See also: IRC log
<TomB> Previous: http://www.w3.org/2007/01/30-swd-minutes.html
<RalphS> Tom: none of the folks next up on the scribe list are present
<RalphS> ... I suggest a scribe nominee plus a backup scribe
<TomB> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/ScribeDuty
<RalphS> Scribe: Alistair
guus: PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the Jan 30 telecon:
http://www.w3.org/2007/01/30-swd-minutes.html
ralph: second
RESOLVED
guus: regrets for next telecon
... ralph notified us of time of telecon issues between US & Europe.
Propose to move to UTC 1500, so Europe is 2 weeks out of synch.
ralph: for those two weeks, telcon will be one hour earlier than usual for europeans. If that's ok we can leave it. I'd be willing to do one hour later.
guus: any objections to either solutions?
... [no objectsions] propose to keep to W3C policy, on 13 March move to 1500
UTC.
RESOLVED: telecon moves to 1500 UTC on March 13 and thereafter (until October)
guus: news, tomb & I wrote news items for
semantic web activity, link is in minutes fyi
... scribing - list of scribes?
tomb: list of candidates for scribing is on the
wiki. I propose to send out a list for next 8 weeks proposing primary and
secondary scribe, then leave it up to people involved to say if they cannot
attend.
... if any other suggestions? group is small, don't know how to avoid having
people who attend more scribe more.
<TomB> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/ScribeDuty
guus: propose we try tomb's suggestion for one round, then evaluate.
ralph: action is complete when tomb sends message to group.
<scribe> ACTION: [CONTINUES] TomB and Guus to look at proposal for assigning scribe duties [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/05-swd-minutes.html#action01]
<RalphS> scribenick: ralphs
<scribe> ACTION: Alan to write down the general documentation requirements, in particular to those that are related to literal values, and how to represent that in skos [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action09] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Alan write up the preferredLabel modelling issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action01] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Alistair to raise a new issue about USE X + Y and USE X OR Y [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-swd-minutes.html#action07] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Alistair to rephrase the old issue of skos/owl-dl coexistence and semantics [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action08] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Alistair to summarizes the aspects of semantics of the skos data model [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action06] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Alistair to update the schedule for SKOS documents [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-swd-minutes.html#action10]
Alistair: I sent email today "SKOS Deliverables"
<aliman> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Feb/0021.html SKOS deliverables
Alistair: would like comments on the deliverables before I update the Wiki
<scribe> -- done
<scribe> ACTION: Antoine to capture the issue on capturing relationships between labels [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action04] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Antoine to contact the submittors of use case #7 to see what they want to use skos for (as opposed to, say, owl) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action05] [DONE]
Antoine: I did send mail to the submittors, but did not copy the WG list
<scribe> ACTION: Antoine to provide more use cases of uses of qualifiers [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action02] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to check that this issue of more specialization than broad/narrow is on the issues list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action03] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to check with Veronique on the terms being outside the iso standard [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action07] [CONTINUES]
Guus: when can we expect to have a SKOS UCR
draft for review?
... does not need to be complete but does need to contain sufficient
information to be interesting to outside readers
Antoine: requires deciding for all pending issues ...
Guus: no, the issues say how we're planning to satisfy the requirements; we don't need to resolve the issues before publishing UCR
Antoine: discussion of issues may bring in new
requirements
... do we feel the current requirements are sufficiently stable?
Guus: the UCR draft is sufficiently new to warrant outside review and comment; it does not have to be our final version
Antoine: we'd discussed beginning of March for publishing UCR. I think that is still achieveable
Jon: I still have some use cases to
summarize
... I have some Vocabulary Management use cases that I have not yet
submitted
Ralph: are those separate from SKOS?
Jon: no, we raise some questions about how SKOS
is used for vocabulary management
... I will try to get these submitted by the end of the week
Antoine: if we have to take all the use cases into account ...
<Antoine> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/RawUCs
<aliman> I look forward to Jon's vocab management + SKOS use cases ... we as yet have no SKOS requirements wrt to vocab management
Antoine: we currently have 5 use cases that
were contributed after the deadline
... Daniel has also mentioned one other use case
... it would be useful to have an idea of what we'll be able to include in
the next UCR publication
Guus: there are too many use cases to include
all of them
... good to select some use cases that are representative and give a good
overview
... then point to others in the Wiki for more information
... it will not be cost effective to include all 25 use cases in the
document
... we should not expect to be able to cover all of them
Ralph: yes, I support that
Guus: we did this for OWL (WebOnt WG) -- we
selected 5 or 6 use cases that covered the area
... leave it to the editors to decide which use cases to select and how large
the set should be
... somewhere around 7 might be nice
... some of the use cases gave much more input than the others during our f2f
discussions
... I would like to start issue review next week
... assign owners to each
<scribe> scribenick: aliman
guus: in use cases diverge alot, in issues begin to converge - nice feeling
<scribe> ACTION: guus to pick a SKOS issue and open it [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/06-swd-minutes.html#action13]
guus: any more on SKOS?
<Zakim> TomB, you wanted to suggest we confirm schedule at http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/Deliverables#SKOS
tomb: ask that we look at the schedule on Deliverables page, is month 6 for WD reasonable?
guus: still a realistic schedule (antoine said). I would expect over month feb to see progress on the editor's draft, hopefully selection of use cases will make this easier.
antoine: still happy with month 6
guus: no CG last week, haven't flagged issue of rec track yet.
<RalphS> meeting record: 2007-02-5 RDF-in-XHTML telecon
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to flag the issue of RDFa REC track on the coordination group [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-swd-minutes.html#action03] [CONTINUES]
guus: ralph can you talk about this action later on this week?
ralph: sure
<RalphS> Ralph: yes, after 1700 UTC tomorrow
<scribe> ACTION: Bernard to raise new issue re IE6 hack [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action12] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Jon to update issue list as per dropping of 1.2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action11] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Jon to update issue list as per resolution of issue 1.1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action10] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph propose resolution to issue 1.3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14] [CONTINUES]
ralph: bug in the minutes (re issue
process)?
... leave to jon's discretion to move to issue tracker, may not have recorded
to tracker
<RalphS> "RESOLUTION: Jon may move the Recipes issues list to tracker at his discretion"
<RalphS> -- http://www.w3.org/2007/01/30-swd-minutes.html
jon: I'm going to move the recipes issue into the tracker environment, not as rich as wiki but easier to maintain
guus: jon discussion?
<RalphS> [I don't see a bug in the previous meeting minutes -- just in our recollection of them :)]
jon: postpone until progress on issues.
<scribe> ACTION: Elisa to give first overview of what the status of the doc is and add comments and coordinate work on doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-swd-minutes.html#action06] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to contact persons working on versioning in Knowledge Web [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-swd-minutes.html#action05] [CONTINUES]
guus: no progress
Alistair: I would appreciate feedback on the breakdown of SKOS deliverables that I proposed
<RalphS> [SKOS] deliverables [Alistair 2007-02-06]
guus: alistair proposes: use cases &
requirements; test cases; primer; normative specification; machine-readable
specification; vocabulary overview; FAQ-like notes
... primer there is initial draft. Normative specification ... new doc.
Machine-readable as appendix to normative spec.
... e.g. RDF schema of OWL as appendix to spec & namespace doc.
Ralph: how is the Vocabulary Overview different from the Primer?
guus: where does SKOS Core Guide go?
Alistair: Core Guide is input to Primer
... the tables that are currently in the "SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification"
I'm suggesting should become a separate document, called "Vocabulary
Overview"
... that would be like a reference companion
... readers could go directly to Vocabulary Specification if they want to
know details
Ralph: but if it's normative then it risk being different from the Normative Spec
Alistair: I suggest that the Vocabulary Spec be informative
Ralph: it feels wrong to me that the reference you expect people to use most frequently is non-normative
Alistair: I expect the Primer to be used most
often
... and for each item in the Vocabulary Overview there would be a link to the
normative specification
Antoine: would the normative specification and
the overview be redundant, at least from an organization perspective?
... could we not continue the current organization of the SKOS documents
... Spec would have a list of the constructs plus their semantics, Overview
would have constructs plus informal account of semantics
Alistair: Overview would only have list
... a human-readable namespace document, content-negotiated from the
namespace
... the normative specification is an account of the semantics, will have
prose, will include more than just a list of the constructs plus a summary of
their definitions
Ralph: if the proposal is to have 2 documents at the namespace URI, one RDF/OWL and the other HTML, I'd understand -- and support -- that proposal
Tom: would overview be auto-generated?
Ralph: so the Vocabulary Overview is really just the HTML document at the namespace URI?
Alistair: HTML namespace document is what I was
thinking
... with redirects the content doesn't have cover exactly the same material
as the RDF/OWL but I still think it's good practice to keep the content
covering the same thing, as would be required for content negotiation
guus: AOB?
... thanks all for attending the call, hope to do some actions next week, we
are adjourned.