15:59:40 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #swd
15:59:40 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-swd-irc
15:59:44 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #swd
16:00:02 <Simone> Simone has joined #swd
16:00:42 <edsu> edsu has joined #swd
16:01:58 <Ralph> zakim, this is swd
16:01:58 <Zakim> ok, Ralph; that matches SW_SWD()11:00AM
16:02:05 <Ralph> zakim, who's on the call?
16:02:05 <Zakim> On the phone I see Elisa_Kendall, [LC]
16:02:28 <Zakim> +Rodrigo
16:02:34 <edsu> Ralph: you on the phone?
16:02:36 <Zakim> + +43.123.6aaaa
16:02:37 <Zakim> +Ralph
16:02:43 <berrueta> Zakim, Rodrigo is me
16:02:43 <Zakim> sorry, berrueta, I do not recognize a party named 'Rodrigo'
16:02:53 <Clay> Clay has joined #swd
16:02:54 <Ralph> zakim, [lc] is Ed
16:02:54 <Zakim> +Ed; got it
16:02:56 <cgi-irc> cgi-irc has joined #swd
16:03:01 <Zakim> +Antoine_Isaac
16:03:10 <Ralph> Meeting: SemWeb Deployment WG
16:03:17 <JonP> JonP has joined #swd
16:03:21 <Ralph> zakim, aaaa is Guus
16:03:21 <Zakim> +Guus; got it
16:03:22 <berrueta> Zakim, Rodrigo is me
16:03:22 <Zakim> sorry, berrueta, I do not recognize a party named 'Rodrigo'
16:03:24 <Zakim> +[LC]
16:03:28 <aliman> aliman has joined #swd
16:03:28 <Clay> zakim, LC is Clay
16:03:28 <Zakim> +Clay; got it
16:03:35 <Zakim> +??P25
16:03:55 <Ralph> zakim, ??p25 is Alistair
16:03:55 <Zakim> +Alistair; got it
16:03:56 <Zakim> + +012242aabb
16:04:10 <Ralph> zakim, aabb is Quentin
16:04:10 <Zakim> +Quentin; got it
16:04:23 <Ralph> zakim, ctic is Diego
16:04:23 <Zakim> +Diego; got it
16:04:43 <Zakim> -Guus
16:04:54 <Zakim> +Jon_Phipps
16:04:58 <Ralph> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Dec/0003.html
16:05:13 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2007/11/27-swd-minutes.html previous 2007-11-27
16:05:37 <JonP> zakim, Jon_Phipps is me
16:05:37 <Zakim> +JonP; got it
16:05:39 <Ralph> Chair: Guus
16:05:48 <Ralph> Scribe: Elisa
16:06:03 <Ralph> scribenick: Elisa
16:06:03 <Zakim> +??P31
16:06:10 <benadida> benadida has joined #swd
16:06:16 <Ralph> zakim, ??p31 is Daniel
16:06:16 <Zakim> +Daniel; got it
16:06:19 <dlrubin> dlrubin has joined #swd
16:06:32 <Zakim> + +1.617.395.aacc
16:06:38 <benadida> zakim, I am aacc
16:06:40 <Zakim> +benadida; got it
16:06:46 <Zakim> +Guus
16:07:18 <Ralph> zakim, who's on the phone?
16:07:18 <Zakim> On the phone I see Elisa_Kendall, Ed, Diego, Ralph, Antoine_Isaac, Clay, Alistair, Quentin, JonP, Daniel, benadida, +43.123.6aadd
16:07:24 <Simone> Zakim, passcode?
16:07:24 <Zakim> the conference code is 79394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), Simone
16:08:07 <Ralph> zakim, aadd is probably Simone
16:08:07 <Zakim> +Simone?; got it
16:08:46 <Ralph> zakim, Simone is really Guus
16:08:46 <Zakim> +Guus; got it
16:08:52 <Elisa> agenda+ Admin
16:09:27 <Ralph> Regrets: Vit, Justin, Sean
16:09:48 <Zakim> +??P36
16:09:55 <Simone> Zakim, ??P36 is me
16:09:55 <Zakim> +Simone; got it
16:10:09 <Elisa> PROPOSED: Accept minutes of the November 27th telecon (http://www.w3.org/2007/11/27-swd-minutes.html)
16:10:25 <TomB> TomB has joined #swd
16:10:42 <Elisa> RESOLVED: Minutes accepted
16:10:43 <Ralph> zakim, mute simone
16:10:43 <Zakim> Simone should now be muted
16:11:00 <Elisa> Next telecon: 4 December 1600 UTC
16:11:04 <Elisa> agenda+ SKOS
16:11:14 <Zakim> +??P38
16:11:26 <TomB> zakim, ??P38 is TomB
16:11:26 <Zakim> +TomB; got it
16:12:36 <Elisa> Review of Editor's draft - continued
16:12:44 <Elisa> Review of primer - continued
16:12:49 <Elisa> Issue 39 discussion
16:12:57 <Antoine> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptualMapping/ProposalTwo
16:13:47 <Elisa> issue of mapping links, using existing relationships in SKOS to create mapping links was original approach
16:14:20 <Elisa> this new proposal is much more conservative
16:14:56 <Elisa> takes text from existing mapping vocabulary, and introduces two new concepts: related match and overlapping match
16:15:13 <Elisa> deprecates major and minor match elements from current mapping vocabulary
16:15:37 <Elisa> proposal is to delegate status of these elements to "concept coordination"
16:16:03 <Ralph> rrsagent, please make record public
16:16:39 <Elisa> SKOS mapping coordination constructs: and, or, not
16:16:59 <Elisa> the proposal attempts to establish some formal semantics for these constructs
16:17:16 <Elisa> including domain, range
16:17:38 <Elisa> semantics are to be discussed, e.g., exact match is transitive
16:18:27 <Elisa> section 3 covers other issues, includes example of animal ontologies, attempts to match them
16:18:52 <Elisa> concludes with relation rules, intended semantics, issues leading to decisions in the proposal
16:19:10 <Guus> q+
16:19:12 <Elisa> for example replacing major, minor match with overlapping match
16:19:46 <Elisa> raises issue on building mapping links between collections that are not SKOS vocabularies explicitly
16:20:17 <Elisa> Guus: so, would like to have discussion on a few points in the proposal
16:20:35 <Elisa> why to we need exact match, and why can't we use OWL same as
16:21:00 <Elisa> Antoine: the problem is when you use OWL same as, you essentially merge the two schemes
16:21:13 <Elisa> which the original author may not want to do
16:21:34 <Elisa> Guus: the point is to have this rationale in the proposal for documentation purposes
16:21:57 <Elisa> you could also point to why you can't use OWL different class
16:22:03 <Elisa> both points can be made here
16:22:09 <Elisa> Antoine: ok
16:22:37 <Elisa> Guus: is it also possible to summarize the main point of the follow-up email discussion
16:23:55 <Elisa> Antoine: issues raised - considered that there was a clear distinction between skos mapping relations
16:24:44 <Elisa> between different concept schemes can still use standard concept relations between concept schemes
16:24:50 <Elisa> but this would not be for mapping
16:25:20 <Elisa> Guus: is it inconsistent to use one of the mapping relationships in the same scheme
16:25:41 <Elisa> Antoine: no
16:26:02 <Elisa> Guus: this is a borderline case, we should cover how someone might want to use the mapping concepts
16:26:20 <Elisa> to do this -- the main point would be to make a statement about this
16:26:29 <Elisa> this should hold for all of the mapping relations
16:26:38 <Elisa> Antoine: fine
16:26:56 <Elisa> Guus: what is the typical example of ... I don't really understand the overlapping match
16:27:17 <Elisa> Antoine: the overlapping match more or less replaces the major and minor match
16:27:41 <Elisa> this describes relations that are in a mapping - relationships that are common to two mappings
16:28:14 <Elisa> you have relations with significant semantic load; if concepts are related in this way there are other concepts that a user should
16:28:16 <aliman> q+ to represent Javier's point about related vs. overlapping
16:28:30 <Elisa> consider
16:29:33 <Elisa> it isn't 100% clear where you might use these - Emma McCulloch will provide additional examples
16:29:46 <Elisa> Guus: do you think there are convincing use cases
16:30:01 <Elisa> Alistair: I haven't seen use cases
16:30:10 <Elisa> Guus: this seems rather arbitrary
16:30:23 <Zakim> -Daniel
16:30:39 <Elisa> The point came from Javier ... the general point was that the types of inexact or overlapping
16:31:00 <Elisa> relations you might find are different in nature from associative relationships between thesauri
16:31:31 <Elisa> so there might be for example overlaps between two thesauri that cover a common time period
16:31:52 <Elisa> there is no precedent for this in the thesaurus community, and this seems to be
16:31:57 <Elisa> limited to time and place
16:32:18 <aliman> q-
16:32:28 <Elisa> Guus: this seems a rather specific solution, not sufficient evidence to warrant includes
16:32:41 <Elisa> perhaps we could keep it as a separate option
16:32:45 <aliman> +1 on guus position regarding "overlapping" property
16:33:01 <Elisa> if we go for a separate proposal for mapping terminology
16:33:24 <Elisa> Antoine: we could keep this separate - I can be ok with that
16:33:45 <Elisa> Guus: do you think, given the comments, this is sufficient to move this forward for next time
16:34:03 <Elisa> Antoine: yes, but feedback under the specific semantics/axioms would be useful
16:34:24 <Elisa> if people think there are useful axioms to have there, that would be good feedback
16:34:55 <Elisa> Guus: so we can leave this action, and move it forward for next week
16:35:27 <Elisa> -- ISSUE 39 Conceptual mapping links
16:35:27 <Elisa> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/39 
16:35:52 <Elisa> ACTION: Antoine to come up with a revised proposal based on the comments received
16:36:21 <Elisa> SKOS Extension Module - no action
16:36:30 <Elisa> Concept schemes - continued
16:36:41 <Antoine> q+ on SKOS-XL
16:36:53 <Elisa> no progress on isDefinedBy (continued)
16:37:06 <Elisa> Statement on issue 44 from Alistair ...
16:37:47 <Elisa> Alistair: Antoine raises concern about what might happen if we say nothing about the transitivity of SKOS broader
16:38:16 <Elisa> if we allow people to make either choice, people will make conflicting decisions, which is a valid concern
16:39:28 <Elisa> he proposes the notion of a locally transitive relationship, also see Alan Rector's comment in the SWBP note in simple part whole 
16:39:45 <Elisa> this is a serious concern that needs to be addressed
16:40:05 <Elisa> Guus: ok   with respect to producing a reference, when can we expect something?
16:40:17 <TomB> [http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SimplePartWhole/ Simple part-whole relations in OWL Ontologies]
16:40:22 <Elisa> Alistair: it depends on how far we want to get before putting out a first draft
16:40:52 <Elisa> if we want something to be reviewed before Christmas, publishing something as an editor's draft before Christmas
16:41:15 <Elisa> Guus: assuming that Antoine moves his proposal forward, it doesn't seem far fetched
16:41:40 <Elisa> Alistair: we could, and then throw stones at it ... it certainly needs to go in there
16:42:00 <Elisa> Guus: that would mean that we produce a new draft before Christmas, and use the Christmas period for review
16:42:10 <Elisa> Alistair: work on what we've got more or less right now
16:42:22 <Elisa> Guus: yes, and go forward with that
16:42:49 <Elisa> Alistair: we talked about a rules of thumb appendix, to show examples of how to do something sensible, 
16:42:56 <Elisa> requires some of Sean's time, who is traveling
16:43:03 <Elisa> agenda+ RDFa
16:43:50 <Elisa> Ben: the central issue is related on exactly how we do chaining and how we deal with instance of
16:43:56 <aliman> q+ what's chaining?
16:44:09 <Elisa> we have agreement in the group that this is the last major issue to deal with
16:44:24 <Elisa> assuming we don't hit any snags, and fix the use cases for the new proposal on chaining
16:44:37 <Guus> zakim, who is here?
16:44:37 <Zakim> On the phone I see Elisa_Kendall, Ed, Diego, Ralph, Antoine_Isaac, Clay, Alistair, Quentin, JonP, benadida, Guus, Simone (muted), TomB (muted)
16:44:39 <Zakim> On IRC I see TomB, dlrubin, benadida, aliman, JonP, cgi-irc, Clay, edsu, Simone, Zakim, RRSAgent, Ralph, Antoine, berrueta, Elisa, Guus
16:44:55 <Elisa> I've update the schedule, we're pushing hard to get the syntax with this new proposal in over the next 10 days
16:45:17 <Elisa> it would be good to get people on the call to review the new syntax before Christmas
16:45:27 <Elisa> Guus: didn't we have reviewers for the first working draft
16:45:48 <Elisa> Ben: yes, we're just tweaking it for the latest changes, hoping this will go to last call
16:46:23 <Elisa> Guus: we should use the same reviewers
16:46:30 <Elisa> Antoine did the primer
16:46:39 <Elisa> Diego: I did a review, the other one was Ed
16:46:59 <Elisa> Ben: are you willing to review again, and if so, what would the schedule be
16:47:04 <Elisa> Diego: yes
16:47:12 <Elisa> Ed: yes I'd be willing to do this again
16:47:37 <Elisa> Ben: in two weeks -- would you still have time to review this before the holidays
16:47:50 <Elisa> Ed: yes if it hasn't changed substantially
16:48:02 <Elisa> Ben: there is one notable change which we will explain
16:48:09 <Elisa> Ed: yes this would be fine
16:48:15 <Elisa> Diego: yes, ok
16:48:24 <Elisa> Ben: then I will hand it over to you the 18th
16:48:34 <Elisa> Guus: will this be a working draft
16:49:01 <Elisa> Ben: this would be a working draft leading to last call ... how does this work? you publish a working draft and then say it is going to last call?
16:49:16 <Elisa> Guus: we agreed that the decision for last call would be taken by both groups
16:49:25 <Elisa> we could make a decision on the first call in January
16:49:46 <Elisa> we should check with Stephen if they can take a decision by the first call in Januar
16:50:33 <Elisa> you need to send a proposal to the WG to promote the doc to last call (to both groups, pointing to responses to comments ...document precisely what has happened with the comments)
16:50:50 <Elisa> then you have to set a last call period
16:51:02 <Elisa> normally the comment period is between 4 and 6 weeks
16:51:15 <Elisa> Ben: the commenting period starts after the WG is published, correct?
16:52:07 <Elisa> it would be good to prepare a list that you want to send the last call to, also potentially track comments
16:52:15 <Elisa> issue tracker would be fine
16:52:36 <Elisa> Ralph -- what would your proposal be for tracking comments?
16:52:48 <Elisa> Ralph: absolutely, the issue tracker
16:53:07 <Elisa> Ben: ok, you'll most likely hear from me as I work through the process
16:53:17 <Elisa> Guus: are there any potential sources of delay?
16:53:47 <Elisa> Ben: the one potential issue is the one we're working on ... if we find things in the test process, then there are possibilities there
16:54:02 <Elisa> we have 4-5 implementations that will signal an issue quickly at this point
16:54:22 <Elisa> Guus: then you should prepare an implementation report during the last call period
16:54:34 <Elisa> Ben: we are definitely prepared to do so
16:54:45 <Elisa> Guus: agenda+ Recipes
16:55:00 <Elisa> agenda+ Recipies
16:55:17 <Ralph> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Dec/0006.html Revised Recipes posted [Jon 3-Dec]
16:55:19 <Elisa> Guus: I think I saw progress on the recipies as well
16:55:46 <dlrubin> dlrubin has left #swd
16:55:53 <Ralph> Topic: Recipes
16:56:02 <Elisa> Jon: we've put up a new editor's draft - I think it covers all of the issues except that it's broken under certain circumstances
16:56:18 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/recipes/draft-20071203 Recipes Editor's Draft of 2007-12-03
16:56:41 <Elisa> which has to do with Apache redirect (1st action under recipes, which is continued)
16:56:54 <Elisa> Ralph: I think my action still needs to be addressed ...
16:57:17 <Elisa> Jon: I think we've dealt with that but of course we have a new one for you, which is action 24, the next one
16:57:49 <Elisa> ACTION: Dan to ask apache about conditional redirects [recorded in [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/20-swd-minutes.html#action18] CONTINUES
16:58:00 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/products/5 Open Issues on Recipes
16:58:01 <Elisa> ACTION: Diego to recast Recipe 6 [recorded in [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/20-swd-minutes.html#action19]
16:58:09 <Elisa> COMPLETED
16:58:21 <Elisa> ACTION: Jon to add words that acknowledge the existence of RDFa as [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/20-swd-minutes.html#action21]
16:58:28 <Elisa> COMPLETED
16:59:29 <Elisa> DROPPED ACTION: Jon to make changes as proposed [with regard to Issue-23] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/20-swd-minutes.html#action22]
17:00:30 <Elisa> ACTION 23 is being Dropped
17:00:39 <Elisa> Action 24 continues
17:00:55 <Ralph> s/DROPPED ACTION: Jon/DONE ACTION: Jon/
17:00:58 <Elisa> Action 25 continues
17:01:23 <Elisa> COMPLETED ACTION: TF leaders to prepare a version of Recipes for review in [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/20-swd-minutes.html#action26]
17:01:38 <Elisa> COMPLETEDACTION: diego to update deliverables page w/r/t recipes document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/27-swd-minutes.html#action20]
17:02:16 <Elisa> Guus: still need to solicit reviews for this -- when would reviewers be needed
17:02:45 <Elisa> Jon: any time, I guess -- we're just missing that one piece, which I guess is fairly critical
17:03:02 <Elisa> Guus: we should solicit reviews at this point, though
17:03:18 <Elisa> Ralph: I'll certainly review it
17:04:36 <Elisa> Guus: adjourn
17:04:39 <Zakim> -Quentin
17:04:41 <Zakim> -Alistair
17:04:43 <Zakim> -Ed
17:04:44 <Zakim> -Ralph
17:04:46 <Zakim> -JonP
17:04:50 <Zakim> -Diego
17:04:52 <Zakim> -Guus
17:04:56 <Zakim> -benadida
17:04:58 <Zakim> -Clay
17:05:00 <Zakim> -TomB
17:05:02 <edsu> Antoine: were we going to chat about primer?
17:05:04 <Zakim> -Simone
17:05:37 <Ralph> zakim, list participants
17:05:37 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Elisa_Kendall, Rodrigo, +43.123.6aaaa, Ralph, Ed, Antoine_Isaac, Guus, Clay, Alistair, +012242aabb, Quentin, Diego, JonP, Daniel,
17:05:41 <Zakim> ... +1.617.395.aacc, benadida, Simone?, Simone, TomB
17:05:50 <Ralph> rrsagent, please draft minutes
17:05:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-swd-minutes.html Ralph
17:06:20 <edsu> i'll call back, one sec
17:07:24 <edsu> rats it says "conference restricted at this time"
17:07:42 <edsu> i can call you direct
17:08:14 <edsu> what number are you at?
17:08:17 <edsu> got it
17:09:54 <edsu> seeya
17:10:21 <Zakim> -Antoine_Isaac
17:11:07 <edsu> edsu has left #swd
17:11:40 <Antoine> Antoine has left #swd
17:15:21 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, Elisa_Kendall, in SW_SWD()11:00AM
17:15:25 <Zakim> -Elisa_Kendall
17:15:50 <Zakim> SW_SWD()11:00AM has ended
17:15:52 <Zakim> Attendees were Elisa_Kendall, Rodrigo, +43.123.6aaaa, Ralph, Ed, Antoine_Isaac, Guus, Clay, Alistair, +012242aabb, Quentin, Diego, JonP, Daniel, +1.617.395.aacc, benadida, Simone?,
17:15:54 <Zakim> ... Simone, TomB
17:16:35 <Elisa> ok -- will do, thanks
17:17:06 <Ralph> zakim, bye\
17:17:06 <Zakim> I don't understand 'bye\', Ralph
17:17:12 <Ralph> rrsagent, bye
17:17:12 <RRSAgent> I see 4 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-swd-actions.rdf :
17:17:12 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Antoine to come up with a revised proposal based on the comments received [1]
17:17:12 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-swd-irc#T16-35-52
17:17:12 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Dan to ask apache about conditional redirects [recorded in [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/20-swd-minutes.html#action18] CONTINUES [2]
17:17:12 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-swd-irc#T16-57-49
17:17:12 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Diego to recast Recipe 6 [recorded in [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/20-swd-minutes.html#action19] [3]
17:17:12 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-swd-irc#T16-58-01
17:17:12 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Jon to add words that acknowledge the existence of RDFa as [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/20-swd-minutes.html#action21] [4]
17:17:12 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-swd-irc#T16-58-21