See also: IRC log, previous 2007-03-13
Guus: welcome to Siggi and Vit
Tom: I need to check the record of 13 March actions, as there was some confusion between me and Jon about status of one of them
Guus: we'll carry forward discussion of previous minutes to next week, then
[later, just before adjourning]
Tom: I checked the minutes of the 13 March meeting and they look OK
RESOLVED to accept -> minutes of 13 March telecon
ACTION: [DONE] Ralph get tracker to watch public-swd-wg@w3.org [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/06-swd-minutes.html#action01]
ACTION: [DONE] Guus to check if Amsterdam can be F2F venue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/27-swd-minutes.html#action17]
Guus: CWI will host a meeting, either in our facilities or in the W3C Amsterdam Office
Tom: we need more people to respond to the f2f poll
Ralph: see "Open polls and questionnaires" under "Nearby" on WG home page
ACTION: Elisa and Sean to review SKOS editor's draft http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/UCRMaterial?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=ucr-20070306.html by 27 March [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/06-swd-minutes.html#action04] [CONTINUES]
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]
ACTION: Alan to write up the preferredLabel modelling issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action01] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Guus to propose resolution to SKOS issue 26 circa 15 March for discussion on 20 March [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/27-swd-minutes.html#action09] [WITHDRAWN]
Guus: I don't see a consensus yet; the WG
appears to be split
... Alistair asked to postpone this issue
Alistair: we have only one concrete proposal on
the table now, the revised proposal from Guus
... we don't have a concrete proposal on alternatives, e.g.
class-as-pattern
... can't discuss alternatives without a concrete proposal
... I propose to postpone this issue until advocates for another approach
post a full proposal
... it doesn't have to be either-or, however; there are solutions that might
accomodate both
... see my revised
alternative proposal mailed yesterday
Guus: I prefer solutions that make minimal
changes to the original specification while still handling the
requirements
... my second proposal differed from my first proposal by dropping
requirements for alt labels and permitting more flexibility in the value
... this makes the specification lighter
... this would be an intermediate minimal solution
Alistair: I thought earlier that your second proposal was the one with 'has label relation' property
Guus: no, that was a refinement of my first proposal
Alistair: I don't like to have the range of a
property be underspecified
... I think it makes sense to set the expectation that range of certain
properties will be plain literals
... if an application has to deal with various alternatives, it makes the
implementation more complicated
<guus> my second proposal
Alistair: I would like to the *label property
values to be plain literals
... I agree with the approach Guus is proposing and make the smallest
commitment we can make that is sensible
... but having underspecified ranges for the particular label properties may
be harmful
Guus: the problem with alt and pref label is
that we simply don't know -- it depends on the specific vocabularies
... each vocabulary has a notion of alt and preferred label but makes
different decisions with respect to [use of] strings
... we can either complicate SKOS by adding multiple solutions or we rule out
one approach
Alistair: for any single vocabulary there are
several ways to model it in RDF
... just because we choose to use literals in altLabel and prefLabel doesn't
mean we've ruled out the ability to capture everything in that vocabulary
... I show solutions that allow people to extend SKOS in various ways while
still permitting some interoperability
Guus: I have a feeling that our two proposals
will not generate consensus; they're viewed as too contrived
... forcing a vocabulary owner to create an individual for every term is also
unlikely to get consensus
... need a middle ground that allows for both
Alistair: my proposal does not prevent either approach; it's a different way of looking at the problem
Guus: but it makes the specification more complicated
Alistair: I disagree; it creates 3 design
patterns that can be extended
... and would simplify one section of the current Guide
... it provides an extensibility framework for modelling relationships
between literals if you want to do so
... it's worth thinking about this
... I'd like to keep prefLabel, altLabel, and hiddenLabel stable
... there are entailments that follow from the use of plain literal; e.g. a
blank node of type rdfs:Literal
... you can name plain literals with URIs if you want
Guus: I don't want to go down that road
Alistair: it would help to have very specific proposal here, e.g. for Guus' proposal to underspecify values
ACTION: Guus revise his ISSUE-26 proposal to account for other options [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/20-swd-minutes.html#action07]
ACTION: [DONE] Alistair updates SKOS section of deliverables page based on proposed restructuring of documents cited in he previous email to the group [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/13-swd-minutes.html#action12]
Guus: I'll ping Antoine on the editor's draft of the SKOS Use Cases
ACTION: Guus ping Antoine regarding status of SKOS Use Cases editors' draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/20-swd-minutes.html#action10]
-> Recipes
ACTION: Ralph propose resolution to Recipe issue 1.3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14] [CONTINUES]
Jon: Diego has posted some preliminary work on
test cases
... I think we committed to early April to have a version
... I'll talk with Diego about whether we have enough material to create an
interim draft
Guus: It's fine to post a WD that notes still-open issues
ACTION: Elisa to summarize state of Vocabulary Management draft, add comments, and coordinate work [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-swd-minutes.html#action06] [CONTINUES]
Guus: I'd like for Siggi and Vit to talk with Elisa and propose a work plan for this Note
Vit: I've exchanged mail with Elisa and
outlined what we are able to offer
... we need to consider which parts of the very abstract proposal we can
contribute
Guus: Siggi and Vit head the vocabulary work in KnowledgeWeb, so I appreciate their participation here
Guus: we've decided to leave this item as low
priority for now
... so I will omit it from future agenda for now and perhaps revive it
later
Ralph: so let's note in our Deliverables Wiki that this deliverable is at risk
-> RDFa Primer 1.0 12 March 2007 published
<benadida> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Mar/0047.html
Ben: I'm not sure I can cite specific reply from Alistair or Daniel
<benadida> [RDFa] Scenarios Review/
-> Request to Vote on publication of RDFa Primer and Use Case documents
Alistair: I've read the email describing responses to all my comments and I'm happy if my comments have been addressed per that email
Guus: please send email to the list with that reply, Alistair
<TomB> +1 to publish Use Case document as Working Draft
<Simone> +1
RESOLVED to proceed with publishing -> RDFa Use Cases: Scenarios for Embedding RDF in HTML as First Public Working Draft
ACTION: Ben make sure http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/scenarios/20070305/ is pubrules compliant and hand to Ralph [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/20-swd-minutes.html#action13]
Guus: I'd like Ben to do some publicity on relevant mailing lists; e.g. semantic-web@w3.org
Ben: happy to do that. We also keep an RDFa blog
Guus: how about some html-related mailing lists?
ACTION: Ben to send mail to Semantic Web and HTML mailing lists publicizing and soliciting comments on RDFa Primer and RDFa Use Cases work [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/20-swd-minutes.html#action14]
Ben: I'd appreciate other suggestions on what mailing lists to notify
[adjourned]