IRC log of swbp on 2004-09-17

Timestamps are in UTC.

11:36:04 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #swbp
11:36:59 [danbri-scribe]
context: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Sep/0005.html
11:37:04 [danbri-scribe]
present: tom, alistair, libby, danbri
11:37:23 [danbri-scribe]
tom: wanted to brainstorm re scoping draft
11:37:29 [danbri-scribe]
...has had some discussion
11:37:41 [danbri-scribe]
...want to step back from that, ask about folks gut feeling re scope
11:38:00 [libby]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Sep/0006.html
11:38:06 [danbri-scribe]
...focus on few key examples, per michael S's urging
11:38:19 [danbri-scribe]
...i'd be delighted to offer Dublin Core as an eg of hopefully good practice on a number of points
11:38:29 [danbri-scribe]
...other key examples could help illustrate
11:38:38 [danbri-scribe]
[i'd be happy offering foaf similarly]
11:38:45 [danbri-scribe]
...also want reality check re how to proceed
11:38:59 [danbri-scribe]
...start with a scoping draft?
11:39:24 [danbri-scribe]
...div up, assign ownership to 2-parag sections
11:39:36 [danbri-scribe]
...put together a rough draft w/ a few refs on that particular point
11:39:41 [danbri-scribe]
...as a way of roughing up a 1st draft note
11:39:51 [danbri-scribe]
...can't begin think about that before we have better sense of scope
11:39:59 [danbri-scribe]
...reactions, comments?
11:40:41 [danbri-scribe]
danbri: FOAF too, which draws on the +/- of the DC experience
11:40:55 [danbri-scribe]
alistair: would be good contrast DC style with a more lightweight approach
11:41:56 [danbri-scribe]
danbri: also rdf-calendar, skos, foaf, wgs84 geo, ...
11:42:20 [danbri-scribe]
tom: interesting to hear dc seen as non-lightweight, we're trying to be lightweight but in context of wanting long term longevity etc
11:42:31 [danbri-scribe]
al: i don't know the dc management style in detail...
11:42:51 [danbri-scribe]
...my impression from reading about the relative management styles, but for something as important as DC, seems reasonable
11:43:06 [danbri-scribe]
...whereas foaf more openended, imaginative style, so diff management style makes sense
11:43:23 [danbri-scribe]
tom: trying to be lighteight but not weightless!
11:43:33 [danbri-scribe]
...like idea of organising things around certain styles, purposes
11:43:38 [danbri-scribe]
...which is one creating a vocab
11:43:39 [danbri-scribe]
?
11:43:45 [danbri-scribe]
...to present a range from formal to v informal
11:45:27 [danbri-scribe]
danbri: scale from big (wordnet etc) medium (dc etc) small (extensions to foaf)
11:45:35 [danbri-scribe]
tom: i'd like to see work around 'namespace policies'
11:45:46 [danbri-scribe]
...eg. when we assign an identifier, its there forever (in DC)
11:45:56 [danbri-scribe]
...but we can tweak the semantics in an certain range
11:46:10 [danbri-scribe]
...but if we change it too much, impacting apps, it implies the assignment of a new uriref
11:46:28 [danbri-scribe]
tom: it'd be useful to articulate the range of expectations are associated w/ the assignment of a uri or uriref
11:46:45 [danbri-scribe]
...a lot of those things are discussed in a recent paper from Andy Powell
11:46:46 [danbri-scribe]
@@url?
11:47:01 [danbri-scribe]
...at a minimum, if this taskforce...
11:47:08 [danbri-scribe]
...talk of urirefs in a DC implementation context
11:47:15 [danbri-scribe]
...but if we could elab on those principles
11:47:25 [danbri-scribe]
...or differential acc to purpose, style
11:47:33 [danbri-scribe]
[aside: http://rdfweb.org/topic/FOAFCommunityProcess]
11:47:48 [danbri-scribe]
...addressses the user who has a vocab and wants to assign refs to it
11:48:09 [danbri-scribe]
...examine issues it raises in light of other types of vocab
11:49:15 [danbri-scribe]
danbri: is DC using RDFS/OWL domain/range stuff now?
11:49:20 [danbri-scribe]
tom: see Andy's abstrct model
11:49:30 [danbri-scribe]
...things can be represented as strings, but also by uri
11:49:39 [danbri-scribe]
...uses abstraect model to contrast different encodings
11:50:45 [aliman]
danbri-scribe: categories of change to a schema?
11:51:05 [aliman]
... e.g. definition changes vs. schema mecahnics changes
11:51:58 [aliman]
q+
11:52:34 [danbri-scribe]
tom: wouldn't want to jump too much into mechanics of schemas
11:52:52 [danbri-scribe]
...without first getting an overview of some of the really basic issues of what you're assigning an ID too
11:52:53 [danbri-scribe]
to
11:53:01 [danbri-scribe]
...what kinds of reasonable expectations
11:54:19 [danbri-scribe]
thx
11:54:37 [danbri-scribe]
al: agreeing w/ danbri re detail, but stability schema used in FOAF and SKOS is a valuable thing...
11:54:47 [danbri-scribe]
...would like to see it more formalised/stable
11:54:52 [Tbaker]
http://dublincore.org/2004/06/14/dcq
11:54:54 [danbri-scribe]
...as valuable tool for developing schemas
11:54:59 [Ralph]
Ralph has left #swbp
11:55:04 [danbri-scribe]
...also interest in different types of changes that occur
11:55:06 [aliman]
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/change.rdf
11:55:13 [danbri-scribe]
...as is an issue w/ skos concept schemes
11:55:51 [danbri-scribe]
tom: ok going deeper in this direction so long as we cover basic assumptions sufficiently
11:56:22 [danbri-scribe]
...say v clearly, 'in order to be useful in the sw, a vocab isn't just a set of urirefs that are declared, but should/must/etc be declared in a schema...
11:56:25 [danbri-scribe]
...which can be used
11:56:29 [danbri-scribe]
...thats an underlying assumption
11:56:33 [danbri-scribe]
...which we slip into
11:56:46 [danbri-scribe]
q+ re business models etc
11:56:51 [danbri-scribe]
q+ to witter re business models etc
11:56:55 [aliman]
q-
11:57:03 [danbri-scribe]
...terms + policies underlying assignments
11:57:39 [danbri-scribe]
ack danbri
11:57:39 [Zakim]
danbri-scribe, you wanted to witter re business models etc
11:59:03 [danbri-scribe]
danbri: <witter/>
11:59:22 [danbri-scribe]
al: i'd phrase these things as best practices, as tom says, but talking about the +/- rather than should/must
12:00:34 [aliman]
danbri-scribe: foaf ns now content-negotiable
12:01:00 [aliman]
... also desire for accessing history (CVS style) of schema changes
12:01:08 [aliman]
i.e. W3C style
12:01:10 [aliman]
&DC
12:01:20 [danbri-scribe]
danbri: would love to compare techniques for recording decision record + change log for datestamped namespace snapshots
12:01:32 [danbri-scribe]
tom: yes v helpful, DC uses w3c-style datestamps...
12:01:38 [danbri-scribe]
...we've gone ahead and done this in DC
12:02:01 [danbri-scribe]
...I'd like a confirmation from a group like this, that its good practice, before formalizing
12:02:06 [libby]
[see http://rdfweb.org/topic/FoafGalwayBreakoutSessions 2nd day stability discussions based around an update to the FOAFCommunityProcess document]
12:02:17 [danbri-scribe]
...as head of DC Usage Board, I assign the URI as covered by the NS policy to the term 'concept']
12:02:25 [danbri-scribe]
...and assign a uri to that particular version
12:02:43 [danbri-scribe]
...so we issue a new term-version with its own term-version uri, but has uri that is covered by the ns policy
12:03:02 [danbri-scribe]
...so in effect there are 2 identifiers pointing to the concept
12:03:21 [danbri-scribe]
...has been done like this for a while, have had +ve feedback, but would be good to get a group like this to examine this practice
12:03:49 [danbri-scribe]
...would be great if it did turn out to be good practice
12:04:03 [danbri-scribe]
danbri: are Usage Board proceedings public now?
12:04:11 [danbri-scribe]
tom: yes, you can get at it thru the meeting pages
12:04:29 [danbri-scribe]
...you can get at it thru the decision records, which are linked to the supporting materials, etc.
12:04:38 [danbri-scribe]
...decision text linked
12:04:45 [danbri-scribe]
...linked to an issuing of a new term version
12:05:08 [aliman]
q+ to talk about term / scheme versioning
12:05:08 [danbri-scribe]
...in w3c datestamp style
12:05:14 [danbri-scribe]
...analgous to w3c approach, ...
12:05:29 [danbri-scribe]
...i've been looking for a while for a specific sort of spec of the w3c approach
12:05:50 [danbri-scribe]
[@@ pubrules + TR-in-rdf urls]
12:06:14 [danbri-scribe]
...could slice up the attributes of the problem differently
12:07:02 [danbri-scribe]
al: i think best practices for this very in scope for this TF
12:07:20 [danbri-scribe]
...from my pov its interesting to figure out if DC's term versioning approach is right thing for large thesauri
12:07:29 [danbri-scribe]
...which often have their own internal approaches
12:07:50 [danbri-scribe]
+1 on versioning being in scope (esp for RDF namespaces)
12:07:56 [danbri-scribe]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Sep/0005.html
12:08:02 [danbri-scribe]
tom: can we walk thru the draft?
12:08:05 [libby]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Sep/0006.html
12:08:12 [libby]
is more detailed
12:08:50 [danbri-scribe]
reviewing 0006...
12:08:57 [danbri-scribe]
tom: wanted to keep to 15-20 pages
12:09:00 [danbri-scribe]
...at most if poss
12:09:18 [danbri-scribe]
...describe principles of BP
12:09:23 [danbri-scribe]
...describe a range of styles
12:09:28 [danbri-scribe]
...can have length bibliog
12:09:52 [danbri-scribe]
...would try to create a short readable document which introduces ppl to the range of good practice solns that we see
12:10:06 [danbri-scribe]
Q2: about specific outline ...
12:10:21 [danbri-scribe]
...we prob need to define a few basic terms, like 'vocabulary', and 'term'
12:10:47 [danbri-scribe]
i'd love to see a clear statement about why we say uriref not uri (@@rfc2396bis redraft will do this in appendix)
12:10:58 [danbri-scribe]
...why talk about namespaces, is it a tricky term, and why?
12:11:05 [danbri-scribe]
...section 2, need to characterise the scope
12:11:18 [danbri-scribe]
...are we talking about metadata elements sets, controlled vocabs, taxonomies
12:11:24 [danbri-scribe]
q+ to suggest priorities
12:11:31 [aliman]
q-
12:11:32 [danbri-scribe]
...and articulate some basic assumptions re SW
12:11:43 [danbri-scribe]
...if our goal is to present a range of styles for ppl to decare vocabs for sw
12:11:58 [danbri-scribe]
...are we expecting formal schema declarations
12:12:04 [danbri-scribe]
...articulate underlying assumptions
12:12:11 [danbri-scribe]
...shouldn't slip into a generic intro-to-sw
12:12:19 [danbri-scribe]
...some danger, but need articulate our assumptions
12:12:25 [danbri-scribe]
...section 3., principles of good practice
12:12:31 [danbri-scribe]
...has some strawman content there
12:12:44 [danbri-scribe]
...happy to go as far as we can to articulate/agree on indiv principles
12:13:02 [danbri-scribe]
q+ to ask if UB meeting at DC would accept an observer
12:13:24 [danbri-scribe]
...am happy to wordsmith etc., get into coherent style, would divide up the work of assembling the sets of args related to particular pricniples
12:13:56 [danbri-scribe]
...for any issues that we recognise to be important, but too unsettled/immature, where no emergent best practice yet., push them into a Section 4
12:14:19 [danbri-scribe]
...would try characterise the debate on particular issues
12:14:29 [danbri-scribe]
...point ppl on work that's going on, eg. around metadata registries
12:14:37 [danbri-scribe]
[(aka 'directories')]
12:14:50 [danbri-scribe]
...i'd not try to do too much there as out of scope for our central goals
12:15:08 [danbri-scribe]
...point ppl at registry initiatives, summarise issues but point off elsewhere
12:15:26 [danbri-scribe]
pt 3; re section1 terminology
12:15:39 [danbri-scribe]
we need some vague sense of what a term is
12:16:00 [danbri-scribe]
...'there is a notion of term' point to diff approaches
12:16:10 [danbri-scribe]
...i've tried to get consensus on this before, can be costly
12:18:29 [aliman]
danbri-scribe: for ground up projects like FAOF RSS SKOS possible to talk about RDF worldview ...
12:18:47 [aliman]
... less easy for established systems migrating to RDF
12:19:13 [danbri-scribe]
al: what if we have a glossary for this document, but appendix w/ defs we're using
12:19:24 [danbri-scribe]
...and focus of the doc is more on illustration by example
12:19:25 [danbri-scribe]
+1
12:19:29 [danbri-scribe]
tom: yes agree w/ that
12:19:31 [libby]
+1
12:19:40 [danbri-scribe]
...also Andy's abstract model, he initially started w/ upfront definition of terms
12:19:46 [danbri-scribe]
...but I see he's moved to appendix
12:20:24 [danbri-scribe]
...we just need to make sure the terms are introduced well enough to make things interpretable
12:20:32 [danbri-scribe]
...i don't see the definitions are the major contrib of the paper
12:20:43 [danbri-scribe]
...just as a way of making sure we are clarifying what it is we're talking about
12:20:52 [danbri-scribe]
...when we say 'term' this is roughly what we mean
12:21:28 [danbri-scribe]
...things like ownership of namespace, or of a vocab., attracted discussion on BP list earlier
12:21:46 [danbri-scribe]
...if we can capture how that's controversial, would be a good contrib
12:21:54 [danbri-scribe]
...should we give things a handle, eg 'namespace owner'
12:21:56 [danbri-scribe]
?
12:22:03 [danbri-scribe]
...we shouldnt start by trying to define terms
12:22:13 [danbri-scribe]
...but make sure, when we finish, that we've defined them sufficiently
12:22:32 [danbri-scribe]
[5 mins left]
12:22:48 [danbri-scribe]
...next section, re underlying assumptions
12:23:02 [danbri-scribe]
...open, loosly coupled, mixed-language environment
12:23:17 [danbri-scribe]
(@@rdf concepts + primer, do they cover enough of it?)
12:23:34 [danbri-scribe]
...point 3 in scoping draft
12:23:42 [danbri-scribe]
pt 4 re section 2
12:24:17 [aliman]
q+ to suggest a different order
12:25:05 [danbri-scribe]
q-
12:25:13 [danbri-scribe]
ah, I think http://rdfweb.org/topic/FOAFCommunityProcess might fit into this section someho
12:25:14 [danbri-scribe]
w
12:25:24 [danbri-scribe]
[[
12:25:24 [danbri-scribe]
4. About Section 3 - Principles of Good Practice: This is the
12:25:24 [danbri-scribe]
part which (I would hope) could form the core contribution
12:25:24 [danbri-scribe]
of the VM note,
12:25:25 [danbri-scribe]
]]
12:25:39 [libby]
q
12:25:42 [danbri-scribe]
q?
12:25:52 [libby]
q+
12:25:54 [danbri-scribe]
tom, prob of resolving/derferencing uris
12:25:58 [danbri-scribe]
...who is recommending what?
12:26:01 [danbri-scribe]
...eg. DC practice
12:26:21 [danbri-scribe]
...would follow whatever evolving practice is
12:26:31 [danbri-scribe]
...deref an term URI you get RDF schema
12:26:35 [danbri-scribe]
...also relevant TAG finding
12:27:00 [danbri-scribe]
...assuming we unlikely to agree on a particular recommendation
12:27:16 [danbri-scribe]
....describe range of solutions
12:27:24 [aliman]
Dereferencing bets practises will depend on size of vocab
12:27:33 [danbri-scribe]
...what are the attributes of a term?
12:27:49 [aliman]
(But like dereferencing in scope)
12:27:53 [danbri-scribe]
...to what extent are there stds/models that one can/should follow?
12:28:32 [danbri-scribe]
I'd propose RDFS/OWL as one strong model of term attributes
12:30:31 [aliman]
danbri-scribe: would be nice to say: these are the things useful to include in term (i.e. class & prop) descriptions.
12:30:49 [libby]
[in case we dont't come to it: advice oon stability is important to me; also validation, app profiles; also there are a number of v short one-line questions that have come up re owl]
12:30:53 [aliman]
... re. RDFS/OWL vocabs
12:30:58 [danbri-scribe]
http://rdfweb.org/topic/FOAFCommunityProcess
12:32:02 [libby]
[also how far we go into managing a community process we go into, e.g the rdf-calendar stuff for managing consensus]
12:33:01 [danbri-scribe]
tom: i see this in a versioning context, having a timestamped and a non-timestamped, is that a translation can refer to a timestamped URI but be about a generic URI
12:33:05 [danbri-scribe]
...so you can have the link to both
12:33:26 [danbri-scribe]
...concept thats used in assertions, and the specific historical version
12:33:31 [danbri-scribe]
...hoping we can get that far
12:33:56 [danbri-scribe]
q?
12:34:05 [danbri-scribe]
ack aliman
12:34:05 [Zakim]
aliman, you wanted to suggest a different order
12:34:29 [danbri-scribe]
al, re 0006.html sections2/3/4, i like what you've got in Scope there
12:34:43 [danbri-scribe]
...actually i'd put section 2 last, or at least leave it., and try with this document to focus on 3 first
12:34:52 [danbri-scribe]
...bring that up top, to make it easier to get into
12:35:02 [libby]
makes sense to me
12:35:07 [danbri-scribe]
...could turn out to be v widely read and important, so bring the substance up to top
12:35:12 [danbri-scribe]
ack libby
12:35:18 [danbri-scribe]
[general agreement]
12:35:29 [danbri-scribe]
libby: you see web developers/hackers trying to get into ontology creation
12:35:38 [danbri-scribe]
tom: adjourning...
12:35:58 [danbri-scribe]
...suggest over-discussion of scope would be counter productive
12:36:16 [danbri-scribe]
...start assigning sections, see how things evolve
12:36:37 [danbri-scribe]
...general agreement w/ rough scope
12:36:38 [danbri-scribe]
+1
12:36:44 [aliman]
+1
12:36:49 [libby]
+1
12:36:57 [danbri-scribe]
tom: happy moving terminology to back of doc
12:36:58 [libby]
I like it a lot
12:37:24 [danbri-scribe]
...yesterdays swbp telecon suggested 1 more round of comments would be useful on scope draft
12:37:30 [danbri-scribe]
...but i could work with what's come in so far
12:37:43 [danbri-scribe]
...turn it back into an outline w/ sections reordered as discussed here
12:37:58 [danbri-scribe]
...i'd somehow want to make leap between that and assigning sections to ppl
12:38:12 [danbri-scribe]
...can try to come up w/ a draft
12:38:21 [danbri-scribe]
...outline is 3 or 4 pages already
12:41:21 [danbri-scribe]
[discussion of wiki vs html vs xyz for collab]
12:42:11 [danbri-scribe]
tom, see http://esw.w3.org/topic/FrontPage
12:42:59 [aliman]
e.g. http://esw.w3.org/topic/SkosDev
12:44:13 [Zakim]
-aliman
12:44:20 [danbri-scribe]
---------
12:56:12 [Tbaker]
http://www.bi.fhg.de/People/Thomas.Baker/ISSUES/
13:24:10 [Zakim]
-Tbaker
13:24:11 [Zakim]
-bristol
13:24:12 [Zakim]
SW_BPD(VM)7:30AM has ended
13:24:13 [Zakim]
Attendees were Tbaker, aliman, libby, danbri
13:45:25 [TomAdams]
TomAdams has joined #swbp
13:47:59 [TomAdams]
TomAdams has left #swbp
14:00:33 [danbri_dna]
danbri_dna has joined #swbp
14:01:10 [danbri_dna]
danbri_dna has left #swbp
14:20:23 [TomAdams]
TomAdams has joined #swbp
14:20:30 [TomAdams]
TomAdams has left #swbp
14:45:01 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #swbp
15:35:28 [TomAdams]
TomAdams has joined #swbp
15:35:34 [TomAdams]
TomAdams has left #swbp