See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 16 May 2012
<ivan> minutes of last meeting
<ivan>
RESOLUTION: Accept http://www.w3.org/2012/04/04-swcg-minutes.html as minutes of the last meeting.
SPARQL Last Calls http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2012/05/02/three-sparql-1-1-last-call-drafts-published/
Provenance Drafts published http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2012/05/03/five-provenance-drafts-published/
RDFa 1.1 Core, Lite, and XHTML+RDFa are in PR http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2012/05/08/three-rdfa-specifications-are-proposed-recommendations/
XSD 1.1 now in Rec.
We have an agreement that both the RIF and OWL groups will come out of hibernation to update their documents for XSD changes.
<ivan> Mail of Axel on XSD and RIF
Ian: Should we take advantage of this opportunity to add some data types? The consensus seems to be "no".
…Something similar to what Axel described in his email would seem to be appropriate plus some editorial errata.
<bmotik> unmute me
Boris: Have looked over Axel's email. We just need to update the references.
…OWL doesn't need to do much.
Christian: There are not many changes needed for RIF.
Ivan: Now to errata. How much errata do you have?
<IanH> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Errata
Ian: The above link is for OWL errata
…many are trivial.
…However, they are spread over most of the documents. Most of the bugs seem to be in the syntax doc.
…Some bugs are in a grey area, e.g. are they truly errata or subjective?
Ivan: At worse, changes could break conformance for some implementations.
Boris: Comments are above the lexical layer, so don't belong in the BNF. We could add a note saying that the comments are to be applied after the BNF is implemented.
Christian: RIF doesn't have a comprehensive errata list.
Ivan: Does that mean that RIF won't handle errata in this update?
Christian: I know of some errata.
Sandro: We should use this as an opportunity to track errata and deal with what we know.
Ivan: If we change RIF, we should create a proper errata list.
Christian: yes
Ivan: Will any issues be likely to arise when RIF is reopened?
Christian and Sandro: no
Ivan: How much time will updates to OWL and RIF require?
Ian: Bijan made comments on OWL errata, but raised some subjective issues. Which should be implemented? Need guidance from Ivan.
<ivan> relevant parts of the process doc
Ivan: If a datatype is added, implementations are impacted.
Ian: Many of Bijan's comments are clearly over the line, but some are still in the grey area. It depends on which parts of the spec are considered critical for implementors. Someone needs to decide. Is that me?
Ivan: The WG should decide by consensus.
Ian: Only a few people will rejoin the OWL WG for this update.
Ivan: Are there similar concerns for RIF?
Chris: No, I don't recall.
<IanH> Christian: At least one case if RIF where text says one thing and schema says another
Sandro: There are errors in some of the rules that are fixed on the wiki.
Ivan: Consider whether changes will effect implementations. That might require asking the implementors.
…Both groups should make some plans on what they will change and then estimate the time required.
<bmotik> For the OWL 2 DL Syntax document, quite a few of the errata were already fixed in the Wiki.
Ian: OWL might take a week or so of actual work, presuming we can find that week. It will also require time to re-establish the group and engage editors.
Christian: RIF will also require little in the way of actual work. Harold, myself and maybe one or two others could do the updates.
…I can list all the errata next week, and then find another week to fix the text.
Ivan: Need to look up the administrative requirements.
Sandro: Similar to a PR process (start at PR and go through the process to Rec).
<bmotik> I can go through the OWL document by the end of June.
Ivan: Can we get to PER by the end of June?
Christian: Should work.
Guus: You also need to make the case that CR is not needed (no implementation tests).
<bmotik> +1
<bmotik> No new features!
<bmotik> :)
Ivan: Can complete by the end of September, with luck.
Ivan: Good meeting, but not much around SemWeb.
…Gave a brief on the LDWG.
…The main focus of the meeting regarded HTML issues, W3C Process (around Rec process).
…The China Office reported that half the Chinese market uses Chinese-specific browsers. We can't just talk to FF.
…Lots of new members.
Delayed due to absence of Manu. RDF WG and Manu to discuss directly.
Ivan: Can DanBri and Michel re medical vocabulary.
<danbri> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2012May/0057.html
DanBri: This is a vocabulary proposed mostly off list for health & medical extensions to schema.org
…Needs review by W3C people. Not approval or standardization, just feedback.
Michel: The members have experience with actual vocabularies in use. Is the proposal sufficient to map those vocabs?
<danbri> nearby (re other vocabs, code lists), http://blog.schema.org/2012/05/schemaorg-markup-for-external-lists.html
Michel: There is a dormant vocab TF that could make comment on this.
…We would ask for reviews on our public mailing list, and then discuss any comments in our terminology TF (that meets on a Friday).
<csma> https://sites.google.com/site/s4sa2012/
^^ A Workshop on knowledge representation standards and integrating knowledge sources
<IanH> bye
<csma> bye
<Luc> bye bye