SW-Meaning Meeting (Agenda and Logistics)
         http://www.w3.org/2003/09/meaning/agenda-2003-10-31
     IRC log to appear http://www.w3.org/2003/10/31-sw-meaning-irc


Time and Location
=================

   11:30am - 1:00pm US/Boston Friday, October 31, 2003
   2003-10-31T16:30Z for P1H30M
   http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?day=31&month=10&year=2003&hour=11&min=30&sec=0&p1=43

   No physical location.

   Telephone: W3C Zakim Bridge, conference code 7966 ("SWMN")
   tel:+1-617-761-6200;postdial=7966
   Bridge instructions: http://www.w3.org/2002/01/UsingZakim

   IRC: W3C IRC server, channel #sw-meaning, as telecon interface
   and for notes, floor control, etc
   irc://irc.w3.org:6665/sw-meaning
   IRC Bot Instructions: http://www.w3.org/2002/03/RRSAgent

Participants
============

  invited:
     People familiar with the issues and willing to devote some time
     and energy to helping solve them.  Please introduce yourself to 
     the list as per 
        http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sw-meaning/2003Sep/0006
     before attending.

  expected:
     Sandro Hawke, chair
     Mike Dean, scribe
     (no specific committment asked for or received from anyone else)


Agenda
======


A.  Administrative (15 min)

    1.  Public notes for this meeting will be taken on IRC
        To appear at http://www.w3.org/2003/10/31-sw-meaning-irc

    2.  Confirm scribe (Mike Dean)

    3.  Record attendance

    4.  Review and approve records of last meeting

        PROPOSED: Accept http://www.w3.org/2003/10/10-sw-meaning-irc
	as a true record of the last meeting.

    5.  Future meetings

        PROPOSED: Meet at this same time in 14 Nov, 28 Nov, and 12 Dec.

    6.  Review this Agenda
        
B.  Possible Consensus, Message Oct/0092 (25 min)

    [ This may be an issue where most of us are in agreement with Pat,
      and it would be good to record and refine that agreement.  Can
      we reconcile this with the RFC 2396 and the TAG's current
      language? ]
   
    Pat Hayes writes:
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sw-meaning/2003Oct/0092

        Words convey meaning to us humans, and we all use them to
        convey meanings to others. But this works, often enough and
        well enough to be useful, not because the meanings that the
        words have for speaker, and those that they have for the
        hearer, are *identical*, still less that there is a single
        unique such meaning; but rather because the people involved
        have enough of an overlap in their conceptions that the hearer
        is able, using the surrounding words and the nonlinguistic
        context of the conversation, to extract enough of the
        speaker's intended meaning for the communicative purpose which
        happens to be relevant at the time. 

    and
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sw-meaning/2003Oct/0093

        > How is a URI different from a constant?        (James Lynn)

        For these discussions, not a lot. RFC 2396 insists that any URI 
        "identifies" a unique resource, but it provides no way for a resource 
        to be baptized by a URI, and a name that isn't attached to any 
        referent is hardly distinguishable from a constant symbol that isn't 
        a name.

    Discussion, Straw Poll, Proposed Revisions, Relevance, Volunteers
    to Edit/Maintain some text on this...

C.  Possible Consensus, Message Oct/0084 (25 min)

    Dan Connolly writes:
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sw-meaning/2003Oct/0084

        A URI has meaning to the extent that there's consensus in the
        Internet Community about what it means, as expressed in Internet
        protocol messages, especially messages that express a
        relationship between a URI and a representation of what it means;
        and that the HTTP/DNS case is, while very common, a special case
        where the Web Community has delegated authority to one party (and
        that delegation has limits, as we see in the Verisign SiteFinder
        case). 

    Discussion, Straw Poll, Proposed Revisions, Relevance, Volunteers
    to Edit/Maintain some text on this...

D.  Possible Consensus, Message Oct/0107-1 (25 min)

    [ It looks like there's a thread of consensus here about how the
      Semantic Web could consist of "conventional ontologies" which
      happen to be on the web, using some improved Imports mechanism.
      This may not be very interesting or sufficient for the long
      term, but can we agree it's a viable approach, and define our
      scope in relation to it? ]

    Peter F. Patel-Schneider writes:
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sw-meaning/2003Oct/0107

        As far as I am concerned, owl:imports is sufficient.  However,
        OWL going to REC doesn't solve everyone's problems.  In
        particular, RDF is left without an importing mechanism. 

    Pat Hayes writes:
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sw-meaning/2003Oct/0108

        [This] reduces the SWeb to conventional ontologies which
        happen to be on the Web, which may well be useful but isnt the
        vision of the SW that gets me excited. 

        On the other hand, since our primary task is to produce some
        words, I think that it is important not to say anything which
        would be *inconsistent* with the
        conventional-ontologies-on-the-Web view, since that is where
        the immediate industrial applications are. 

    Bijan Parsia writes:
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sw-meaning/2003Oct/0109

        I think adding more explicit (and more, explicit) import
        controls would be useful.

    Discussion, Straw Poll, Proposed Revisions, Relevance, Volunteers
    to Edit/Maintain some text on this...

$Id: agenda-2003-10-31.txt,v 1.2 2003/10/30 19:24:16 sandro Exp $