See also: IRC log, previous 2009-01-13
Tom: this is the 96th teleconf!
RESOLVED to accept minutes of last teleconference 2009/01/13-swd-minutes.html
ACTION: Ben review RDFa Use Cases and propose transition to Group Note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Ralph to review the revised Recipes draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html#action15] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes implementations] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Ralph post his comments on the editor's draft of the metadata note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/25-swd-minutes.html#action03] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Guus to look at OWL documents for review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Guus to report on usage of SKOS in vocabularies at VU for SKOS implementation report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/06-swd-minutes.html#action09] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Sean to report on SKOSED for SKOS implementation report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/06-swd-minutes.html#action10] [CONTINUES]
Tom: transition request?
Ralph: it's in progress
... we made the request, and are waiting for the answer
Tom: will the answer come in the form of an announcement that the docs have been published?
Ralph: yes
Tom: I wanted to have a discussion on mapping
relationships
... but Alistair is not here
Ralph: would somebody be ready to start an implementation template?
Tom: Guus said that someone of his group was working on that
Sean: I looked at previous impl. rep. ...
... when we don't have tests it's not easy to write
Tom: it could start next week
... I suggest we adjourn today
Tom:next meeting next week (27 Feb)
Antoine: I had a question from a
colleague about use of rdfs:label
... we don't say anything in Reference about skos:note or rdfs:comment
... did we consider making all the notes subproperty of rdfs:comment ?
Sean: no, but I don't think it would break
anything
... skos:note is an AnnotationProperty now
... so we could easily add the subProperty relationship from skos:note to
rdfs:comment
Antoine: if we wanted to consider this, would it be a big change?
Ralph: I advise against the WG adding that unilaterally. Would be better if CR implementors or users initiated a discussion on a mailing list suggesting "it would be nice if ..."
Sean: we could record this as a placeholder for
future consideration
... feels like a useful issue to log as 'postpone'
Tom: I wonder whether it is appropriate to
raise issue after CR request
... theoretically issues can come up from the community
... there's no formal rule barring us to raise one
... any other issues?
... meeting is adjourned