See also: IRC log, previous 2008-02-05
RESOLVED to accept minutes of the Feb 5 telecon
Next telecon on Feb 19th
ACTION: Chairs to put schedule review on agenda [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action24] [CONTINUES]
<Ralph> Ben's mail
<edsu> there was also thoughts on reviewers' comments
Tom says that we should have reviewed RDFa
before submitting but
... needing an email from the authors before the submission takes place
Guus informs it's not a submission problem, but
the note should provide an explanation of
... an explanation of how the authors have resolved the comments from
different reviewers (i.e. Ed and Diego).
... this could be done by simply linking section from revised editor's draft
to specific reviewers' comments.
Tom concurs with point raised by Guus
... and points out that reviewers should have a look at comments once
available.
ACTION: Ben to prepare draft implementation report for RDFa (with assistance from Michael) [recorded in [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Ben to prepare the email to request the decision for publishing on Feb 12th [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action24] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Ralph to let the task force know that SWD require extended response on editor's draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action04]
RalphLast Thursday Shane informed the RDFa
telecon that XHTML2 Working Group was happy with current version of editors'
draft
... but mentioned that XHTML2 WG focuses on different aspects (e.g.
modularity) than SWD WG.
<Ralph> XHTML2 WG resolution
Guus says that we need to indicate that the
current draft is the RDFa Last Call review
... that the WG should define aa deadline for comments.
... 4 to 6 weeks is the minimum time frame for comments
ACTION: Ralph to ask task force to recommend appropriate time frame for RDFa Last Call review period [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action16]
Ralph [If an RDFa Last Call were published end of Feb, then 6 weeks puts us just before WWW2008]
Antoine sent proposal
to move SKOS Primer forward
... and asked reviewers to make final comments on revised version.
... He highlighted that Margherita had given further comments to be
implemented
Margherita mentioned that most of her comments could be implemented in the next version
Quentin commented that some points raised by
Margherita were quite important,
... especially moving to Turtle syntax (+ asked clarification).
... mentioned that the 4 four points raised by Antoine shouldn't hold up
publication of WD
Antoine insured that current draft was
compliant with Turtle,
... but the the problem is just that the examples cited N3 but really only
used Turtle.
... fixed in the latest working draft (12 Feb editor's
draft)
Quentin agreed that the revision should allow version to be released as WG
<aliman> +1
<edsu> Ralph++
RESOLUTION: SKOS Primer to be published
ACTION: Ralph to publish Feb 12th version of SKOS primer as working draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action05]
Tom raised several SKOS
Core Vocabulary of 2005 - issues
... the first one wrt deprecated properties from the SKOS Core
... the second wrt the RDF schema used and whether it would cause problems to
people using SKOS Core RDF schema.
... This is raised by the SKOS Reference replaces the previous SKOS Core
published in 2005
Sean says that the RDF schema could be produced relatively easily
Alistair not sure how to cover the deprecated
properties from SKOS Core.
... One solution is to re-use current namespace for the SKOS reference/
Tom highlights that this requires deprecated
properties to be removed from namespace.
... if it is ok with SKOS community this could be done but shouldn't if
people using the deprecated properties
... SKOS Reference should point to RDF schema and explains why it's out of
synch
Alistair asks whether Tome would be happy to
resolve this issue
... by mentioning that RDF schema will be done at a later date in the current
SKOS reference.
Tom agrees with this proposal.
... but someone need to look at consequences to remove these properties.
Ralph if we decide that the SKOS Specification
makes no mention of the old
... deprecated properties, then those properties should also be removed from
the namespace document
Ed says that a group is using subject indexing but skos:subject is in doubt (Skos subject properties are deprecated)
Alistair says these have not been formarly deprecated yet
ACTION: Sean to propose a way to handle deprecated properties (Updating RDF schema) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action06]
ACTION: Alistair to make a proposal for Issue 40 (Concept Coordination) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action09] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Alistair to propose an approach to clarify which aspects of the extension module should be in scope for the candidate recommendation package. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action09] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Alistair and Guus to check the text in the primer on relationship between Concept Schemes and OWL Ontologies. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action13] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Ralph to check whether the common interpretation of rdfs isDefinedBy fits the reasoning that was made in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Oct/0141.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes.html#action10] [CONTINUES]
Ralph mentions that Alistair keeps highlighting that the isDefinedBy property doesn't exist anymore
Alistair proposed a resolution
for this issue
... says that the resolution still stands and wonders whether it could be
resolved today
<Antoine> +1
Tom: Alistair proposed that skos:preLabel
should only have one value per language
... says that it seems to be an adequate resolution
<seanb> +1
<edsu> +1
RESOLVED ISSUE-31 is as per email (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Jan/0191.html)
Margherita highlights that the resolution only covers one point of ISSUE-31
Alistair points out that S11 covers the number
of prefLabel per natural language
... and S10 covers clashes between the use of similar value for
skos:prefLabel for different concepts.
Ralph asks if there is a specific statement covering the resolution.
Sean highlights that the resolution is clear to WG members but could still be considered as ambiguous
Ralph seconds the resolution as long as a separate issue looks at the clarity of the document. (ISSUE 67)
Antoine proposes two solutions
to resolve this issue
... first relies on name class to express context
... second consist in adding a new resource for the mapping relation,
... but need to investigate advantages and disadvantages of either
solutions.
Guus still thinking about both solution and considers asking people outside the SWD WG
Alistair and Antoine thinks ISSUE 54 was
resolved following the Amsterdam f2f in October.
... Antoine mentions that issue 80 carries forward
the remaining parts of 54
ACTION: Antoine to propose a resolution for ISSUE 54 by next telecon [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action11]
ACTION: Alistair and Antoine to propose priorities on how to resolve ISSUE 56 to ISSUE 84 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-swd-minutes.html#action12]
Guus says that most work on SKOS might be
resolved by May.
... hence proposes to hold a another f2f to solved remaining issues
... one and half day meeting (4-7th May 2008)
ACTION: Ralph propose resolution to ISSUE-16 "Default behavior" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes implementations] [recorded in [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Vit and Elisa to include in the document all the target sections plus an allocation of sections to people and potentially a standard structure for sections [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html#action07] [CONTINUES]
Vit mentions that the list should make comment on the New Editor's Draft Available
Tom this will be discussed next week