- From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:22:26 -0400
- To: public-swd-wg@w3.org
The minutes of today's Semantic Web Deployment Working Group telecon
are now available in
http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html
A text snapshot follows.
----
SemWeb Deployment Working Group
21 Apr 2009
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0068.html
See also: [3]IRC log, previous [4]2009-04-07
[3] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-irc
[4] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/07-swd-minutes.html
Attendees
Present
Guus Schreiber, Ralph Swick, Tom Baker, Antoine Isaac, Sean
Bechhofer, Margherita Sini
Regrets
Diego Berrueta
Chair
Guus
Scribe
Ralph
Contents
* Topics
1. SKOS
2. RDFa
3. Recipes
4. RDFa Metadata Note
5. WAI-ARIA request for review
* Summary of Action Items
_____________________________________________________
Guus: I see quite a number of implementations coming in
... we have some editing work to do [based on comment], no real
obstacles
RESOLUTION: minutes
[12]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/07-swd-minutes.html of previous
telecon accepted
[12] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/07-swd-minutes.html
PROPOSED: next telecon 5 May, Tom to chair
Guus: I may have a conflict on 19 May
Tom: I'll have regrets for 19 May
RESOLUTION: next telecon 5 May, Tom to chair
SKOS
Guus: I'm expecting 10 or more SKOS vocabularies plus 2 tools by 5
May
... this should be sufficient for an implementation report
Ralph: concur
Guus: not clear whether the SKOS-XL features will have been
implemented
... we'll put Proposed Rec transition request on the agenda for 19
May
... let's be sure to have all the information available on 5 May
... issue about labels in SKOS namespace documents
-> [13]Re: [SKOS] SKOS ontology sanity-check? [Antoine 2009-3-09]
[13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Mar/0012.html
Tom: I just posted about the label issue shortly before this call
... since our schema will be emulated, it would be good to make it
an example of good style
-> [14]Re: [SKOS] SKOS ontology sanity-check? - policy for natural
language of rdfs:labels [Tom 2009-04-21]
[14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0074.html
Antoine: on broaderTransitive ...
... the reason I omitted concept in the label as I felt the idea of
"transitive concept" was unclear
... however, if you prefer to include "concept" in the label I'll be
satisfied
... I don't see many reactions to [these labels]
Tom: I suspect these things will find their way into displays in
various ways
... so I'd like us to think about whether they make sense in that
context
Sean: I would find "has broader concept transitive" confusing
... sounds like "transitive" is being applied to "concept"
... perhaps "has broader concept [transitive]"
... not sure if it's wise to introduce punctuation in labels
Antoine: consider "has transitive broader concept" or "has ancestor
concept"
... "ancestor" follows the semantics
Guus: I prefer keeping to a very strict label approach
... the description property is the appropriate place to explain a
bit more
<TomB> +1 "has transitive broader concept"
Ralph: agree with Guus, I think labels should be very close to the
property names.
... only if we thought we really should have renamed the property
would I be inclined to make the labels very different
Tom: I wouldn't want to introduce punctuation
Guus: I propose to keep the labels the same as the name and
introduce other clarification into the description
Tom: some labels already introduce other words; 'has', 'concept'
... we're following the examples of FOAF and the legacy SKOS
vocabulary by breaking the label into natural language strings
... but introducing words that are not part of the name
-> [15]Candidate Rec schema
[15] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-skos-reference-20090317/skos.rdf
Tom: there was a comment that the property name 'broader' was
confusing and the commenter was looking to the label to help clarify
... so the new label was in response to that comment
Guus: then that would only apply to 'has broader concept'
Ralph: I'd omit words like 'has'
<TomB> My comments are at [16]public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0074.html
[16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0074.html
Ralph: as I'd expect user interfaces to handle these words
Sean: but some properties should be described as, e.g. 'is in ...'
... no general algorithm for deciding 'has' or 'is'
Tom: Dublin Core always interpreted label as a human-readable name
for the concept
... so we stick close to the property name but do break it into
natural language words
... we did not, however, follow the upper/lower case conventions for
properties and classes
Ralph: my own approach has been a very lazy one; pick property names
that work as labels and make the labels be identical to the property
names
... I definitely think introducing 'has' and 'is' in the label will
cause us future regrets
Tom: I disagree; we were asked to make the labels be more meaningful
... so including 'concept' in the label helps
Antoine: @@[scribe missed]
Margherita: I'd like to attach labels in other languages and add
synonyms
... but it's unclear to some whether the object of the relationship
is the broader concept or the subject of the relationship
... so I'd like the label to clarify the direction of the
relationship
Guus: we should have a consistent naming scheme, so everything
should be these short sentences
... I can live with this, though I'm not used to it
Ralph: I can live with short sentences as well
... and anyone who finds sentences truly objectionable can add their
own label properties
Guus: exactly
Tom: my message was not meant to make suggestions other than 'has
broader transitive'
... I like adding 'concept' to the label
... I like 'has transitive broader concept'
Guus: but the word 'concept' seems superfluous to me
... e.g. 'has related match [concept]'
Antoine: 'match' can be a noun
Guus: adding 'concept' can be very confusing
... adding it would make 'match' on a par with 'concept'
... the label should not say anything about the domain and range
types, just name the relationship
... so adding 'concept' would break my rule
... hasTopConcept is different, as it picks one of several Concepts
... that's the only exception I see to my rule
Tom: alternativeLabel ?
Guus: the string becomes a Label by virtue of the relationship
... so drop 'concept' from 'has broader concept' and 'has narrower
concept'
... and 'has broader' solves the problem Tom mentioned
Sean: I'm happy to agree with Guus
... I'd omit the superfluous stuff
Antoine: I think I could be OK with Guus' suggestion
... I haven't identified a case that would be particularly bad
Sean: and it's not a technical deal breaker; people can provide
their own labels
ACTION: Tom repost his label proposal, dropping the word 'concept'
[recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action01]
PROPOSED: drop the word 'concept' from the labels 'has broader
concept', 'has narrower concept', 'has related concept'
... drop the word 'concept' from the labels 'has broader concept',
'has narrower concept', 'has related concept', per
[18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0074.h
tml
[18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0074.html
Margherita: I agree that 'concept' is not needed
... what's important is that these are URIs, so the URI should not
have spaces
Antoine: right, we're not changing the URI
RESOLUTION: drop the word 'concept' from the labels 'has broader
concept', 'has narrower concept', 'has related concept', per
[19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0074.h
tml
[19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0074.html
Guus: [to Antoine] note that Primer updates should also be ready by
19 May
Antoine: I'll send something to Ralph
Guus: what about Use Cases and Requirements?
... it would be nice to clean up UCR but I don't see huge value in
it
... I'd propose to do no further work on UCR
... happy to leave it as it is
-> [20]SKOS Use Cases and Requirements, W3C Working Draft 16 May
2007
[20] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-ucr/
Ralph: I'd rather republish it as a Group Note saying we don't plan
any further work than to leave it as a Working Draft that eventually
falls into a 'Working Drafts no longer in Development' category
Antoine: I agree with not doing much more work
... but the current working draft uses some identifiers that no
longer mean much
... I'd like to change the ~20 identifiers to be more current
ACTION: Antoine make minor edits to
[21]http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-skos-ucr-20070516/ to prepare for
publication as Group Note on 19 May [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action02]
[21] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-skos-ucr-20070516/
<Antoine>
[23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0073.h
tml
[23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0073.html
ACTION: [DONE] Antoine add the Vrieje Uni tool to the implementation
report [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-swd-minutes.html#action08]
[24] http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-swd-minutes.html#action08
<seanb> [25]2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20090315/implementation.html
[25] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20090315/implementation.html
ACTION: [DONE] Antoine send call for implementations to the lists
identified in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/DisseminationLists with
the date changed to 30 April [recorded in
[27]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/07-swd-minutes.html#action03]
[26] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/DisseminationLists
[27] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/07-swd-minutes.html#action03
-> [28]Request for Implementation Input: SKOS Simple Knowledge
Organization System [Antoine 2009-04-08]
[28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0032.html
Sean: I think we have a lot of the substance for the
[29]implementation report already in place
[29] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20090315/implementation.html
Guus: by 5 May I'd like to decide what sorts of implementations
we're going to include
Sean: if things continue to come in the way they've been coming in,
we should have a number of examples we can cite
Guus: everyone please remind people to send us implementations if
you know of anything
Sean: if there's more detail needed in the implementation report
than is currently in [30]implementation.html, it would be good to
know that sooner
[30] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20090315/implementation.html
Ralph: I'll take a look. Some details about how much of the SKOS
vocabulary is exercised could be useful, but that might take too
much work to determine
Guus: can we identify which features have not been used in at least
1 implementaton?
ACTION: Sean to look for SKOS constructs not used by current
implementations [recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action04]
ACTION: [DONE] Antoine draft intermediate pages for the legacy SKOS
Core documents referring readers to the new specifications [recorded
in
[$1\47][32]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/07-swd-minutes.html#action04]
[recorded in
[33]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action05]
[32] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/07-swd-minutes.html#action04
ACTION: [DONE] Antoine draft intermediate pages for
[34]http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/mapping/spec/2004-11-11.html
referring readers to the new specifications [recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/07-swd-minutes.html#action05]
[34] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/mapping/spec/2004-11-11.html
[35] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/07-swd-minutes.html#action05
->
[36]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0031.h
tml [SKOS] redirection pages for Quick Guide and Mapping Vocabulary
[Antoine 2009-04-08]
[36] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0031.html
Tom: will Sean make the doc changes for the labels?
Sean: sure
ACTION: Sean update labels in the SKOS Rec draft per resolution of
21-April [recorded in
[37]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action07]
Guus: I propose to leave the Wikipedia page update until June
-> [38]Wikipedia page
[38] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Knowledge_Organization_System
RDFa
Ralph: the RDFa Task Force has been continuing to meet
... the main topic has been whether to suggest, and in what form to
suggest, adding an attribute that would do the same prefix mapping
as XMLNS for HTML 5 and the group has been discussing syntax of that
attribute
... the TF agreed we would try to reach consensus on design but not
update specification - leave design documented in the wiki.
... At the last meeting, suggested we suspend that discussion, even
though close to consensus.
... Other developments may make this moot.
... Will probabily not continue further discussion of design.
Recipes
-> [39][Recipes] new editors' draft (proposed solution to ISSUE-193)
[Diego 2009-04-07]
[39] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0017.html
Ralph: I'd missed Diego's message
... if we choose to postpone this to next meeting I'll try to have
my review done
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Ralph to review the revised Recipes draft
[recorded in
[40]http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html#action15]
[40] http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html#action15
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation
[of Recipes implementations] [recorded in
[41]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]
[41] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20
RDFa Metadata Note
Guus: postpone this to June also
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Ralph post his comments on the editor's draft of
the metadata note [recorded in
[42]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action03]
[42] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action03
WAI-ARIA request for review
Guus: the comment deadline has passed (17 April)
Tom: I'd posted a [43]reply saying that the Group was not planning
to do a review but individuals were welcome to post comments as they
desired
[43] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0020.html
Guus: so we can drop this item
<TomB> My response to Michael Cooper re: WAI-ARIA is at
[44]public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0020.html
[44] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0020.html
Antoine: we didn't decide to publish the new intermediate pages
Ralph: Antoine and I can do that offline
ACTION: Ralph publish Antoine's new intermediate pages for legacy
specs [recorded in
[45]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action11]
Guus: I'm expecting our June telecons to discuss SKOS community
outreach
... and possibly testimonials
Ralph: testimonials go with a Press Release, so you definitely want
a Press Release?
Guus, Tom: yes, I think a press release would be good
Ralph: OK, I'll alert Ian Jacobs
[adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Antoine make minor edits to
[46]http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-skos-ucr-20070516/ to prepare for
publication as Group Note on 19 May [recorded in
[47]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Ralph publish Antoine's new intermediate pages for
legacy specs [recorded in
[48]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action11]
[NEW] ACTION: Sean to look for SKOS constructs not used by current
implementations [recorded in
[49]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Sean update labels in the SKOS Rec draft per
resolution of 21-April [recorded in
[50]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action07]
[NEW] ACTION: Tom repost his label proposal, dropping the word
'concept' [recorded in
[51]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action01]
[46] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-skos-ucr-20070516/
[PENDING] ACTION: Ben review RDFa Use Cases and propose transition
to Group Note [recorded in
[52]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ralph post his comments on the editor's draft of
the metadata note [recorded in
[53]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action03]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ralph to review the revised Recipes draft
[recorded in
[54]http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html#action15]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of
Recipes implementations] [recorded in
[55]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]
[52] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02
[53] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action03
[54] http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html#action15
[55] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20
[DONE] ACTION: Antoine add the Vrieje Uni tool to the implementation
report [recorded in
[56]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-swd-minutes.html#action08]
[DONE] ACTION: Antoine draft intermediate pages for
[57]http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/mapping/spec/2004-11-11.html
referring readers to the new specifications [recorded in
[58]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/07-swd-minutes.html#action05]
[DONE] ACTION: Antoine draft intermediate pages for the legacy SKOS
Core documents referring readers to the new specifications [recorded
in
[$1\47][59]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/07-swd-minutes.html#action04]
[recorded in
[60]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action05]
[DONE] ACTION: Antoine send call for implementations to the lists
identified in
[61]http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/DisseminationLists with
the date changed to 30 April [recorded in
[62]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/07-swd-minutes.html#action03]
[56] http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-swd-minutes.html#action08
[57] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/mapping/spec/2004-11-11.html
[58] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/07-swd-minutes.html#action05
[59] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/07-swd-minutes.html#action04
[61] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/DisseminationLists
[62] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/07-swd-minutes.html#action03
[End of minutes]
_____________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [63]scribe.perl version 1.135
([64]CVS log)
$Date: 2009/04/21 17:20:42 $
[63] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[64] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 21 April 2009 17:22:51 UTC