See also: IRC log, previous 2008-12-16
<Ralph> previous 2008-12-16
<edsu> happy new year :)
<seanb> email with at risk feature discussion
<Ralph> Daniel: suggest getting SKOS into OWL and submitting this to BioPortal
<Antoine> http://code.google.com/p/skoseditor/
guus: welcome, happy new year
PROPOSED: to accept minutes of the last telecon http://www.w3.org/2008/12/16-swd-minutes.html
RESOLUTION: to accept minutes of the last telecon http://www.w3.org/2008/12/16-swd-minutes.html
guus: SKOS Reference, tom wrote the transition request, ...
ralph: did you want to send request?
guus: you can send it. the version tom made is fine. ??? substantive change, but agreed now.
sean: text available? can we see it?
<scribe> ACTION: ralph send CR transition request for SKOS [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/06-swd-minutes.html#action01]
ralph: once sent, I can cite it. will contain proposed status of language. but not necessarily final version of status, you can suggest changes. it'll take a few days for the director decision, then should be ready to publish shortly after. so we have a few days before we need to produce final doc.
<scribe> ACTION: chairs to write the CR transition request [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/16-swd-minutes.html#action11] [DONE]
guus: apart from this adminstrative issue, we can proceed
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph to report on use of RDFa metadata in Recommendations. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-swd-minutes.html#action02] [DONE]
<Ralph> status of RDFa in W3C Recommendations [Ralph 2009-01-06]
ralph: answer is, not yet for recommendation. we haven't published enough CR docs or WDs with RDFa in them to be sure of no browser problems; so not yet ready to go ahead with RDFa in final recommendations.
sean: "rationale for not exluding" should be "rationale for excluding"?
ralph: yes
guus: charter extension proposal...
did steve contact you ralph?
ralph: maybe, i sent charter extension request yesterday. i expect a decision tomorrow.
guus: review from Tom, marked as done in
agenda.
... followup discussion.
antoine: extensive comments from tom, impressive work. mostly editorial, about enhancing the vocabulary use and flow of document.
<Ralph> [SKOS] Comments on SKOS Primer [Tom, 2009-01-05]
antoine: many of these comments and call for
changes already implemented, because tom was editing as he was writing the
review.
... still many comments remaining. I've started to address them, subject of
emails i wrote today.
... i'm ready to implement changes from tom as soon as feedback from tom.
... question is actually whether request from WG to publish new WD asap,
compatible with tom not here. he planned to go somewhere beginning of jan?
guus: just today, tom is not available
... wrt publication, once CR request is approved, we have to send out call
for implementations. it would be wise to have link to updated primer in that
call. ideally we'd like to have updated primer in a week.
antoine: if tom can read mail, it will be ok. all change can be dealt with in <1 day.
ralph: would group prefer to hold CR on
reference until primer is updated?
... it could take up to a week to get CR approval.
... there will be a homepage item about the CR, so would be nice to also have
link to primer.
... if only matter of 3 days, prefer to publish together.
guus: middle of next week then. if you (antoine) are mainly incorporating tom's comments, tom would agree to publish.
antoine: i will implement everything still pending, prepare a draft, then will have something ready which implements every point discussed.
<scribe> ACTION: antoine to prepare revised draft of SKOS Primer ready for decision to publish as WD [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/06-swd-minutes.html#action04]
ralph: hold SKOS Reference until 13/14?
guus: yes, maybe publish 14/15
... mainly editorial, discuss comments here?
antoine: something about advertisement and lightweight things ... comment from tom about acknowledgements. .. include?
guus: yes, like to include, it's proper.
antoine: status, preamble, needs to be updated. i deal with that with ralph before next week?
ralph: let's work offline on that; my preference is that the editors' draft status reflects status of editors' draft; when i make copy to be WD then I update the status for WD, so we need another place to work on it.
antoine: slight problem with primer, styles from w3c, copy-paste from alistair, last WD you changed some formatting went away
ralph: there wouldn't have been a problem, I deleted too much
guus: let's leave it at this
guus: nothing to report
<scribe> ACTION: Ben review RDFa Use Cases and propose transition to Group Note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph post his comments on the editor's draft of the metadata note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action03] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph to review the revised Recipes draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html#action15] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes implementations] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20] [CONTINUES]
guus:aldo has done similar RDF representation of wordnet for 3.0 version, would like to publish in similar way, but that can wait
guus: review of OWL documents
... some progress at VU, meeting, initiated by Frank Van-Harmelen
... we'll come up with a draft response
... still informal, we feel OWL 2 extensions are fine, most of them
... main problem is with presentation of material, in particular lack of use
of RDF representations, either N-Triple or RDF/XML
... so people from SKOS perspective find it hard to grasp
... second problem is obscure use of OWL, sometimes OWL Full variant
completely under table, but that is relevant for SKOS users
... so our comments in that direction
... may be a substantial comment, at moment not sure what SKOS user, how can
look fruitfully at OWL doc
... hopefully we have more in 2-3 weeks, deadline is 23 Jan
guus: report consist of two types of
implementations, 1 is at least two tools that can handle SKOS, editors or
"checkers"
... sean, you didn't like "validation"?
sean: yes, prefer "checker"
guus: 2 is vocabularies using SKOS, at least
two vocabularies that use a construct in our reference
... this will be a data gathering excercise
... let's start with tools.
... sean you discussed protege version for skos?
<Antoine> http://code.google.com/p/skoseditor/
sean: yes, tool called skosed which is a plugin for protege 4, this is for editing skos vocabularies, so we can certainly claim that as an implementation
guus: a second implementation? work by laurens?
antoine: web service that serves SKOS data,
basically wrapping up a set of functions dedicated to SKOS model, on top of
RDF repository, could be evolution of SKOS API by alistair and [niki and
dave]
... also browser implemented in CHOICE project, helps navigating
vocabularies
edsu: I had a meeting with people in federal agencies in washington, they used a tool called synaptica, from dow jones, several agencies using it to manage controlled vocabularies, then outputting as SKOS
guus: it would be nice if we have data about these tools on the list
edsu: they gave me documentation for it at the beginning of the meeting, then took it away at end of meeting
alistair: jon phipps would want us to consider nsdl metadata registry as an implementation
<edsu> +1 to that
guus: yes, see jon's message
<Antoine> http://www.mondeca.com/index.php/en/intelligent_topic_manager
edsu: the oclc terminology services, which guy at dublin core conference told about, they have service which outputs SKOS as a format, also does zthes
antoine: diane vizine-goetz
edsu: it's on the web too
<Antoine> http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/termservices/
guus: for implementation report, we have to
define a format to describe these implementations; report consists of a
number of tables
... tool from simon jupp, state we can take a look at?
sean: only protege 4
antoine: link in irc 5 mins ago
... it's really cool, i'm now using it
alistair: did issue get fixed with uris?
<Ralph> Sean: do I have to regenerate the DL schema?
<Ralph> Alistair: yes
guus: one of us needs to take one of tools,
then list features we'd like to describe in implementation report
... anybody willling to think about this?
sean: i can look at tool we have here
guus: if you can bootstrap this, then others can describe their tool in a similar way?
sean: another example from another spec we can look at?
guus: rdfa implementation report, owl
implementation report...
... second kind of implementatino we can think of is vocabularies using SKOS,
describing features of SKOS they use
... I can ask someone in my group to bootstrap this
<scribe> ACTION: guus to report on usage of SKOS in vocabularies at VU for SKOS implementation report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/06-swd-minutes.html#action09]
guus: will be simple, URI of scheme ... list of
features (SKOS constructs) being used
... nice if by end of month have some first data. Will have call for
implementations as well, so people can contribute.
... at some point, need to do web search for all skos vocabs out there
<scribe> ACTION: sean to report on SKOSED for SKOS implementation report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/06-swd-minutes.html#action10]
guus: ralph, ok to use vocabularies as implementation exampel?
ralph: yes
guus: if you come across SKOS vocabularies, post to the list
<Ralph> [anything that uses SKOS is legitimately an "implementation" in my book :) ]
antoine: link from french company, doing stuff
with skos
... description of terminology management tool, bernard vatant's company,
description of what they do, useful
guus: certainly, worth looking at
<Ralph> [or, if not an implementation, at least appropriate to mention in a report of implementations]
guus: ok, start looking for either tools or
vocabularies that use SKOS
... any other issues?
... we are extended until 1may?
ralph: yes, request to 31 april
sean: comment about status of doc, require us to change current editors' draft?
ralph: no, i'll send you mail. i like for
status of every doc we're working on to reflect status of that document. one
trick we could use, editors' draft, section which has proposed status for CR;
but don't like editors' draft to say in status that they are CR
... this time, few extra words, run by sean and alistair
guus: noting we now finish on 31 april, we are
ready to adjourn
... assume next week we have telecon to report progress on implementation
report issues and resolve on primer draft
sean: regrets for next tuesday
<Ralph> [I'm not expecting a problem with our request for a 4-month extension, but note that it hasn't actually been granted as of this moment]
guus: useful to meet to at least agree on
primer
... next meeting is next week.
[End of minutes]