See also: IRC log, previous 2009-04-07
Guus: I see quite a number of implementations
coming in
... we have some editing work to do [based on comment], no real obstacles
RESOLUTION: minutes http://www.w3.org/2009/04/07-swd-minutes.html of previous telecon accepted
PROPOSED: next telecon 5 May, Tom to chair
Guus: I may have a conflict on 19 May
Tom: I'll have regrets for 19 May
RESOLUTION: next telecon 5 May, Tom to chair
Guus: I'm expecting 10 or more SKOS
vocabularies plus 2 tools by 5 May
... this should be sufficient for an implementation report
Ralph: concur
Guus: not clear whether the SKOS-XL features
will have been implemented
... we'll put Proposed Rec transition request on the agenda for 19 May
... let's be sure to have all the information available on 5 May
... issue about labels in SKOS namespace documents
-> Re: [SKOS] SKOS ontology sanity-check? [Antoine 2009-3-09]
Tom: I just posted about the label issue
shortly before this call
... since our schema will be emulated, it would be good to make it an example
of good style
-> Re: [SKOS] SKOS ontology sanity-check? - policy for natural language of rdfs:labels [Tom 2009-04-21]
Antoine: on broaderTransitive ...
... the reason I omitted concept in the label as I felt the idea of
"transitive concept" was unclear
... however, if you prefer to include "concept" in the label I'll be
satisfied
... I don't see many reactions to [these labels]
Tom: I suspect these things will find their way
into displays in various ways
... so I'd like us to think about whether they make sense in that context
Sean: I would find "has broader concept
transitive" confusing
... sounds like "transitive" is being applied to "concept"
... perhaps "has broader concept [transitive]"
... not sure if it's wise to introduce punctuation in labels
Antoine: consider "has transitive broader
concept" or "has ancestor concept"
... "ancestor" follows the semantics
Guus: I prefer keeping to a very strict label
approach
... the description property is the appropriate place to explain a bit
more
<TomB> +1 "has transitive broader concept"
Ralph: agree with Guus, I think labels should
be very close to the property names.
... only if we thought we really should have renamed the property would I be
inclined to make the labels very different
Tom: I wouldn't want to introduce punctuation
Guus: I propose to keep the labels the same as the name and introduce other clarification into the description
Tom: some labels already introduce other words;
'has', 'concept'
... we're following the examples of FOAF and the legacy SKOS vocabulary by
breaking the label into natural language strings
... but introducing words that are not part of the name
Tom: there was a comment that the property name
'broader' was confusing and the commenter was looking to the label to help
clarify
... so the new label was in response to that comment
Guus: then that would only apply to 'has broader concept'
Ralph: I'd omit words like 'has'
<TomB> My comments are at public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0074.html
Ralph: as I'd expect user interfaces to handle these words
Sean: but some properties should be described
as, e.g. 'is in ...'
... no general algorithm for deciding 'has' or 'is'
Tom: Dublin Core always interpreted label as a
human-readable name for the concept
... so we stick close to the property name but do break it into natural
language words
... we did not, however, follow the upper/lower case conventions for
properties and classes
Ralph: my own approach has been a very lazy
one; pick property names that work as labels and make the labels be identical
to the property names
... I definitely think introducing 'has' and 'is' in the label will cause us
future regrets
Tom: I disagree; we were asked to make the
labels be more meaningful
... so including 'concept' in the label helps
Antoine: @@[scribe missed]
Margherita: I'd like to attach labels in other
languages and add synonyms
... but it's unclear to some whether the object of the relationship is the
broader concept or the subject of the relationship
... so I'd like the label to clarify the direction of the relationship
Guus: we should have a consistent naming
scheme, so everything should be these short sentences
... I can live with this, though I'm not used to it
Ralph: I can live with short sentences as
well
... and anyone who finds sentences truly objectionable can add their own
label properties
Guus: exactly
Tom: my message was not meant to make
suggestions other than 'has broader transitive'
... I like adding 'concept' to the label
... I like 'has transitive broader concept'
Guus: but the word 'concept' seems superfluous
to me
... e.g. 'has related match [concept]'
Antoine: 'match' can be a noun
Guus: adding 'concept' can be very confusing
... adding it would make 'match' on a par with 'concept'
... the label should not say anything about the domain and range types, just
name the relationship
... so adding 'concept' would break my rule
... hasTopConcept is different, as it picks one of several Concepts
... that's the only exception I see to my rule
Tom: alternativeLabel ?
Guus: the string becomes a Label by virtue of
the relationship
... so drop 'concept' from 'has broader concept' and 'has narrower
concept'
... and 'has broader' solves the problem Tom mentioned
Sean: I'm happy to agree with Guus
... I'd omit the superfluous stuff
Antoine: I think I could be OK with Guus'
suggestion
... I haven't identified a case that would be particularly bad
Sean: and it's not a technical deal breaker; people can provide their own labels
ACTION: Tom repost his label proposal, dropping the word 'concept' [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action01]
PROPOSED: drop the word 'concept' from the
labels 'has broader concept', 'has narrower concept', 'has related
concept'
... drop the word 'concept' from the labels 'has broader concept', 'has
narrower concept', 'has related concept', per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0074.html
Margherita: I agree that 'concept' is not
needed
... what's important is that these are URIs, so the URI should not have
spaces
Antoine: right, we're not changing the URI
RESOLUTION: drop the word 'concept' from the labels 'has broader concept', 'has narrower concept', 'has related concept', per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0074.html
Guus: [to Antoine] note that Primer updates should also be ready by 19 May
Antoine: I'll send something to Ralph
Guus: what about Use Cases and Requirements?
... it would be nice to clean up UCR but I don't see huge value in it
... I'd propose to do no further work on UCR
... happy to leave it as it is
-> SKOS Use Cases and Requirements, W3C Working Draft 16 May 2007
Ralph: I'd rather republish it as a Group Note saying we don't plan any further work than to leave it as a Working Draft that eventually falls into a 'Working Drafts no longer in Development' category
Antoine: I agree with not doing much more
work
... but the current working draft uses some identifiers that no longer mean
much
... I'd like to change the ~20 identifiers to be more current
ACTION: Antoine make minor edits to http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-skos-ucr-20070516/ to prepare for publication as Group Note on 19 May [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action02]
<Antoine> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0073.html
ACTION: [DONE] Antoine add the Vrieje Uni tool to the implementation report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-swd-minutes.html#action08]
<seanb> 2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20090315/implementation.html
ACTION: [DONE] Antoine send call for implementations to the lists identified in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/DisseminationLists with the date changed to 30 April [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/07-swd-minutes.html#action03]
-> Request for Implementation Input: SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System [Antoine 2009-04-08]
Sean: I think we have a lot of the substance for the implementation report already in place
Guus: by 5 May I'd like to decide what sorts of implementations we're going to include
Sean: if things continue to come in the way they've been coming in, we should have a number of examples we can cite
Guus: everyone please remind people to send us implementations if you know of anything
Sean: if there's more detail needed in the implementation report than is currently in implementation.html, it would be good to know that sooner
Ralph: I'll take a look. Some details about how much of the SKOS vocabulary is exercised could be useful, but that might take too much work to determine
Guus: can we identify which features have not been used in at least 1 implementaton?
ACTION: Sean to look for SKOS constructs not used by current implementations [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action04]
ACTION: [DONE] Antoine draft intermediate pages for the legacy SKOS Core documents referring readers to the new specifications [recorded in [52]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/07-swd-minutes.html#action04] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action05]
ACTION: [DONE] Antoine draft intermediate pages for http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/mapping/spec/2004-11-11.html referring readers to the new specifications [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/07-swd-minutes.html#action05]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0031.html [SKOS] redirection pages for Quick Guide and Mapping Vocabulary [Antoine 2009-04-08]
Tom: will Sean make the doc changes for the labels?
Sean: sure
ACTION: Sean update labels in the SKOS Rec draft per resolution of 21-April [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action07]
Guus: I propose to leave the Wikipedia page update until June
Ralph: the RDFa Task Force has been continuing
to meet
... the main topic has been whether to suggest, and in what form to suggest,
adding an attribute that would do the same prefix mapping as XMLNS for HTML 5
and the group has been discussing syntax of that attribute
... the TF agreed we would try to reach consensus on design but not update
specification - leave design documented in the wiki.
... At the last meeting, suggested we suspend that discussion, even though
close to consensus.
... Other developments may make this moot.
... Will probabily not continue further discussion of design.
-> [Recipes] new editors' draft (proposed solution to ISSUE-193) [Diego 2009-04-07]
Ralph: I'd missed Diego's message
... if we choose to postpone this to next meeting I'll try to have my review
done
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Ralph to review the revised Recipes draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html#action15]
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes implementations] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]
Guus: postpone this to June also
ACTION: [CONTINUES] 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]
Guus: the comment deadline has passed (17 April)
Tom: I'd posted a reply saying that the Group was not planning to do a review but individuals were welcome to post comments as they desired
Guus: so we can drop this item
<TomB> My response to Michael Cooper re: WAI-ARIA is at public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0020.html
Antoine: we didn't decide to publish the new intermediate pages
Ralph: Antoine and I can do that offline
ACTION: Ralph publish Antoine's new intermediate pages for legacy specs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action11]
Guus: I'm expecting our June telecons to
discuss SKOS community outreach
... and possibly testimonials
Ralph: testimonials go with a Press Release, so you definitely want a Press Release?
Guus, Tom: yes, I think a press release would be good
Ralph: OK, I'll alert Ian Jacobs
[adjourned]