See also: IRC log, previous 2007-03-20
<RalphS> Ralph: apologies for not being on irc at the start of last week's aborted meeting to explain the problem with the bridge
No minutes from [March 27], as there were technical problems
PROPOSED to accept minutes of 20 March telecon:
http://www.w3.org/2007/03/20-swd-minutes.html
<mhausenblas> +1
Accepted without objection
Next tcon: Tom and Guus not available, so meeting next week will be cancelled
Next meeting: Apr 17
Spring F2F: Main item for discussion is SKOS, RDFa
All: Respond to poll regarding possible face-to-face meeting
in June - http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/39408/f2f2poll1/
Respond to poll regarding possible face-to-face meeting
in June - http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/39408/f2f2poll1/
There is a problem with the June date for most people
We likely need to postpone the meeting to Sept
No F2F in June
Another possibility is to meet at a meeting, like ISWC, but that is in Nov
<mhausenblas> possible events
Elisa: intent is to ogranize
material and find out where people can contribute ideas
... Learn how people are dealing with this today, and what
people are doing (version management, etc)
Guus: Need to document current practices
Elisa: By next week will have an outline for people to contribute to
Guus: we need to invite
contributions to particular practices.
... it would be useful to have overview of current
practices
Elisa: There is additional
capability...last week at OMG meeting, discussed possibility of
OMG for hosting portal for ontologies that OMG people depend
on, similar to bioportal
... there are RFPs for ontologies in specific domains, eg,
insurance, request for ontology for vocabulary in this
domain
... we hope to expand to cover insurance standards
... we need portal for publicizing these things, to follow best
practices in vocabulary;
... Elisa writing document for this
... we may get contributions from OMG for vocabuarly
management
Guus: any link to provide?
Elisa: not yet. As soon as there
is a draft, will send link
... we can leverage work on this note and on getting things
related to OMG together.
... There is much interest in OMG in doing this.
... The "O" word is now becoming in vogue.
<scribe> ACTION: Elisa to provide outline of work to be done by Apr 17 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/03-swd-minutes.html#action01]
<scribe> DONE: 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]
<RalphS> scribenick: ralphs
Daniel: any further comments on the draft use cases?
<dlrubin> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/UCRMaterial?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=ucr-20070306.html
^ SKOS Use Cases and Requirements
W3C Editors' Draft 06 March 2007
Daniel: this editors' draft is
ready for review now
... there's a list of SKOS requirements at the bottom
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/UCRMaterial?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=ucr-20070306.html#Accepted "Accepted Requirements"
Alistair: weren't Elisa and Sean
agreeing to review this?
... each has already sent a (partial) review
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Mar/0131 [SKOS] Review of SKOS Use Cases and Requirements [Elisa]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Mar/0128 Comments on Use Case document [Sean]
Guus: the editors are expected to
look at the reviews and respond to them
... based on the reviews, you send a message to the WG
summarizing the result and proposing to publish
Alistair: you don't have to agree with everything the reviewers propose, just justify your decision
Daniel: each editor could answer the review comments on the use cases they contributed
Guus: however the editors decide
to divide the task of responding to the reviews will be
fine
... the decision to publish should be determined on the basis
of having sufficient new material to be useful to the
Public
Jon: there have been a couple of
new use cases submitted in the past couple of weeks
... they might provide some additional requirements after
closer inspection
Guus: I suggest not holding the first WD
<aliman> +1 on publish quickly, lots of useful information
Guus: let's get our candidate
requirements list published quickly
... it's OK to have to-dos in the document
... if you respond to a review citing material that is already
in the document, please give a precise citation; sometimes you
discover when looking for the citation that something you
thought was in the document really isn't there
<scribe> ACTION: Antoine, Jon, Daniel respond to the SKOS Use Case reviews, target a decision to publish on 17 April [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/03-swd-minutes.html#action02]
<scribe> ACTION: Alan to write up the preferredLabel modelling issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action01] [CONTINUES]
<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: [DONE] Guus ping Antoine regarding status of SKOS Use Cases editors' draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/20-swd-minutes.html#action10]
<scribe> ACTION: [DONE] 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/2007/03/20-swd-minutes.html#action03]
<scribe> 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] [CONTINUES]
Alistair: I think it would be helpful if Guus would propose one or two detailed solutions
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/33 ISSUE 33 GroupingConstructs
Guus: do you have an idea for how to resolve issue 33?
Alistair: we need a vocabulary for representing grouping constructs. Currently that is skos:Collection. We need to establish a practice for how to say something is a member of this grouping construct.
Guus: is this like skos:Concept?
Alistair: no, different
... milk and cowsMilk related by broader/narrower but both of
these are related to [animal products] in some other way
... could be broader/narrower or associative relationship
... want to allow people to layer grouping constructs and
generate an algorithm for producing hierarchical displays
... see ->
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/GroupingConstructs
Grouping Constructs Wikit
Guus: I was surprised by the
BOOKS / Operations example
... I am only accustomed to the use of Collections in the way
the Aircraft example works
Alistair: ISO 723 permits the use
of node labels to introduce new facets
... but they're clear that these are not necessarily
narrower
... ANSI Z39.19 has a similar example to the ISO 2788
Operations example
... so this is in all three of the major thesaurus
standards
... however, I've not actually seen it used
Guus: it is not harmful to leave Collection in there
Alistair: but there is a contradiction; currently the document says that Collections are not Concepts but later it uses them in narrower/broader relations
Jon: I agree -- a Collection should not be a Concept
Alistair: the thesaurus standards
do talk about node labels in a very different way
... there is a simpler algorithm to determine where node labels
"ought" to appear
... I feel there should be a vocabulary in SKOS to represent
these grouping things and that should not be skos:Concept
... there's an unfortunate naming collision; in DublinCore,
"Collection" refers to a library of documents and in RDF Core
"Collection" is a very specific notion
Guus: milk & cows mail case requires saying cows milk is part of the collection "milk from animals" then also say cows milk is narrower than milk
Alistair: simpler than what Guus
describes
... can say "if all members of a Collection are narrower then
use the node label"
Jon: what is the value of
Collections over having a named type that makes something
appear
... e.g. by-payload is just a relationship between aircraft
types and payload types
Alistair: we want a generic way to represent this pattern
Guus: consider 'chairs' in
AAT
... need several ways to represent the groupings
Alistair: and you want to
represent the groupings without requiring additional
information to generate the transformation
... you don't want someone to have to disambiguate each type of
relation
Jon: wouldn't it be better to disambiguate?
Alistair: it might be more useful but we want SKOS to be a target for such transformations
Guus: could define subproperties
of broader/narrower that imply these Collections
... seems we have identified two alternatives
<scribe> ACTION: Alistair to write up two alternatives for representing Collections [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/03-swd-minutes.html#action08]
<dlrubin> scribenick: dlrubin
Ralph propose resolution to Recipe issue 1.3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14] --continues
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph propose resolution to Recipe issue 1.3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14] --continues
Jon: not progress on documents
Michael: We're working on the
test cases.
... Had discussion of XHTML to embed RDFa
<RalphS> XHTML 1.1 Module for RDFa discussion
Ralph: Progress in getting a DTD to validate HTML + RDFa documents
Guus: Any progress on Ben's publishing document on mailing lists?
Michael: still pending
<RalphS> Ben's Action progress report
<scribe> 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] --done
Ralph: Name change in HTML
working groups
... on HTML side, the WG on joint task force is XHTML2 WG
... We should update name of this WG in necessary places.
... They are still in startup phase; no chairs appointed
yet
There are 2 WG's that have HTML in their name. The XHTML2 WG is associated with RDFa
scribe: the second WG is the "HTML WG"
Guus: any chance to link to this wg?
Ralph: They are directed to do document validation that requires single DTDs. Their charter asks them to look at that
<mhausenblas> HTML WG
Ralph: They are also in the early
formation process
... They have made it clear they have no resources to look at
RDFa
... They are directed to consider the validation issue
<RalphS> scribenick: ralphs
Ralph: Michael and Wing are making good progress on RDFa test cases
[adjourned]
<scribe> 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] [CONTINUES]
<scribe> ACTION: [DONE] 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]