and
interest from someone at LC, even just a one-liner, would be helpful
Ed: ok, but not from me or Clay, right?
Tom: right; better from Barbara
Ed: dbpedia uses SKOS quite heavily in their datastore; has anyone
approached them?
ACTION: Ed ask dbpedia to send a message in support of SKOS
[recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action07]
Ed: I could also contact the Department of Agriculture Library
Guus: should we formally extend Last Call or just accept comments
until 14 October?
Ralph: I'm happy either way
Guus: most WGs accept comments even if they arrive late
<JeremyCarroll> (There is no option to reject late comments .... but
one can take the lateness into account)
Guus: Alistair; what, in your opinion, are the major comments
Alistair: issue 129; [36]ConceptScheme and Concept
[36] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/129
Sean: issue 135; [37]should the label properties be subClassOf
rdfs:Label
... Michael Schneider suggests that the label properties *not* be
sub properties of rdfs:label
... I recall a related comment from Bernard Vatant
... some tools want the subPropertyOf so they can pull the labels
out easily
[37] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/135
<JeremyCarroll> (as a tool builder I am keen for all label props to
be subPropertyOf rdfs:Label)
Guus: [my group] depends on subPropertyOf a lot; we don't have to
adapt our software that looks for rdfs:label
Alistair: there might be a different way to do this in OWL2 than
what we currently use
... Alan Ruttenburg sent mail recently that might be relevant
<aliman> [38]Alan Ruttenberg links to OWL 2 annotations proposal
[38] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2008Sep/0024.html
<aliman> [39]OWL 2 Syntax -- Annotations
[39] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#Annotations
ACTION: [DONE] SKOS Reference editors to send mail asking for
feedback from users [recorded in
[40]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-swd-minutes.html#action06]
[40] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-swd-minutes.html#action06
ACTION: [DONE] Sean to add a request for implementations to the mail
asking for feedback [recorded in
[41]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-swd-minutes.html#action07]
[41] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-swd-minutes.html#action07
ACTION: Alistair to update the history page adding direct link to
latest version of rdf triple [recorded in
[42]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/17-swd-minutes.html#action01]
[CONTINUES]
[42] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/17-swd-minutes.html#action01
<aliman> sorry for no progress on that
Guus: it would be nice to show implementations
... every vocabulary owner who uses SKOS to produce a compliant
thesaurus should be considered an implementation
... we should find some example thesaurii that use features from our
spec
... finding one or two such vocabularies for each feature would make
a nice implementation report
... showing some vocabularies that use the label features would be
good
Jon: what's the timeframe for implementation responses?
Guus: during Candidate Rec phase, which is typically 4-6 weeks
Ralph: We can propose what our own Candidate Rec exit criteria are.
Traditionally, two independent implementations. Traditionally,
candidate rec lasts as long as it takes to get implementations.
Jeremy: recently most groups have been very close to meeting their
CR exit criteria before they enter CR
Jon: We have 100+ vocabularies in the registries. Have been avoiding
switching over these vocabularies to new namespace because may be
messy.
Jon: I may be able to submit some examples but it will take a while
Antoine: do the implementations have to be publicly available?
Ralph: we can accept an email message from an implementor describing
their experiences, without making the code public
Jeremy: that mail can even go to a Member- or Team-confidential list
:)
[adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] 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]
[NEW] 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]
[NEW] ACTION: Ben review RDFa Use Cases and propose transition to
Group Note [recorded in
[45]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Diego updates "Minimum RDFa metadata set for WG
deliverables" draft in the wiki [recorded in
[46]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Ed ask dbpedia to send a message in support of SKOS
[recorded in
[47]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action07]
[PENDING] ACTION: Alistair to update the history page adding direct
link to latest version of rdf triple [recorded in
[48]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/17-swd-minutes.html#action01]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of
Recipes implementations] [recorded in
[49]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]
[48] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/17-swd-minutes.html#action01
[49] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20
[DONE] ACTION: Jeremy to send a review to XHTML2 with comments
[recorded in
[50]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/16-swd-minutes.html#action06]
[DONE] ACTION: Sean to add a request for implementations to the mail
asking for feedback [recorded in
[51]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-swd-minutes.html#action07]
[DONE] ACTION: SKOS Reference editors to send mail asking for
feedback from users [recorded in
[52]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-swd-minutes.html#action06]
[50] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/16-swd-minutes.html#action06
[51] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-swd-minutes.html#action07
[52] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/02-swd-minutes.html#action06
[End of minutes]
_____________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [53]scribe.perl version 1.133
([54]CVS log)
$Date: 2008/09/30 16:27:49 $
[53] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[54] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2008 16:30:05 UTC