- From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:43:11 -0500
- To: public-swd-wg@w3.org
The record of today's Semantic Web Deployment Working Group telecon
is now available.
http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html
A text snapshot follows.
----
SWD WG
10 Feb 2009
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Feb/0022.html
See also: [3]IRC log, previous [4]2009-01-27
[3] http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-irc
[4] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html
Attendees
Present
Ralph Swick, Tom Baker, Diego Berrueta, Antoine Isaac, Guus
Schreiber, Alistair Miles, Sean Bechhofer, Margherita Sini
Regrets
Chair
Tom
Scribe
Ralph
Contents
* Topics
1. Admin
2. SKOS
3. SKOS Ontology
4. SKOS Primer
5. SKOS Implementation report
6. RDFa
7. Recipes
8. RDFa METADATA NOTE
9. OWL documents
* Summary of Action Items
_____________________________________________________
Admin
RESOLUTION: accept [16]minutes of 27-Jan telecon
[16] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html
RESOLUTION: next meeting 24 Feb
Tom: today is our 98th WG telecon. closing in on 100 :)
Guus: I'll buy drinks for the 100th
SKOS
ACTION: [DONE] Alistair respond to Felix re: issue-188 [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html#action01]
[17] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html#action01
Alistair: editorial suggestion, we accepted and put it in the
editor's draft
Tom: CR transition status?
Ralph: I18N Core agreed to send any Last Call comments by 18 Feb
... after that, assuming they don't find any serious flaws, we
should be able to proceed
... are we willing to give the editors discretion to make any
trivial editorial changes?
Guus: yes, sure
Ralph: I expect that the editors and I can judge whether a change
would need formal WG approval
-> [18]2009-02-07 Comment from Magnus Knuth - proposed response
[18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Feb/0018.html
Antoine: Magnus asked that the recommendation be an informal one
... as that was already the case -- was informal -- that seems to
satisfy Magnus
... there was a comment on prefLabel in the RDF version of the
onotology that seems to more strongly enforce this recommendation
... I propose to reword this comment following the current language
of the Primer
... "It is recommended that no two concepts in the same concept
scheme be given the same preferred lexical label for the same
language tag"
... I'm ready to send this response if the WG agrees
Alistair: I concur
Sean: fine with me
RESOLUTION: Antoine's proposed response in
[19]public-swd-wg/2009Feb/0018.html approved
[19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Feb/0018.html
ACTION: Antoine raise and close an issue for Magnus Knuth's comment
[recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action02]
ACTION: Alistair update the RDF file for response to Magnus Knuth's
comment [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action03]
-> [22]issue-157; Last Call Comment: SKOS and OWL 2 analysis
[22] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/157
Sean: I think it's an oversight that this issue is still open
... we haven't received a formal response [on behalf of the WG] for
this
... we've noted his [personal] agreement with the resolution
... so we can close 157
SKOS Ontology
-> [23]SKOS ontology sanity-check? [Antoine 2009-02-07]
[23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Feb/0020.html
Antoine: this was directly related to Magnus' comment
... should we do a final check of the RDF ontology?
Alistair: it would be good to have as many people as possible to
look at the comments and labels in the RDF ontology and compare with
the document
... I've done some basic [machine] checks but these don't look at
the labels or comments
Antoine: I'll try for the basic ontology, won't get to the -xl
ontology
Guus: I'll do the same
SKOS Primer
-> [24]Updated Primer editor's draft [Antoine 2009-02-07]
[24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Feb/0019.html
Antoine: is this update small enough to republish the WD?
Ralph: yeah, sure; because of the delay in the CR publication we
haven't actually published the Primer yet so this update will be
part of the published version
PROPOSED: Accept [25]primer-20090207 as the next WD
[25] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/primer/primer-20090207.html
RESOLUTION: Accept [26]primer-20090207 as the next WD
[26] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/primer/primer-20090207.html
ACTION: [DONE] SKOS Editors drop "However, the use of mapping
properties might..." sentence from the primer section 3.1 [recorded
in
[$1\47][27]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html#action10]
[recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action04]
[27] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html#action10
SKOS Implementation report
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Sean to report on SKOSED for SKOS implementation
report [recorded in
[29]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/06-swd-minutes.html#action10]
[29] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/06-swd-minutes.html#action10
ACTION: [DONE] Guus discuss with Sean editors for the SKOS
implementation report [recorded in
[30]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html#action04]
[30] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html#action04
Guus: problem will be time
... we need an implementation report before we can exit Candidate
Recommendation
... if we setup a structure for folks to fill-in it will be easier
... create a list of what we want and ask people to add to that list
... create a table for SKOS Editors and Checkers
... would Sean propose a structure for these tables?
... we could include this in our Call for Implementations
<Antoine> [31]public-swd-wg/2009Jan/0080.html
[31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Jan/0080.html
-> [32]SKOS usage at eCulture/Europeana Antoine, fwd from Ronald
Siebes]
[32] http://www.few.vu.nl/~ronny/eculture/skos-usage-eculture.html
Guus: let's try to have the structure in 2 weeks for people to fill
Guus: for a tool, the differences would be whether the tool handles
a particular construct
Sean: extra functions like reading, writing, modifying
... I can add some categories for these
... for an implementation report we'd want each implementation to
add a line to the table?
... plus a short paragraph about the implementation?
Guus: yes
Antoine: could re-use some of the text from our call for use cases
Ralph: sure, referring back to our use cases seems reasonable
ACTION: Ralph include in the Call for Implementation prose on
"feedback on implementations of SKOS Editors and Checkers" [recorded
in [33]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action07]
Sean: yes, we use "checker" rather than "validator"
Guus: we'd like to know which SKOS concepts are supported
... and for SKOS Vocabularies we'd like to know the purpose, a link,
and a list of SKOS concepts used
... we could extract the concepts used if the vocabulary is public
Ralph: could put this in the Wiki and let implementors update
directly
Sean: we're not expecting hundreds of reports, so may be easier just
to supply a list of the data we'd like
... I'm not yet accepting editorship of this report :)
[Guus' action to discuss done]
Guus: we may not need a formal report; could just be links to
several tables
Ralph: yes
... an implementation report need not be a formal document
RDFa
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Ben review RDFa Use Cases and propose transition
to Group Note [recorded in
[34]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02]
[34] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02
Recipes
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Ralph to review the revised Recipes draft
[recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html#action15]
[35] 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
[36]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]
[36] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20
RDFa METADATA NOTE
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Ralph post his comments on the editor's draft of
the metadata note [recorded in
[37]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action03]
[37] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action03
OWL documents
ACTION: [DONE] Guus to look at OWL documents for review [recorded in
[38]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10]
[38] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10
-> [39]proposed response to OWL LC documents [Guus 2009-01-28]
[39] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Jan/0084.html
Guus: the link [$1\47] should point to OWL Reference
... several of the new OWL2 constructs, particularly property
characteristics, are useful for characterizing SKOS
... .another typo; reflexivity should be irreflexitivity
... in my second point I note that the OWL2 documents are not
accessible to the typical SKOS user
... this is an editorial comment
... while substantial, it's not a technical point against OWL2
... point 3 is about terminology; to what does "OWL2" refer? Just
the DL subset or the whole thing?
<TomB> +1 Guus's comments look good
Guus: I added a fourth point which needs more discussion
Sean: I'm less worried about point 2 from where I sit
... but I don't object to including it in the group's comments
Guus: I could imagine the OWL WG responding that there will be one
document that uses an RDF representation
... they wouldn't have to re-do all the documents; it would be
sufficient for one document to use RDF
... leave it to them to decide how to remedy this
... I don't think it ought to be a lot of work for them
... internally [in Vrieje] in our group there was consensus about
this from folk who were very familiar with RDF
Alistair: I support Guus' comments
Antoine: I support them fully
Guus: my fourth comment ...
-> [40]Re: proposed response to OWL LC documents [29]
[40] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Jan/0091.html
[29] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/06-swd-minutes.html#action10
Guus: I chatted with Ivan about this
... Ivan suggested I have misinterpreted the OWL documents
... this might be the case, but my misinterpretation could be
revealing
... I was worried that OWL2 tools might no longer be required to
produce RDF/XML
... these other syntaxes are used in normative sections of the OWL2
documents but apparently that does not mean that the other syntaxes
are themselves normative
Sean: is there an explicit statement of what the normative syntax
is?
Guus: I can rephrase as a question;
... we would expect RDF/XML to continue to be the normative exchange
syntax. It is not completely clear from the documents whether this
is the case. Would the OWL WG care to clarify?
... from the documents I am unclear about the status of the other
syntaxes
... is this a fair question to ask?
Ralph, Alistair: yes, it's fair
Alistair: it's a valid concern. It would be a problem for me if OWL
tools stopped emitting RDF/XML
<Antoine> +1
Guus: we can ask this as a clarification question
Ralph: I think it's reasonable and proper for this WG to ask the OWL
WG to be explicit that RDF/XML continues to be a required exchange
syntax
Guus: 'a' or 'the'?
Ralph: I'd like 'the' but we can ask them to clarify at least
Diego: I agree that RDF/XML must be required
... we would otherwise introduce interoperability problems
... someone must study the impact of changing the normative syntax
Guus: I could live with a tool that produces other syntaxes if it
always produces RDF/XML too
Diego: my problem is not just producers but also tools that consume
... if OWL2 introduces new syntaxes equivalent to RDF/XML then
effectively this adds a requirement on implementors
Sean: looking at the OWL2 Conformance and Test Cases document ...
... in Section 2 ...
<aliman> +1 on what guus said, I have no problem with an OWL tool
that produces other syntaxes, if it can produce some RDF syntax too
Sean: I see "... successfully parsed using canonical RDF parsing
process ..."
<seanb> [41]OWL 2 Web Ontology Language:[42]Conformance and Test
Cases
[41] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-owl2-test-20081008/
[42] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-owl2-test-20081008/
Sean: which to me says that RDF is still in there
<seanb> Section 2
Guus: but the other documents aren't clear as the other syntaxes do
appear in normative sections
Sean: so you want a clarification?
Guus: yes, I want a clarification but without putting too much
pressure on them
... I will rephrase this as a question
... I'd like to send this response in a day
... I'll send a revise proposal tonight, would like comments from
SWD tomorrow, then I'll send the comment to OWL WG on Thursday
Tom: OK
<aliman> antoine i see you've raised issue 189, were you planning to
also raise another issue for the comment in the RDF?
ACTION: Guus send draft of revised OWL2 response by end of day
Tuesday, for WG to review on Wednesday, then send to OWL WG on
Thursday [recorded in
[43]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action13]
Guus: I can keep this general; request clarification on status of
RDF/XML as a normative exchange syntax
Ralph: I think it is appropriate and useful for this WG to state
that RDF/XML is mandatory
Margherita: apologies for being less available; I expect to have
more time in 2 weeks
Tom: editorial input [after we publish CR] will be useful
Guus: especially on how FAO uses SKOS; this would be very useful for
the implementation report
Margherita: the new application we are building will have SKOS
export
<TomB> AGROVOC
Margherita: this is a new maintenance tool; AgroVoc service
<marghe> [44]AGROVOC Concept Server Workbench
[44] http://naist.cpe.ku.ac.th/agrovoc/
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Alistair update the RDF file for response to Magnus
Knuth's comment [recorded in
[45]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Antoine raise and close an issue for Magnus Knuth's
comment [recorded in
[46]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Guus send draft of revised OWL2 response by end of day
Tuesday, for WG to review on Wednesday, then send to OWL WG on
Thursday [recorded in
[47]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action13]
[NEW] ACTION: Ralph include in the Call for Implementation prose on
"feedback on implementations of SKOS Editors and Checkers" [recorded
in [48]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action07]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ben review RDFa Use Cases and propose transition
to Group Note [recorded in
[49]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
[50]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action03]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ralph to review the revised Recipes draft
[recorded in
[51]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
[52]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]
[PENDING] ACTION: Sean to report on SKOSED for SKOS implementation
report [recorded in
[53]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/06-swd-minutes.html#action10]
[49] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02
[50] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action03
[51] http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html#action15
[52] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20
[53] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/06-swd-minutes.html#action10
[DONE] ACTION: Alistair respond to Felix re: issue-188 [recorded in
[54]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html#action01]
[DONE] ACTION: Guus to look at OWL documents for review [recorded in
[55]http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10]
[DONE] ACTION: Guus discuss with Sean editors for the SKOS
implementation report [recorded in
[56]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html#action04]
[DONE] ACTION: SKOS Editors drop "However, the use of mapping
properties might..." sentence from the primer section 3.1 [recorded
in
[$1\47][57]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html#action10]
[recorded in
[58]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-swd-minutes.html#action04]
[54] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html#action01
[55] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10
[56] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html#action04
[57] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-swd-minutes.html#action10
[End of minutes]
_____________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [59]scribe.perl version 1.133
([60]CVS log)
$Date: 2009/02/10 20:39:53 $
[59] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[60] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2009 20:43:46 UTC