IRC log of swbp on 2004-06-17

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:02:33 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #swbp

14:02:43 [danbri]

aliman, are you going to be IRC only?

14:04:36 [danbri]

zakim, who is on the phone?

14:04:36 [Zakim]

On the phone I see Tbaker, SouthWestEngland

14:04:37 [Zakim]

SouthWestEngland has danbri, libby

14:05:37 [libby]

aliman: idle 00:10:28, signon: Thu Jun 17 14:27:27

14:05:40 [cgi-irc]

cgi-irc has joined #swbp

14:05:43 [libby]

guess he is around

14:05:45 [danbri]

revised version: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Jun/0066.html

14:06:36 [therealaliman]

my computer just died

14:06:51 [therealaliman]

hi libby

14:07:50 [danbri]

danbri: not too worried re overlap w/ THES/PORT TF

14:07:58 [Zakim]

+Natasha_Noy

14:08:08 [Natasha]

Natasha has joined #swbp

14:08:12 [danbri]

tom: ...expectations re what it means re identifying a term. ...

14:08:21 [libby]

hi therealaliman :)

14:09:01 [danbri]

tom: i didn't see in scope statement for thes tf many of these issues

14:09:38 [danbri]

danbri: tom, could you talk us through the draft?

14:09:44 [danbri]

tom: interesting exchange w/ bernard...

14:10:15 [danbri]

...would like to limit the scope of VM note to issues on level of identifying terms, maybe identifying versions of terms, forming things like URI strings, what the considerations are...

14:10:25 [danbri]

...aware that practice evolving in this area

14:10:35 [danbri]

...good that ppl are trying out, experimenting, diff approaches

14:10:45 [danbri]

....eg re implied semantics (or lack thereof) re URI strings

14:11:17 [danbri]

...don't think we can necc achieve consensus on details of all these. But would be doing a service if ...

14:11:42 [danbri]

... at least point off to different approaches people are taking

14:12:35 [danbri]

danbri: +1

14:12:41 [danbri]

...storytelling approach good

14:12:47 [danbri]

tom: hope we can agree on some basic things

14:13:04 [danbri]

...eg that ppl identify policies (namespace policies etc) to articulate their assumptions more clearly

14:13:12 [danbri]

...give examples of these that have been deployed

14:13:47 [danbri]

tom: notion of assertion etiquette... would be nice to point to at least the notion that when citing others' terms... what sorts of issues do you need to consider

14:13:53 [danbri]

...finally, notion of documenting terms

14:14:01 [danbri]

...eg. what a uri resolves to might be a rathole

14:14:14 [danbri]

...but we could point to main examples of practice out there

14:14:34 [danbri]

danbri: lots of namespaces now, many 404, ...

14:14:42 [danbri]

tom: not a huge scope, but would fill a gap

14:14:52 [danbri]

... i don't see anytthing out there that fills this role currently

14:15:18 [danbri]

...could also choose scope for a Note... and point off to other works (eg. THES in RDF point off to that TF)

14:15:43 [danbri]

...also things like registries which use, harvest or otherwise refer to these identifying terms

14:15:58 [danbri]

...we may want to point off to a few key entry points, portals, articles that summarise what's happening

14:16:09 [danbri]

...but declare out of scope [actually making one]

14:16:24 [danbri]

...ie. through declaring our scope, also we'd be making a little landscape survey...

14:17:01 [danbri]

natasha: agree w/ Tom that there's no obvious conflict w/ Thesaurus TF

14:17:13 [danbri]

...by time this one gets started, that'll probably be finishing

14:17:18 [danbri]

...we'll have info on what they've done

14:17:23 [therealaliman]

+1 on no conflict

14:17:26 [danbri]

...can also revisit our scope then

14:17:30 [danbri]

thanks Al

14:17:40 [danbri]

...agree w/ everything Tom said

14:17:57 [danbri]

...be careful w/ scope, don't see this inherently super-broad so we'd not achieve a thing

14:18:16 [danbri]

...we should definitely look at what others (within w3c, elsewhere) have done; attempt summary...

14:19:12 [danbri]

libby: not so much to add, good idea to do this... we've often seen eg in FOAF, various little practical impediments to deployment

14:19:31 [danbri]

tom: ideas on how we might proceed...

14:19:57 [danbri]

... I feel like draft scope statement... could be made into a pretty straightforward job

14:20:18 [danbri]

...I could turn it into a more detailed outline (not having heard objections to it)

14:20:39 [danbri]

...we could plug in more placeholders to it, and assign folks to subsections, as we've quite a range of expertise within TF members

14:21:03 [danbri]

...we could probably within our own area of expertise rather quiuckly write a parag here, a parag there. just *describing* relevant devlopments...

14:21:13 [danbri]

...I could start putting that together into a 1st draft

14:21:38 [danbri]

...somewhat reluctant w/ summer looming to start, people being away

14:21:45 [danbri]

...might be preferable to say we'll start in the fall

14:21:55 [danbri]

...when thes and other tfs will be further along

14:22:06 [danbri]

...as a first step, to write a small outline

14:22:21 [danbri]

...we could try to at least include placeholders for major things

14:23:11 [danbri]

danbri: if we plan to start in the fall, but work thru summer to flesh out the scope note

14:23:42 [danbri]

tom: so start somewhat stealthily with the scoping text as focus, plan bigger formal start towards Note after summer

14:23:57 [danbri]

tom: one deliverable expected of a TF is the scope note

14:24:06 [danbri]

...maybe we could declare it frozen at some point...

14:24:42 [danbri]

...then successor versions might be seen more as draft Note

14:25:26 [danbri]

danbri: it's pretty much up to us how much we couch this as refining the scope note vs drafting a deliverable

14:26:28 [danbri]

-- What should term URIs "resolve to" (eg, TAG

14:26:28 [danbri]

recommendations with regard to RDF or RDDL)?

14:27:41 [danbri]

[...]

14:27:53 [danbri]

tom: TAG finding relevant here

14:28:03 [danbri]

...also for eg i stumbled across a schema versioning doc

14:28:25 [danbri]

...it'd be good to feel confident that we'd identified a pretty full list of relevant w3c docs

14:28:28 [Natasha]

+1 on identifying the list of relevant W3C documents

14:29:14 [aliman]

tom - got a url for that schema versioning doc you mentioned?

14:29:49 [danbri]

tom: my 'dependencies' section is morphing into a survey...

14:30:05 [Tbaker_]

aliman, i'll send in email

14:31:37 [libby]

wiki for faqs?

14:31:50 [danbri]

danbri: as we work, we'll find questions and be trying to answer them (eg. arabic r2l class names), how to collect these?

14:31:59 [danbri]

tom: re process, I'm happy w/ cvs etc tools

14:32:17 [danbri]

...assume most/all discussion will happen on the main taskforce list

14:32:42 [danbri]

.....am pretty flexible

14:33:00 [danbri]

...would like to take it a little furtther before summer vacations take over

14:33:15 [danbri]

...we could have a document for collecting open questions

14:33:21 [aliman]

fyi been playing with wikis ... http://esw.w3.org/topic/SkosDev

14:34:43 [libby]

http://esw.w3.org/topic/FaqIdeas

14:34:55 [danbri]

danbri: once we have a draft, how to solicit input from Dublin Core?

14:35:02 [danbri]

...dc-arch, AB, dc-general?

14:35:18 [danbri]

tom: might be a premature concern! at some point we might seek feedback on specific issues...

14:35:36 [danbri]

...there are areas of evolving defacto practice within dcmi that aren't yet formally approved policies...

14:35:48 [danbri]

...but since i'm the one who is doing that, ... i can at least describe that.

14:36:06 [danbri]

...certainly we could ask the DC Usage Board, etc.

14:36:43 [danbri]

danbri: was thinking more 'how do we know if we've done a good job in our doc'

14:37:39 [danbri]

tom: sounds like the group is the right size. haven't heard any showstopper criticism of general idea. seems a sense it's doable.

14:37:57 [danbri]

...maybe accomplished task for the call

14:39:03 [danbri]

tom: re Application profiles, i hope we'll have some general principles for identifying terms, versions of, etc.

14:39:13 [libby]

libby very interested in application profiles..but a big deal

14:39:17 [danbri]

...once we get beyond that, i tend to think we'll be more in a role of summarising and profile

14:39:32 [danbri]

...app profiles probably all we can do is point off at things

14:40:15 [danbri]

...not sure how much more census we'd have.

14:40:33 [danbri]

...also tension re inventing vs describing 'best practice' trends; assuming more latter

14:42:27 [libby]

danbri describes app profiles - practice of using various vocabs together, document-orientated

14:43:21 [danbri]

tom: to me, interesting thing about app profiles, is that every maintaince community for a vocab that i know of... or at least most... have invented some sort of notion of profile.

14:43:36 [danbri]

...that you're not using the entire vocab, using a subset, constraining it in certain ways, ...

14:43:50 [danbri]

...and often looking for a way to document that

14:44:15 [danbri]

...the fact that this is reinvented in all these various contexts... is a sign that this is something that people [think they] want

14:44:18 [danbri]

...and want to see some progress

14:44:35 [danbri]

...a task in itself

14:44:48 [danbri]

...at least a parag or two in the scope

14:45:10 [libby]

+1

14:48:44 [libby]

danbri explaijns the foaf experience of people looking for xml dtd-type document-level valiudation tools and examples and not finding them

14:48:53 [libby]

[paraphrasing, sorry]

14:48:56 [danbri]

np, ta

14:49:39 [danbri]

tom: this relates to exchange today w/ bernard... this is a 'best practice' group for SW. I've a certain notion of what that means. We're trying to ... recommend how ppl can identify and declare things in a way that makes them re-usable by others.

14:49:49 [danbri]

...re-use, re-purposing is key

14:50:14 [danbri]

[...]

14:50:44 [danbri]

...shouldn't lose the opportunity, even in a short note on vocab management, to emphasis that this isn't bp for vocabs in closed systems, but in a global, open system

14:50:48 [danbri]

+1

14:50:56 [danbri]

...could be repurpses, reused

14:51:01 [aliman]

+1

14:52:09 [danbri]

tom: ...your terms can be used by others in unexpected environments

14:52:23 [danbri]

...bp has to do with articulating and understanding what that implies

14:52:34 [danbri]

...for the things that you're publically identifying

14:52:53 [danbri]

...if you're following the guidelines, you're interested in doing things in a referencable and reusable manner

14:53:01 [danbri]

tom: this emerged more in the recent email exchange

14:53:28 [danbri]

action: tom to add text to VM scope note emphasising re-use in a global system

14:53:35 [danbri]

tom, am focussing on a short doc, < 10 pages

14:54:43 [danbri]

danbri: short is good. ppl don't read long ones. but some issues (eg / vs #) might spin off into their own, longer efforts, ...

14:55:18 [danbri]

tom: if nobody has sat down and described that problem in all its philosophical ramifications... maybe there should be a TF especially for it

14:55:39 [Natasha]

sorry, I have to leave in a minute or two ....

14:55:53 [danbri]

danbri: could go out as a separate note if needed

14:56:53 [danbri]

RESOLVED: we think VM roughly on right track, will refine some more before summer, plan full start in fall.

14:57:09 [Zakim]

-Natasha_Noy

14:57:11 [Zakim]

-Tbaker

14:57:18 [danbri]

rrsagent, bye

14:57:18 [RRSAgent]

I see 1 open action item:

14:57:18 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: tom to add text to VM scope note emphasising re-use in a global system [1]

14:57:18 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/06/17-swbp-irc#T14-53-28

14:57:18 [Zakim]

-SouthWestEngland

14:57:19 [Zakim]

SW_BPD(WNET)10:00AM has ended