W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > May 2009

meeting record: 2009-05-05 SemWeb Deployment WG telecon

From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 13:54:10 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20090505135213.0ccf0fa8@127.0.0.1>
To: public-swd-wg@w3.org
The minutes of today's Semantic Web Deployment Working Group telecon
are now available as

  http://www.w3.org/2009/05/05-swd-minutes.html

Thanks to Alistair for scribing.

A text snapshot follows.
----

                                SWD WG

05 May 2009

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009May/0007.html

   See also: [3]IRC log, previous [4]2009-04-21

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/05/05-swd-irc
      [4] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html

Attendees

   Present
          Tom Baker, Ralph Swick, Alistair Miles, Ed Summers, Guus
          Schreiber, Sean Bechhofer

   Regrets
          Antoine Isaac, Diego Berrueta, Margherita Sini

   Chair
          Tom

   Scribe
          Alistair

Contents

     * Topics
         1. ADMIN
         2. SKOS
     * Summary of Action Items
     _____________________________________________________

ADMIN

   tomb: RESOLVED accept minutes of last weeks call
   ... next call, in 2 weeks. i will be away

   guus: i'll be here

   tomb: next call on 19th May

SKOS

   tomb: lcsh is back online, thanks Ed

   ed: thanks for your help

   <Ralph> yay Ed! & LC!

   tomb: Clay is away today, but will come back for one of our final
   calls, so we can congratulate him too

   edsu: lcsh.info uris will redirect to new uris, 301
   ... put a blog at lcsh.info, comments are still there. now added a
   note to the page, about new service, and about permanent redirect
   for new uris.

   ralph: permanent redirect is reasonable

   edsu: will leave it up to jan 1 2010, then turn it off. so people
   who made assertions using those uris, hopefully checking they're
   still ok. so how long do you give people to notice it's moved?

   ralph: interesting case study. I'd like to talk with you more about
   this case, Ed

   tomb: issue of id=concept ... is #concept an anchor in a document,
   or what? is it really a non-issue as m hausenblaus said?
   ... there needs to be an explanation in place. dan (brickley) makes
   a good point, two standards coming out of this wg, any subtleties
   about using together, we should write them up and publish.

   edsu: what happened as a result of dan/michael email, we changed id
   in xhtml to something different, so #concept not used in rdfa at
   all.

   <Ralph> [9]id="concept" - non-issue? [Michael Hausenblas' mail]

      [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009May/0003.html

   tomb: non-issue for lcsh?

   edsu: yes. came up before with lcsh.info. wasn't a resolution then
   either. would be nice to have something to point at. document
   michael pointed to in wiki didn't cover the exact issue.

   tomb: no i don't think it did either.
   ... is this sufficiently important to write a paragraph about? or
   let it drop for now?

   ralph: have we opened in tracker?

   tomb: no, should we? late in game to be writing new things.

   ralph: i like idea of writing a paragraph, summarising our feelings.
   so recording in tracker is good place to not use it.
   ... not suitable for specifications, e.g. primer.

   aliman: maybe could go in primer?

   tomb: if someone could volunteer to post something to list, then
   could use that to open issue in tracker.

   <Ralph> [10]DanBri's raising the question (or issue)

     [10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009May/0000.html

   tomb: really only need two or three sentences. even just leaving in
   tracker as resolution to issue would be a bare minimum, leave behind
   a record.
   ... any volunteers?

   ralph: i'd use danbri's message 0000 to open issue, then discussion
   following that.

   <edsu> +1 for using danbri's message

   ralph: i'll open the issue now.

   edsu: is this issue, for rdfa more generally? reservation about
   putting in the primer, not specific to skos primer.

   aliman: earlier i meant rdfa primer.

   <edsu> +1 for RDFa Primer # i'm not just trying to get out of work
   :)

   ralph: yes, more rdfa question than skos question.

   tomb: can we ask rdfa group to come up with a statement?

   edsu: their response will be, they felt they already addressed the
   issue in that wiki document.

   tomb: i don't see the answer in that wiki document. also good to
   have more permanent record.

   ACTION: ralph to raise issue-214 with rdfa tf [recorded in
   [11]http://www.w3.org/2009/05/05-swd-minutes.html#action01]

   tomb: SKOS Reference - W3C Candidate Recommendation (2009-03-17) -
   CR period ended 30 April
   ... how many comments?

   aliman: do you mean implementation submissions?

   sean: i only see one open CR comment, bunch of raised ones which are
   skos implementations.

   <Ralph> [12]issue 214; "id='concept'"

     [12] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/214

   aliman: there were a couple of comments from xx barclay, will put
   them in tracker and draft responses.

   ACTION: Tom repost his label proposal, dropping the word 'concept'
   [recorded in
   [13]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action01] [DONE]

     [13] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action01

   [14]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0076.h
   tml

     [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0076.html

   ACTION: Sean update labels in the SKOS Rec draft per resolution of
   21-April [recorded in
   [15]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action07] [DONE]

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action07

   <TomB>
   [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0105.h
   tml

     [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0105.html

   tomb: namespace documents. there were some issues brought up on
   list. who do we list as contributor?

   seanb: in namespace document?

   tomb: we have a namespace document, which redirects via conneg
   either to html or rdf.
   ... some inresolved issues, one is who to attribute as contributor.
   ... another is what it's scope should be, re owl dl.

   <Ralph> skos.rdf currently says:

   <Ralph> [[

   <Ralph> <owl:Ontology
   rdf:about="[17]http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core">

     [17] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core

   <Ralph> <dct:title xml:lang="en">SKOS Vocabulary</dct:title>

   <Ralph> <dct:contributor>Dave Beckett</dct:contributor>

   <Ralph> <dct:contributor>Nikki Rogers</dct:contributor>

   <Ralph> <dct:contributor>Participants in W3C's Semantic Web
   Deployment Working Grou

   <Ralph> p.</dct:contributor>

   <Ralph> ]]

   seanb: in reference document, don't have any explicit
   acknowledgments of contributions.

   aliman: no we don't, but maybe an oversight.

   tomb: i don't see ack.
   ... often at end of sotd?

   ralph: it moves around, editors'/group choice. current preference at
   end of doc.
   ...new website design encouraging at end of doc.

   seanb: in owl docs, came after references.

   ralph: content is entirely up to wg to decide. location is alongside
   references.

   ACTION: skos editors to draft acknowledgements section for SKOS
   Reference [recorded in
   [18]http://www.w3.org/2009/05/05-swd-minutes.html#action04]

   tomb: in this case, previous wgs and swad-europe, plus input from
   public-esw-thes, nice to acknowledge.

   seanb: do we want list of all in wgs?
   ... might include people who didn't make a contribution.

   <Ralph> [19]example of new Recommendation style (frontmatter w/
   acknowledgements in an appendix)

     [19] http://beta.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-emma-20090303/

   tomb: also no-shows.
   ... i'm happy to name groups who made contribution

   seanb: i'll post some draft text, but needs more acknowledgment for
   swd because where most of work has gone on.

   tomb: owl dl prune? not clear how that was resolved. how do we point
   to it, and what is status?

   seanb: status is, it's something i've generated.

   Alistair: as I thought about this, I returned to what the OWL WG
   asked us to say about the RDF schema
   ... i.e. that the RDF schema is a normative subset of the SKOS
   datamodel
   ... I thought in more detail about what this might really mean and
   how it informs the DL prune
   ... I talked with Antoine but we didn't reach a clear consensus
   ... I deliberately avoided using 'informative' and 'normative'
   labels when I wrote the first bits of the spec; I was just trying to
   describe the semantics
   ... on the face of it, the DL prune just seems to be another subset
   ... if the OWL Full schema is normative and the OWL DL schema is
   informative, what is this actually saying?

   tomb: if one is informative, another is normative, can we point both
   from skos namespace?

   Alistair: I'd have no problem citing the OWL DL prune from the
   namespace document

   aliman: i'm fine with link from skos namespace document to owl dl
   prune.

   Tom: in the HTML document?

   Alistair: yes

   tomb: so html variant of namespace document would link to owl dl
   prune?

   aliman: yes

   Ralph: and an rdfs:seeAlso triple in the RDF document

   seanb: useful to have it somewhere. people have been asking for it.

   Alistair: no objection to giving the DL prune a high profile with
   such links
   ... the only question I have is what the official status of the DL
   prune might be

   tomb: we have an implicit proposal, to consider the regular [owl
   full] rdf schema as normative, and to consider the owl dl prune as
   informative, and reference them both from the html document with
   hyperlinks and from the rdf schema with seeAlso.

   <Ralph> +1

   tomb: is everyone more or less in agreement.

   Alistair: not to open a can of worms, I have no objection to the
   statement but it's not clear to me what such a statement means

   tomb: another issue is, there is a document called "skos ... rdf
   schema" which is confusing
   ... because it's obviously an html document. alistair proposed "skos
   namespace document" which seems straightforward.
   ... then text could include link to the owl dl prune in addition.
   ... but a user dereferencing uri wouldn't get conneg.
   ... question of normative/informative, we need to give this document
   here some attention. don't really want a discussion of normative vs.
   informative.

   ralph: i wonder if both documents aren't really informative, because
   full thing is described in skos reference.

   Alistair: Peter Patel-Schneider pointed out in an early comment that
   we did not cite a normative machine-readable representation
   ... from that point of view I'm happy to say the OWL Full schema is
   normative

   ralph: i'm ok with saying the OWL Full schema is normative.

   tomb: i think we should just resolve it.

   PROPOSED: that the skos (reference?) namespace document dereference
   by content negotiation to the html expression (variant?), which
   includes a link to the informative owl dl prune, and to the rdf
   expression (variant?) with rdfs:seeAlso link to owl dl prune.

   tomb: i like "skos namespace document", i think it's clearer

   PROPOSED: that the skos namespace document dereference by content
   negotiation to the html variant, which includes a link to the
   informative owl dl prune, and to the rdf variant, which includes
   rdfs:seeAlso link to owl dl prune.

   seanb: what to put in skos namespace document? i.e. informative vs/
   normative.

   [20]http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#triples

     [20] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#triples

   tomb: quote language from skos reference re normative subset in the
   namespace document.
   ... any objections to proposed text of resolution?

   <Ralph> +1

   aliman: i second proposal

   RESOLUTION: that the skos namespace document dereference by content
   negotiation to the html variant, which includes a link to the
   informative owl dl prune, and to the rdf variant, which includes
   rdfs:seeAlso link to owl dl prune.

   tomb: antoine has done some work on primer, see links in agenda.
   ... implementation report?

   seanb: continuing to log implementations in tracker, and have
   generated html report.

   <Ralph> Sean++ for recording implementations in tracker

   seanb: also started table of constructs used in vocabularies, so
   have a google spreadsheet, but ongoing analysis.

   guus: can you post link?

   <seanb> [21]implementation report

     [21] http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=rmQPwhMMWXxY62FinzE44Eg

   guus: i did a scan of all the emails, we have 20, very good news,
   anything else is a bonus, but this is good enough.
   ... i note some things, collections are not used in that many.

   seanb: no explicit mention so far.

   guus: if i look at the rest, everything is covered in the skos
   namespace, correct?

   seanb: yes, i think so. still have some more to review, but think
   everything is covered.

   guus: all the main ones are covered.
   ... if you go to XL, i found only one who covered it, covered older
   version.

   <GuuS> [22]http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/194

     [22] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/194

   guus: issue 194, i inspected the skos code, what they do is have one
   concept "subject category", they link it to ??? which has all label
   definitions.

   aliman: thomas bandholtz submitted something using xl

   guus: as a point of order, important for finishing the group, so ask
   for 15 minute extension?

   tomb: ok.

   <edsu> . o O (i thought agrovoc used collections)

   <Ralph> [[

   <Ralph> The working groups intend to submit this document for
   consideration as a W3C Proposed Recommendation after 1 May having
   met the following criteria:

   <Ralph> 1. At least two implementations have been demonstrated that
   use features of the SKOS vocabulary. Other vocabularies that use
   SKOS are candidates for inclusion in the implementation report.

   <Ralph> 2. All issues raised during the CR period against this
   document have received formal responses.

   <Ralph> ]]

   <Ralph> -- [23]http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#status

     [23] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#status

   -> [24]UMTHES implementation

     [24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2009Apr/0032.html

   -> [25]email on umthes use of skos xl

     [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2009Apr/0030.html

   guus: table that sean has prepared, together with description of
   implementations. what you showed covers vocabularies?

   seanb: yes.

   guus: other angle is the services, checkers.

   seanb: it's a work in progress, will try to split them apart.

   guus: we need structural description of each implementation, derive
   from emails, then two tables of features, one for vocabs, one for
   software.

   seanb: constructing the table is where the work is. other stuff is
   generated off the tracker.
   ... if we're happy with implementation.html plus detailed table on
   where vocabs and apps cover the constructs?

   guus: i'm happy.

   ACTION: sean to complete implementation report by 19th [recorded in
   [26]http://www.w3.org/2009/05/05-swd-minutes.html#action05]

   guus: will issues be closed by 19th?

   [27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2009Apr/0030
   .html

     [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2009Apr/0030.html

   [28]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2009Apr/0032
   .html

     [28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2009Apr/0032.html

   ACTION: Sean to look for SKOS constructs not used by current
   implementations [recorded in
   [29]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action04]
   [CONTINUES]

     [29] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action04

   ACTION: Ralph publish Antoine's new intermediate pages for legacy
   specs [recorded in
   [30]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action11]
   [CONTINUES]

     [30] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action11

   ACTION: Ben review RDFa Use Cases and propose transition to Group
   Note [recorded in
   [31]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02]
   [CONTINUES]

     [31] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02

   ACTION: Ralph to review the revised Recipes draft [recorded in
   [32]http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html#action15]
   [CONTINUES]

     [32] http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html#action15

   ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes
   implementations] [recorded in
   [33]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]
   [CONTINUES]

     [33] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20

   ACTION: Ralph post his comments on the editor's draft of the
   metadata note [recorded in
   [34]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action03]
   [CONTINUES]

     [34] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action03

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Ralph to raise issue-214 with rdfa tf [recorded in
   [35]http://www.w3.org/2009/05/05-swd-minutes.html#action01]
   [NEW] ACTION: Sean to complete implementation report by 19th
   [recorded in
   [36]http://www.w3.org/2009/05/05-swd-minutes.html#action05]
   [NEW] ACTION: SKOS editors to draft acknowledgements section for
   SKOS Reference [recorded in
   [37]http://www.w3.org/2009/05/05-swd-minutes.html#action04]

   [PENDING] ACTION: Ben review RDFa Use Cases and propose transition
   to Group Note [recorded in
   [38]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
   [39]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action03]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph publish Antoine's new intermediate pages for
   legacy specs [recorded in
   [40]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action11]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph to review the revised Recipes draft
   [recorded in
   [41]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
   [42]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Sean to look for SKOS constructs not used by
   current implementations [recorded in
   [43]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action04]

     [38] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02
     [39] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action03
     [40] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action11
     [41] http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html#action15
     [42] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20
     [43] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action04

   [DONE] ACTION: Antoine make minor edits to
   [44]http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-skos-ucr-20070516/ to prepare for
   publication as Group Note on 19 May [recorded in
   [45]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action02]
   [DONE] ACTION: Sean update labels in the SKOS Rec draft per
   resolution of 21-April [recorded in
   [46]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action07]
   [DONE] ACTION: Tom repost his label proposal, dropping the word
   'concept' [recorded in
   [47]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action01] -- DONE
   [48]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0076.h
   tml

     [44] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-skos-ucr-20070516/
     [45] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action02
     [46] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action07
     [47] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action01
     [48] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0076.html

   [End of minutes]
     _____________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [49]scribe.perl version 1.135
    ([50]CVS log)
    $Date: 2009/05/05 17:52:27 $

     [49] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [50] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 5 May 2009 17:54:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:56 UTC