IRC log of swd on 2007-07-03
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 14:56:53 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #swd
- 14:56:53 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-irc
- 14:56:58 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #swd
- 14:57:04 [RalphS]
- zakim, this will be swd
- 14:57:04 [Zakim]
- ok, RalphS, I see SW_SWD()11:00AM already started
- 14:57:08 [RalphS]
- rrsagent, please make record public
- 14:57:12 [RalphS]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 14:57:12 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see ??P13
- 14:57:42 [RalphS]
- zakim, ??p13 is Tom
- 14:57:42 [Zakim]
- +Tom; got it
- 14:58:11 [TomB]
- :-)
- 14:58:54 [Zakim]
- +Ralph
- 14:59:46 [Antoine]
- Antoine has joined #swd
- 14:59:54 [Zakim]
- +??P19
- 15:00:19 [RalphS]
- zakim, ??p19 is Guus
- 15:00:19 [Zakim]
- +Guus; got it
- 15:00:47 [RalphS]
- Meeting: SWD WG
- 15:01:03 [RalphS]
- Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jul/0002.html
- 15:01:18 [Zakim]
- +Antoine_Isaac
- 15:01:35 [RalphS]
- -> http://www.w3.org/2007/06/26-swd-minutes.html previous 2007-06-26
- 15:01:54 [TomB]
- Regrets: Bernard, Elisa, Simone, Justin
- 15:02:05 [TomB]
- Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0188.html
- 15:02:29 [Zakim]
- +CarlosI
- 15:02:34 [berrueta]
- zakim, CarlosI is me
- 15:02:34 [Zakim]
- sorry, berrueta, I do not recognize a party named 'CarlosI'
- 15:02:37 [TomB]
- Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jul/0002.html
- 15:02:58 [berrueta]
- zakim, CarlosI is really me
- 15:02:58 [Zakim]
- sorry, berrueta, I do not recognize a party named 'CarlosI'
- 15:03:19 [JonP]
- JonP has joined #swd
- 15:03:32 [vit]
- vit has joined #swd
- 15:03:35 [Zakim]
- +??P5
- 15:03:38 [dlrubin]
- dlrubin has joined #swd
- 15:03:38 [RalphS]
- zakim, carlosi is Diego
- 15:03:39 [Zakim]
- sorry, RalphS, I do not recognize a party named 'carlosi'
- 15:03:51 [RalphS]
- zakim, ??p5 is Daniel
- 15:03:51 [Zakim]
- +Daniel; got it
- 15:03:54 [guus]
- zakim, ??P5 is Daniel
- 15:03:54 [Zakim]
- I already had ??P5 as Daniel, guus
- 15:04:24 [guus]
- zakim, who is here?
- 15:04:24 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Tom, Ralph, Guus, Antoine_Isaac, [CTIC], Daniel
- 15:04:24 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see dlrubin, vit, JonP, Antoine, Zakim, RRSAgent, RalphS, berrueta, TomB, guus
- 15:04:26 [RalphS]
- zakim, [ctic] is Diego
- 15:04:27 [Zakim]
- +Diego; got it
- 15:05:06 [Zakim]
- +??P33
- 15:05:36 [RalphS]
- zakim, ??p33 is Vit
- 15:05:36 [Zakim]
- +Vit; got it
- 15:06:25 [seanb]
- seanb has joined #swd
- 15:06:38 [dlrubin]
- scribenick: dlrubin
- 15:06:53 [edsu2]
- edsu2 has joined #swd
- 15:07:17 [Zakim]
- +??P17
- 15:07:20 [Zakim]
- +[LC]
- 15:07:35 [RalphS]
- zakim, ??p17 is Sean
- 15:07:35 [Zakim]
- +Sean; got it
- 15:07:37 [Zakim]
- +Jon_Phipps
- 15:07:57 [RalphS]
- zakim, lc is Clay
- 15:07:58 [Zakim]
- +Clay; got it
- 15:08:08 [Zakim]
- +[LC]
- 15:08:10 [Clay]
- Clay has joined #swd
- 15:08:19 [JonP]
- zakim, Jon_Phipps is me
- 15:08:19 [Zakim]
- +JonP; got it
- 15:08:26 [RalphS]
- zakim, lc is Ed
- 15:08:26 [Zakim]
- +Ed; got it
- 15:08:41 [dlrubin]
- topic: admin
- 15:09:21 [dlrubin]
- Guus: proposal to accept minutes
- 15:09:32 [dlrubin]
- ...carried
- 15:09:45 [dlrubin]
- ...Upcoming tcon July 10
- 15:09:49 [dlrubin]
- ...Tom will Chair
- 15:10:03 [dlrubin]
- ...Next F2F meeting
- 15:10:10 [RalphS]
- -> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/39408/f2f3poll1/results results of November f2f poll
- 15:10:38 [dlrubin]
- ...after summer will need meeting resolve SKOS and RDFa issues.
- 15:10:54 [RalphS]
- q+ to comment on SKOS agendum for f2f
- 15:10:56 [dlrubin]
- ...Should we have SKOS meeting in Korea or separate venue?
- 15:11:10 [dlrubin]
- ...For RDFa US is likely candidate
- 15:11:52 [dlrubin]
- Ralph: Only Guus couldn't be in Cambridge for SKOS
- 15:12:00 [dlrubin]
- ...5 said they can't be in Korea
- 15:12:34 [dlrubin]
- Antoine: If SKOS were in Europe, that is preferable.
- 15:13:48 [dlrubin]
- Ralph: First two weeks in Nov are not possible.
- 15:14:00 [dlrubin]
- ...end of Nov is problematic.
- 15:14:42 [dlrubin]
- Guus: We could select Amsterdam.
- 15:15:13 [dlrubin]
- Action: Guus to propose dates in Oct for Amsterdam meeting on SKOS.
- 15:15:18 [RalphS]
- s/end of Nov is problematic./3rd week of Nov is a big US holiday, so we'd be at end of Nov./
- 15:15:46 [dlrubin]
- TomB: can we pick early Oct?
- 15:15:56 [dlrubin]
- Guus: We should do a web poll.
- 15:16:11 [dlrubin]
- ...for RDAa meeting--cambridge venue?
- 15:16:24 [dlrubin]
- Ralph: only 3 people wanted a meeting
- 15:16:53 [TomB]
- zakim, Tom is really TomB
- 15:16:53 [Zakim]
- +TomB; got it
- 15:17:11 [dlrubin]
- ...suggest that RDFa be taken up in XHTML2 meeting
- 15:17:26 [dlrubin]
- ...there are 2 new chairs for XHTML2
- 15:17:36 [dlrubin]
- ...Roland Merrick and Evan Pimberton
- 15:18:02 [seanb]
- s/Evan Pimberton/Steven Pemberton
- 15:18:02 [dlrubin]
- ...correction Steven Pimberton
- 15:18:08 [RalphS]
- s/Pimberton/Pemberton/
- 15:18:47 [dlrubin]
- Action: Discuss possibility of meeting for RDFa in Cambridge.
- 15:18:52 [dlrubin]
- Topic: SKOS
- 15:19:02 [dlrubin]
- Issue-26: RelationshipsBetweenLabels (http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/26)
- 15:19:21 [dlrubin]
- Guus: Two current proposals, simple extension and minimal label.
- 15:19:29 [RalphS]
- (RDFa hopes to be substantially done by Nov, so the question of a f2f agendum for it was considered low priority by Ben)
- 15:19:39 [dlrubin]
- ...gave this to ontology engineering students. Will post results to list.
- 15:20:25 [dlrubin]
- ...Other issue is comment from Antoine on naming Guus used
- 15:20:47 [dlrubin]
- ...Instead of prefLabel, use prefLabelR--antoine wonders if this is good naming
- 15:20:57 [dlrubin]
- ...we could discuss
- 15:21:13 [dlrubin]
- edsu: Does adding an "R" used elsewhere?
- 15:21:17 [dlrubin]
- Guus: was in OWL
- 15:21:45 [dlrubin]
- ...Actually in OWL it was dropped.
- 15:22:14 [dlrubin]
- ...You need a lexical way of having difference.
- 15:22:30 [dlrubin]
- Antoine: This is not really explicit and confusing, as could be interpreted as relation
- 15:22:40 [dlrubin]
- ...you have properties with R and label relation
- 15:22:46 [dlrubin]
- ...this is a worry
- 15:23:12 [dlrubin]
- Guus: "resource" might be better
- 15:23:22 [dlrubin]
- ...There was also discussion as to whether relation was bijectional
- 15:23:51 [dlrubin]
- ...Alistair was going to propose resolution for issue 33. Action not yet been done.
- 15:23:57 [dlrubin]
- ...Proposal to leave it at that
- 15:24:15 [dlrubin]
- seanb: Wasn't there mail from Allistair in June proposing this?
- 15:24:26 [dlrubin]
- Guus: if you are willing to look, we'll move on.
- 15:24:31 [dlrubin]
- seanb: will look for url
- 15:24:42 [dlrubin]
- -- ISSUE-31 BasicLexicalLabelSemantics proposed resolution
- 15:24:42 [dlrubin]
- See thread from:
- 15:24:42 [dlrubin]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0170.html
- 15:24:46 [dlrubin]
- -- ISSUE-31 BasicLexicalLabelSemantics proposed resolution
- 15:24:46 [dlrubin]
- See thread from:
- 15:24:46 [dlrubin]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0170.html
- 15:25:01 [dlrubin]
- Guus: John, I can clarify what I meant
- 15:25:10 [dlrubin]
- ...we had discussion on the potential ontological commitment
- 15:25:20 [dlrubin]
- ...should the concept be in only one scheme
- 15:25:29 [TomB]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0166.html
- 15:25:33 [dlrubin]
- ...if there is no clear reason to say this is the case, we should not specify
- 15:26:01 [dlrubin]
- ...The other issue is whether broader/narrower can be between concepts in 2 different schemes
- 15:26:06 [dlrubin]
- ...I don't see concerns here yet
- 15:26:31 [dlrubin]
- JonP: this has to do with ownership schemes
- 15:26:49 [dlrubin]
- ...there was also question whether concept can be in more than one scheme.
- 15:27:33 [dlrubin]
- Guus: from web approach, whether concepts belong to scheme is something owner should have control over
- 15:27:48 [dlrubin]
- ...whether you use broader/narrower for that is another question
- 15:27:59 [dlrubin]
- JonP: you should look at mapping vocabulary
- 15:28:09 [seanb]
- I think this is also related to issue 36: http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/36
- 15:28:31 [Antoine]
- http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptualMapping/ProposalOne
- 15:29:03 [dlrubin]
- Guus: We have equivalent concepts and overlapping concepts
- 15:29:13 [dlrubin]
- Antoine: I was proposing using broader/narrower relations
- 15:29:31 [dlrubin]
- Guus: I feel uncomforable replicating OWL vocabulary here
- 15:29:43 [dlrubin]
- ...for equivalence we have equivalentClass and sameAS
- 15:29:52 [dlrubin]
- ...we hav union and negation
- 15:30:04 [dlrubin]
- ...would hamper usability if we introduce redundancy
- 15:30:57 [dlrubin]
- Antoine: equivalentConcept may exist in another namespace, so we would turn to a less satisfactory concetp
- 15:31:03 [dlrubin]
- Guus: why not use sameAs?
- 15:31:21 [dlrubin]
- Antoine: the meaning of the concepts are the same, but sameAs states equivalence of the resources.
- 15:31:39 [dlrubin]
- ...if you have metadata about the concepts, then this information would be aggregated around unique resource
- 15:31:56 [dlrubin]
- Guus: you can't use equivClass because they are not equivalent.
- 15:32:01 [dlrubin]
- ...ok
- 15:32:15 [dlrubin]
- ...so we will need further discussion
- 15:32:27 [dlrubin]
- ...do we have an owner for issue 31?
- 15:33:08 [dlrubin]
- ...it was proposed by Alistair
- 15:33:32 [dlrubin]
- ...so Alistair will be owner
- 15:33:40 [TomB]
- q+ to draw attention to Alistair's proposal re: ISSUE-33 http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/Semantics/Grouping?action=recall&rev=4
- 15:33:47 [dlrubin]
- Mapping Topic Maps to SKOS:
- 15:33:47 [dlrubin]
- https://mijn.postbank.nl/internetbankieren/SesamLoginServlet
- 15:34:22 [dlrubin]
- Antoine: what Alistiar has proposed is interesting, but I am concerned about constraints on semantics.
- 15:34:33 [dlrubin]
- ...people in WG should look at this before next week.
- 15:35:05 [dlrubin]
- ...I'm questioning use of 'syntactic constraints'--I'm not used to that and its relevance to people outside the WG
- 15:35:12 [dlrubin]
- ...is this a good way to specify semantics?
- 15:35:26 [dlrubin]
- ...even Alistair not sure
- 15:35:38 [dlrubin]
- ...people should look at whether this is proper way to do things
- 15:35:47 [dlrubin]
- Guus: there are analogies in owl.
- 15:36:00 [JonP]
- http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/Semantics/Labelling?action=recall&rev=5
- 15:36:13 [dlrubin]
- ...every parser might flag a warning as a syntactic condition
- 15:36:29 [dlrubin]
- Antoine: so no problem specifying semantic constraints at syntactic level?
- 15:36:36 [dlrubin]
- ...I am ok with this.
- 15:36:44 [dlrubin]
- Guus: Sean--what do you think?
- 15:37:22 [dlrubin]
- seanb: where is this?
- 15:37:37 [dlrubin]
- Guus: if you look at issue 31 and go to wiki page, you see skos semantics labeling.
- 15:37:43 [dlrubin]
- ...you see semantic conditions
- 15:38:30 [dlrubin]
- ...it is not about the statement but whether semantic considtions are ok
- 15:38:45 [dlrubin]
- ...for language tag, there is no other option...
- 15:38:59 [dlrubin]
- seanb: ok
- 15:39:13 [TomB]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0167.html
- 15:39:14 [dlrubin]
- Guus: will you look at this and see whether this form is ok?
- 15:39:18 [dlrubin]
- seanb: yes
- 15:39:32 [dlrubin]
- Antoine: this may be redundant with owl specification
- 15:39:38 [dlrubin]
- ...I am ok with what is there.
- 15:39:43 [RalphS]
- q+ to ask about conformance
- 15:40:02 [dlrubin]
- Mapping Topic Maps to SKOS:
- 15:40:02 [dlrubin]
- https://mijn.postbank.nl/internetbankieren/SesamLoginServlet
- 15:40:24 [dlrubin]
- Guus: this is the wrong link--I apologize
- 15:40:49 [dlrubin]
- ...I'll resend a new message
- 15:40:56 [guus]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jul/0004.html
- 15:41:32 [dlrubin]
- ...There is support for properties of narrower/broader
- 15:42:00 [dlrubin]
- Antoine: should we raise this as an issue?
- 15:42:08 [dlrubin]
- Guus: we have these subtypes on our issue list
- 15:42:21 [dlrubin]
- Antoine: the standardization level is different?
- 15:42:25 [RalphS]
- -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0216.html Semantic relation BroaderPartitive/ NarrowerPartitiv
- 15:42:49 [dlrubin]
- Guus: We can indicate how to do it
- 15:43:00 [dlrubin]
- ...at moment, topic map community isn't very large
- 15:43:15 [dlrubin]
- Antoine: while broader/narrower is something that might come from outside topic map communtiy
- 15:43:31 [dlrubin]
- ...people have said they would use it for their vocabulary case
- 15:43:39 [dlrubin]
- Guus: we have these things on our issue list
- 15:43:54 [dlrubin]
- Anotoine: I don't think so
- 15:44:36 [dlrubin]
- ...we have issue 37 on skos specialization
- 15:45:09 [dlrubin]
- Guus: should we include in skos the broader/narrower specialization?
- 15:45:24 [dlrubin]
- ...could Antoine raise that issue?
- 15:45:28 [dlrubin]
- Antoine: ok
- 15:45:37 [dlrubin]
- seanb: is there a use case that picks up on that?
- 15:45:57 [dlrubin]
- Antoine: yes in one of the use cases
- 15:46:21 [dlrubin]
- Action: Antoine to raise issue of adding broader/narrower relations in skos
- 15:46:40 [dlrubin]
- Guus: suggestions on how to move forward these discussions?
- 15:46:47 [TomB]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0166.html
- 15:46:48 [TomB]
- I have proposed the following section of the SKOS Semantics wiki draft as a resolution for this issue:
- 15:46:50 [dlrubin]
- ...some of these issues need to be resovled at f2f meeting
- 15:46:50 [TomB]
- [1] <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/Semantics/Grouping?action=recall&rev=4>
- 15:46:51 [TomB]
- This is section of the SKOS Semantics wiki draft, which defines a semantics for skos:Collection, skos:OrderedCollection, skos:member and skos:memberList.
- 15:46:53 [TomB]
- N.B. the semantics are such that the use of a skos:Collection with skos:narrower, skos:broader or skos:related will lead to an inconsistency if the domain or range of these properties is skos:Concept, because skos:Collection is disjoint with skos:Concept. The SKOS Primer will of course have to present examples that are consistent with the semantics, and explain how to avoid an inconsistency.
- 15:46:54 [TomB]
- I would like to suggest that the Working Group accept this resolution, because it fixes the basic contradiction in the previous specifications, regarding the use of skos:Collection with skos:broader or skos:narrower, that [ISSUE-33] captures.
- 15:47:04 [Zakim]
- TomB, you wanted to draw attention to Alistair's proposal re: ISSUE-33 http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/Semantics/Grouping?action=recall&rev=4
- 15:47:42 [dlrubin]
- TomB: On issue 33, I added link.
- 15:48:00 [dlrubin]
- ...Alistair proposes to address issue 33 by getting wiki draft of skos semantics
- 15:48:20 [dlrubin]
- ...his proposal is that we focus on that part of wiki draft for skos that we can agree on
- 15:49:09 [dlrubin]
- Guus: we cannot decide on this while issue owner is not here.
- 15:49:32 [dlrubin]
- TomB: the proposal was that Alistair would make the proposal explicit and that we would discuss that section on a tcon.
- 15:49:41 [dlrubin]
- ...I propose we do that at the f2f
- 15:49:59 [dlrubin]
- Guus: ok, we should schedule that for next week.
- 15:50:19 [RalphS]
- -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0166.html RE: [SKOS] ISSUE-33 "Minimal Fix" Proposal [Alistair, 2007-06-26]
- 15:50:20 [dlrubin]
- Topic: RDFa - RDFa Overview document http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/
- 15:50:33 [dlrubin]
- Guus: there is proposal for resolution of issues
- 15:50:54 [dlrubin]
- RalphS: I haven't see responses from group members for the resoution. I need comments from them.
- 15:51:14 [dlrubin]
- Guus: let's look at issue 2
- 15:51:14 [dlrubin]
- Proposed resolutions to ISSUE-2, ISSUE-5, ISSUE-25, ISSUE-29, ISSUE-4
- 15:51:14 [dlrubin]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0176.html
- 15:51:41 [dlrubin]
- Guus: if that is consensus in the subgroup, I'm happy with it
- 15:51:46 [RalphS]
- -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/2 Custom Attributes for RDF shorthand
- 15:51:47 [dlrubin]
- ...any discussion?
- 15:52:06 [dlrubin]
- ...should we go through and accept them?
- 15:52:29 [dlrubin]
- RalphS: I would like some sense that other WG members have given input
- 15:52:38 [dlrubin]
- Guus: these are non-controversial.
- 15:52:50 [dlrubin]
- ...these are fine with me. No real commitments that worry me.
- 15:53:04 [dlrubin]
- ...I propose we resolve and accept RDFa issue 2
- 15:53:08 [dlrubin]
- ...objections?
- 15:53:13 [dlrubin]
- ...so carried
- 15:53:27 [RalphS]
- -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/5 CURIEs in Predicate Attributes
- 15:53:45 [dlrubin]
- ...next is issue 5
- 15:54:25 [dlrubin]
- RalphS: the subtelty that the task force has not abandoned the compact URIs
- 15:54:37 [dlrubin]
- ...XHTML is advocating compact URIs
- 15:54:46 [dlrubin]
- ...task force continues to go along with it.
- 15:54:54 [dlrubin]
- ...it will be controversial in HTML community
- 15:55:10 [dlrubin]
- ...Proposed resolution relates to URL part
- 15:55:47 [dlrubin]
- ...This proposed resolution is ok, but this wg may give recommendation to task force as to whether they should still continue persue compact URIs
- 15:56:03 [dlrubin]
- Guus: I suggest we leave this until this can be explained to rest of group
- 15:56:09 [dlrubin]
- ...issue 25
- 15:56:25 [dlrubin]
- ...this doesn't look as simple
- 15:56:38 [dlrubin]
- RalphS: Issue 1 is simple
- 15:56:52 [dlrubin]
- Discussion on ISSUE-1: reification
- 15:56:52 [dlrubin]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0177.html
- 15:57:00 [dlrubin]
- Guus: ok
- 15:57:13 [TomB]
- +1 on Issue-1 - i.e., not support reification
- 15:57:25 [dlrubin]
- ...seems wise decison to me
- 15:57:38 [dlrubin]
- ...I propose we resolve issue 1 based on Ben's message
- 15:57:40 [dlrubin]
- objections?
- 15:57:48 [dlrubin]
- Guus: so carried
- 15:57:53 [dlrubin]
- ...issue 3
- 15:58:03 [dlrubin]
- Discussion thread on ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type
- 15:58:03 [dlrubin]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0178.html
- 15:58:14 [dlrubin]
- Guus: this is not one we can easily decide.
- 15:58:20 [dlrubin]
- ...is Michael here?
- 15:58:35 [dlrubin]
- ...I suggest we leave it to issues 1 and 2
- 15:59:32 [dlrubin]
- RalphS: the class and role issue relates to how we value clarity of semantics in class attribute
- 15:59:55 [dlrubin]
- ...we need clearer way to express semantics. Momentum for using class
- 16:00:03 [dlrubin]
- Guus: we skip to agenda item 5
- 16:00:13 [dlrubin]
- Topic: . VOCABULARY MANAGEMENT - see http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/Deliverables#VocabularyMgt
- 16:01:02 [dlrubin]
- Guus: any current actions?
- 16:01:30 [dlrubin]
- vit: there is discussion on naming of terms but these should be taken over by Elisa
- 16:01:55 [dlrubin]
- RalphS: if Elisa proposes text to discuss, then we can discuss, but there is no action on her for this
- 16:02:35 [dlrubin]
- vit: what are requirements on version identification and report on results of questionnaire
- 16:02:43 [dlrubin]
- ...on identifying versions...
- 16:02:53 [dlrubin]
- ...this will be by end of July at soonest.
- 16:03:00 [dlrubin]
- Guus: shouldn't be a problem.
- 16:03:10 [RalphS]
- Ralph: that sounds like reasonable progress
- 16:03:14 [dlrubin]
- vit: it will take longer to gather the answers.
- 16:03:28 [dlrubin]
- Guus: we are at end of the time.
- 16:04:03 [dlrubin]
- Action: Guus to move Action 26 forward
- 16:04:20 [dlrubin]
- Guus: people representing user communities should compare different proposals
- 16:04:32 [RalphS]
- action Guus: post user experience reports for issue-26
- 16:05:02 [dlrubin]
- Guus: I will use same examples
- 16:05:13 [dlrubin]
- ...so makes easier to comapre. We need explicit feedback.
- 16:05:42 [dlrubin]
- zakim, meeting adjourned
- 16:05:42 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'meeting adjourned', dlrubin
- 16:05:50 [dlrubin]
- zakim, list attendees
- 16:05:50 [Zakim]
- As of this point the attendees have been Ralph, Guus, Antoine_Isaac, CarlosI, Daniel, Diego, Vit, Sean, Clay, JonP, Ed, TomB
- 16:05:52 [Zakim]
- -Sean
- 16:05:52 [Zakim]
- -Ed
- 16:05:53 [Zakim]
- -Clay
- 16:05:55 [Zakim]
- -Vit
- 16:05:56 [Zakim]
- -Antoine_Isaac
- 16:05:56 [Zakim]
- -JonP
- 16:06:02 [dlrubin]
- rrsagent, please draft minutes
- 16:06:02 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-minutes.html dlrubin
- 16:06:08 [Zakim]
- -Diego
- 16:06:12 [Zakim]
- -Daniel
- 16:10:10 [dlrubin]
- dlrubin has left #swd
- 16:13:59 [Antoine]
- Antoine has left #swd
- 16:20:55 [seanb]
- seanb has left #swd
- 16:21:34 [Zakim]
- -TomB
- 16:21:36 [Zakim]
- -Ralph
- 16:21:40 [Zakim]
- -Guus
- 16:21:41 [Zakim]
- SW_SWD()11:00AM has ended
- 16:21:42 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Ralph, Guus, Antoine_Isaac, CarlosI, Daniel, Diego, Vit, Sean, Clay, JonP, Ed, TomB
- 16:21:52 [RalphS]
- zakim, bye
- 16:21:52 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #swd
- 16:25:28 [edsu]
- /win close
- 16:25:31 [edsu]
- d'oh
- 16:25:34 [edsu]
- edsu has left #swd
- 17:03:52 [RalphS]
- rrsagent, bye
- 17:03:52 [RRSAgent]
- I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-actions.rdf :
- 17:03:52 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: Guus to propose dates in Oct for Amsterdam meeting on SKOS. [1]
- 17:03:52 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-irc#T15-15-13
- 17:03:52 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: Discuss possibility of meeting for RDFa in Cambridge. [2]
- 17:03:52 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-irc#T15-18-47
- 17:03:52 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: Antoine to raise issue of adding broader/narrower relations in skos [3]
- 17:03:52 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-irc#T15-46-21
- 17:03:52 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: Guus to move Action 26 forward [4]
- 17:03:52 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-irc#T16-04-03
- 17:03:52 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: Guus to post user experience reports for issue-26 [5]
- 17:03:52 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/03-swd-irc#T16-04-32