09:42:44 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #swbp
09:42:51 <RalphS> Meeting: SWBPD F2F
09:42:54 <RalphS> Chair: Guus Schreiber
09:43:01 <RalphS> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Oct/0163.html
09:43:35 <danbri> danbri has changed the topic to: SWBP WG (Bristol F2F), agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Oct/0163.html
09:43:49 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #swbp
09:45:26 <RalphS> Present: Ralph Swick, Jeremy Caroll, Phil Tatlow, Brian McBride, Libby Miller, Guus Schreiber, David Wood, Alistair Miles, Dan Brickley, Jeff Pan, Felix Burkhardt, Andreas Harth, Steve Pepper, Benjamin Nguyen
09:45:50 <Benjamin> Benjamin has joined #swbp
09:45:53 <aliman> aliman has joined #swbp
09:46:00 <libby> libby has joined #swbp
09:46:13 <Guus> Guus has joined #swbp
09:46:20 <David_Wood> David_Wood has joined #swbp
09:48:14 <aharth> aharth has joined #swbp
09:50:20 <danbri> Re Restaurant, I think it is here, but jjc will confirm: http://www.conradatjamesons.co.uk/location/index_location.htm
09:51:30 <libby> yep that's the one
09:54:23 <jjc> jjc has joined #swbp
09:54:30 <Benjamin> Benjamin has joined #swbp
09:58:03 <RalphS> propose to swap RDF-in-HTML and ADTF slots, so Bristol folk can move to the teleconf room
09:58:33 <RalphS> RDF-in-HTML will be discussed at 1530 UTC
09:58:47 <RalphS> ADTF will be discussed at 1330 UTC
10:05:26 <RalphS> Guus: tomorrow afternoon discussion on breadth of work and ways to bring in other participants
10:10:14 <RalphS> Topic: PORT TF
10:10:16 <RalphS> http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/
10:10:32 <RalphS> Alistair: SKOS Core is an RDF vocabulary for thesaurii
10:11:28 <RalphS> ... vocabulary is managed like FOAF; each property in the vocabulary has its own level of stability
10:11:43 <RalphS> Scribe: DanBri
10:11:50 <danbriscribe> al: brief intro to skos core spec
10:11:59 <danbriscribe> ...classes and properties summarised in a table, with their properties
10:12:07 <danbriscribe> ...and a brief mention of the management policy for skos core
10:12:13 <danbriscribe> ...and a brief note re community involvement
10:12:20 <danbriscribe> ...list of vocab details
10:12:40 <danbriscribe> ...that bit of document generated from the schema itself, hence table created from script
10:12:42 <RalphS> [ PORT (aka Thesaurus) TF description is http://www.w3.org/2004/03/thes-tf/mission ]
10:12:53 <danbriscribe> ...navigation at side of document
10:13:12 <danbriscribe> ralph: stepping back briefly...
10:13:23 <danbriscribe> ...feeling a bit out of sync with this task force
10:13:52 <danbriscribe> ...how does this vocab serve as being the most important answer right now to get thesauri ported to the semweb
10:14:12 <danbriscribe> ...what's the feedback you've got that makes you confident in this as a solution
10:14:49 <danbriscribe> al: coming from the other point of view, within dig library community, for thesauri alone there is currently no dominant interchange format
10:14:58 <danbriscribe> ...so v little reuse of tools etc within that community
10:15:11 <danbriscribe> jjc: how much is skos yet another format that won't be a standard
10:15:16 <danbriscribe> al: will answer that one later
10:15:39 <danbriscribe> ...skos is part of a family of similar systems, thesauri, subject heading schemes, glossaries, which have all been developed with walls in between them
10:15:48 <danbriscribe> ...they all share a lot of common features
10:16:05 <danbriscribe> ...another thing in the thesaurus community is that moving beyond print environment is still a new thing
10:16:28 <danbriscribe> guus: do you have indication how many of the vocabs out there have such a structure that can be usefully mapped to skos
10:16:37 <danbriscribe> ...eg mesh not something that you can...
10:16:46 <danbriscribe> al: i'd say 98%
10:17:37 <RalphS> DanBri: work that is written-up here [SKOS] has a heritage back to other work, including a write-up I did for the W3C Query Workshop in 1998
10:17:53 <RalphS> ... vocabulary as written is good
10:18:03 <RalphS> ... some commentors suggest it could be more term-centric
10:18:24 <RalphS> ... this is low-hanging fruit
10:18:38 <RalphS> ... could relate to future Topic Map discussions
10:18:46 <danbriscribe> al: i've presented this at a few digital library workshops
10:18:56 <danbriscribe> ...the single feature that i've picked up on that people have liked...
10:19:14 <danbriscribe> ...use of rdf means people can add new features, and extensible, you can specialise classes and properties
10:19:32 <danbriscribe> ...v attractive as people want to refine thesauri standards to be more precise
10:20:27 <danbriscribe> phil: i'm kinda concerned that this might be a closed community
10:21:18 <RalphS> Ralph: why are Wordnet and MESH hard examples for SKOS?
10:21:21 <danbriscribe> guus: wordnet isn't a conventional thesaurus
10:21:26 <RalphS> Guus: Wordnet is not a thesaurus in the ISO sense
10:21:26 <danbriscribe> ...nor mesh
10:21:38 <danbriscribe> ....but in the library world, ppl have been making thesauri for ages
10:22:39 <danbriscribe> ralph: can we target a specific thesaurus?
10:22:48 <aharth> aharth has joined #swbp
10:22:49 <danbriscribe> al: sure. we already have gemmet(?) who use a prev version of skos
10:22:53 <danbriscribe> ...also uk govt categories
10:23:34 <danbriscribe> ... in swad-e we did a cycle of review/test/etc
10:24:04 <danbriscribe> ralph: i didn't realise it had been used, wasn't clear from the docs
10:24:09 <danbriscribe> al: is linked from the swad-e pages
10:24:26 <libby>  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/thes/
10:24:56 <libby> usecases: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/thes/usecase.html
10:25:02 <RalphS> DanBri: the Digital Library community likes this because RDF allows them to use many representation types and specialize
10:25:18 <RalphS> ... worries me because of a view toward "facet modelling"
10:25:28 <RalphS> ... I think they don't realize what can be done with OWL
10:25:47 <RalphS> ... in the RDF & OWL world we can say "subClassOf"
10:26:06 <RalphS> ... in the thesaurus world they are accustomed to want to say 'broader' and 'narrower'
10:26:22 <RalphS> Al: SKOS attempts to not replicate things that are already in OWL
10:26:35 <RalphS> DanBri: 'denotes' relationship bridges models
10:26:35 <PhilT> PhilT has joined #swbp
10:26:50 <danbriscribe> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/thes/8.8/
10:27:17 <RalphS> ... subtle distinction between modelling in RDF and OWL over modelling thesaurii -- will be important for us to explain thi
10:27:24 <RalphS> s/explain thi/explain this/
10:27:25 <danbriscribe> al: of whole skos core vocab, the broader property is the most important one in there
10:27:49 <danbriscribe> david: al, you said the thesaurus community only recently thinking beyond print... can you expand?
10:27:55 <danbriscribe> ...what are the changes?
10:28:16 <danbriscribe> al: single biggest impact of that, working in the print community, you have a thesaurus which is a book, terms, record cards...
10:28:26 <danbriscribe> ...you fill terms from thesaurus into record card
10:28:29 <danbriscribe> ...so term-centric
10:28:34 <danbriscribe> ...as people working with this
10:28:59 <danbriscribe> ...a problem with that, 'cos in a thesaurus you have two kinds of term, preferred descriptors and non-preferred terms
10:29:07 <danbriscribe> ...a descriptor is a main label for a concept
10:29:38 <danbriscribe> al: ...so confounding of term as unique id vs usage in natural language
10:29:45 <danbriscribe> david: i'm with you ... but ... so what?
10:30:00 <danbriscribe> al: althought a thesaurus is supposed to be concept oriented, in practice it is term oriented
10:30:19 <Benjamin> WN draft might be : http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wordnet-sw-20040713.html
10:30:34 <danbriscribe> guus: all these communities have built vocabs, they're v domain specific, terms represent agreements within a community
10:30:59 <danbriscribe> ...if people commit to this particular terminology
10:31:18 <danbriscribe> q+ to note comment from Brad @ Siderean
10:31:23 <Guus> q?
10:31:27 <danbriscribe> al: as we move into networked world
10:31:32 <danbriscribe> Guus, ok to use zakim q?
10:31:48 <RalphS> Guus: even within a community there will be conflicts and disagreements in usage
10:31:55 <danbriscribe> al: where two vocabs collide in networked world, this is a new problem/issue to pre-electronic version
10:31:55 <Guus> sure!
10:32:14 <danbriscribe> david: can you make that explicit in the document
10:33:14 <danbriscribe> action: aliman make explicit in skos core doc the fact that you're trying to deal with potential for multiple thesauri using the same terms, overlap etc., different from paper publishing world
10:33:27 <RalphS> Steve: this is an area in which Published Subjects might be helpful
10:33:30 <danbriscribe> steve: some relationship to published subjects
10:33:52 <danbriscribe> guus: not sure ... that this is specifically work for this tf
10:34:29 <danbriscribe> ...happy to see port tf to propose a skos-based convention for represnting real-life thesauri in rdf/xml
10:34:31 <danbriscribe> ...could be very short
10:34:56 <danbriscribe> ...my main problem is ?size of doc / quickstart / primer
10:34:57 <danbriscribe> q?
10:35:14 <danbriscribe> ack danbriscribe
10:35:14 <Zakim> danbriscribe, you wanted to note comment from Brad @ Siderean
10:35:42 <danbriscribe> phil: you're looking at having multiple independent domain specific thesauri, but not at detailed cross domain mappings
10:35:51 <RalphS> Phil: are we looking at the problem of translating across domains; e.g. medical to something else?
10:35:59 <RalphS> Alistair: that's part of SKOS Mapping
10:36:16 <RalphS> DanBri: faceted browser for Dublin Core was built using a term-centric approach
10:36:38 <RalphS> ... the developer said the term-centric approach was easier to deal with, though less elegant
10:37:03 <danbriscribe> ralph: this discusssion positions what you've done better for me, in space of problem we're trying to solve.
10:37:08 <JeffP> JeffP has joined #swbp
10:37:28 <danbriscribe> ...is particularly important to emphasise the point that guus just made, perhaps in skos core guide, that the motivation be given right up front...
10:37:34 <danbriscribe> ...with examples
10:38:02 <danbriscribe> ...there's a risk that community rivalry might project from perceived qualities of a thesaurus to skos itself
10:38:06 <danbriscribe> ...so show several!
10:38:14 <danbriscribe> q+ to mention semantic blogging use case
10:38:24 <danbriscribe> ...so skos would be more persausive if described this way
10:38:46 <danbriscribe> ...so important distinction, between basic thesaurus representation versus fancy stuff on mapping 
10:39:13 <danbriscribe> ...get basics out asap, showing some use for thesaurus world without getting bogged down in mapping
10:39:40 <danbriscribe> phil: suggesting that words on these constraints needed in the doc?
10:39:55 <danbriscribe> ralph: not sure we need to write it that explicitly, just make sure we work through real use case examples
10:40:03 <danbriscribe> ...by implication this shows our priorities
10:40:12 <danbriscribe> jjc: felt to me that al's later examples could have been more prominent
10:40:22 <danbriscribe> ack ralphs
10:40:22 <Zakim> RalphS, you wanted to comment about use cases
10:40:32 <danbriscribe> guus: i was visiting sound and vision institute
10:40:38 <danbriscribe> ...tv and radio archive of the netherlands
10:40:42 <danbriscribe> ...dutch
10:40:56 <danbriscribe> ...simple textual file, i just want to have a document to give them, to translate that
10:41:08 <danbriscribe> ...simple use cases are there
10:41:23 <danbriscribe> ...another one, dutch royal library, GOO (general object something)
10:41:30 <danbriscribe> ...v simple, uses 3 or 4 things from skos
10:41:38 <danbriscribe> ...term, broader term, related, ...
10:41:59 <danbriscribe> ...give them something to allow their developers something to build an rdf representation
10:42:06 <danbriscribe> ralph: so speed is important?
10:42:20 <danbriscribe> al: totally agree; with skos-core guide, as short and simple as possible, ...
10:42:40 <danbriscribe> [libraries-> web not sw; blogs, instances]
10:42:48 <danbriscribe> al: suggestions welcomed
10:42:54 <Zakim> danbriscribe, you wanted to mention semantic blogging use case
10:43:21 <RalphS> DanBri: several things going on here; lots of historical context for wanting to help migrate things to Semantic Web
10:43:33 <RalphS> ... librarians want to see their role in Sem Web
10:43:47 <RalphS> ... many cheaper and scruffier examples being generated
10:43:56 <RalphS> ... SKOS is interesting because it is right in the middle
10:44:11 <RalphS> ... it fits with the light-weight data sharing things like FOAF but it also fits into the library world
10:44:36 <DavidW> q+ to suggest standard use case scenarios across SWBP work
10:44:37 <RalphS> ... I'd like to see 2 classes of examples; a dump syntax for thesaurii and syntaxes that mix into the rest of the RDF world
10:45:14 <RalphS> ... with the move from print to electronic, what's changed in the library world is how they operate
10:45:29 <RalphS> ... there now are blog operators that create thousands of categories that point to a page
10:45:49 <RalphS> ... hierarchical categories in SKOS have been shown to work nicely
10:46:11 <RalphS> ... can now show to the library world that their work on thesaurii can show up in this new blog category world
10:46:25 <danbriscribe> phil: a point about pragmatics
10:46:35 <danbriscribe> ...a solution space for semantic tech for library world
10:46:46 <danbriscribe> ...as they're potentially an early adopter, could be some pain there
10:46:56 <danbriscribe> ...is it within our remit to help with take up
10:47:18 <danbriscribe> ...? there's some responsibility within this team to act as a reference point, or respond to, frustrations from early adopters
10:47:23 <danbriscribe> ...is that a wg responsibility?
10:48:08 <danbriscribe> david: this is our constant problem. charter is v broad. i wouldn't say that it is the wrong thing to do. potentially too hard for the group as it currently stands. 
10:48:29 <danbriscribe> ...we could do less of something else we're doing, or else find someone out there to help with this
10:48:38 <danbriscribe> q+ to mention EU projects, IG, public-esw-thes
10:48:48 <Guus> q?
10:49:07 <danbriscribe> phil: from my standpoint in industry, when you're trying to become an early adopter of this technology, BP seems to be an ideal home for channeled frustrations
10:49:10 <danbriscribe> jjc: i disagree
10:49:23 <danbriscribe> david: a pain registry would be good in theory...
10:49:38 <danbriscribe> ...but because i'm sensitive to what this group is being asked to do
10:50:03 <Zakim> danbriscribe, you wanted to mention EU projects, IG, public-esw-thes
10:50:26 <RalphS> DanBri: the people who participate in WGs are not generic reassignable resources; they have some role in their host organization
10:51:07 <RalphS> ... for example, those of us funded by EU are here to create supporting materials
10:51:50 <RalphS> ... when this goes out to WD, the WG has the responsiblity to respond to public comment
10:52:49 <danbriscribe> ralph: wg charter is, for better/worse, v broad
10:53:02 <danbriscribe> ...i view the intent of the charter of this wg to help the real world use the sw tech
10:53:06 <danbriscribe> ...migrate to it, etc
10:53:21 <danbriscribe> ...we can't afford to take on every user community whose pain we feel
10:53:36 <danbriscribe> ...but we should be confident that everything we work on addresses some genuine user community problem
10:53:54 <danbriscribe> ...what i've been pushing here is for the materials that we deliver to show the real world problem that is being addressed
10:53:57 <Guus> q?
10:54:10 <danbriscribe> ...depending on the prob, we may or may not be able to demonstrate we solved it all
10:54:21 <danbriscribe> ...so be clear about what probs we want to be seen as solving
10:54:41 <danbriscribe> ...agree w/ phil that some of that is needed, but also +1 david's point re resource limitations
10:55:46 <danbriscribe> david: ralph likes to (rightfully I think!) pick up the concept of use cases... If a discussion comes up, Ralph will remind us to define a use case, also in document review. This is a really good idea. When we talk about what use cases we're going to do, the same short list comes up
10:56:13 <danbriscribe> It's always FOAF and DOAP
10:56:22 <danbriscribe> [DOAP vs DOPE]
10:56:27 <danbriscribe> ...drug ontology thing
10:56:40 <danbriscribe> ...we have a short list of a common candidates for use cases
10:56:56 <libby> DOPE: http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/swc/dope.htm
10:56:59 <danbriscribe> ...if we use same list across all our note candidates...
10:57:01 <danbriscribe> [missed]
10:57:04 <libby> DOPE: http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/swc/dope.html sorry
10:57:23 <RalphS> David: if we focus on the same use cases we will have developed a full suite of examples for those cases
10:57:26 <danbriscribe> ...eg. we could look back and say, 'we did xyz to bring foaf into mainstream fold, ...
10:57:35 <danbriscribe> ...so we should probably come up with list of these use cases
10:57:52 <danbriscribe> jjc: back to phil's earlier point... i think it is important that we don't do support of individual users
10:58:03 <danbriscribe> ...ralph talked about communities not individuals
10:58:17 <danbriscribe> ...we do latter on jena-dev list
10:58:19 <danbriscribe> phil: I agree
10:58:31 <danbriscribe> David: I see indivs supported in IG; communities supported by WG
10:58:41 <burkhardt> burkhardt has joined #swbp
10:58:45 <danbriscribe> steve: re topicmaps angle... this skos looks like a v interesting project
10:58:58 <danbriscribe> ...collab, make sure whatever we do in the rdf/tm tf is consistent
10:59:12 <danbriscribe> al: thanks, agree; Kal Ahmed, ...[missed names] have been active w/ skos
10:59:31 <danbriscribe> ...re Published Subject Indicator, currently discussing whether to have a PSI property in SKOS
10:59:37 <danbriscribe> guus: to wrap up...
11:00:23 <danbriscribe> al: re spec document, people seem ok with that, concerns have been with the guide document
11:01:13 <danbriscribe> al: guide is at an early stage, built from our wiki content
11:01:19 <danbriscribe> ...feasible to publish for end of november
11:01:26 <danbriscribe> q+ to ask for actions
11:01:29 <danbriscribe> ack davidw
11:01:29 <Zakim> DavidW, you wanted to suggest standard use case scenarios across SWBP work
11:01:33 <danbriscribe> ack ralphs
11:01:33 <Zakim> RalphS, you wanted to address Phil's point about helping with others' pain
11:01:35 <danbriscribe> ack danbri
11:01:35 <Zakim> danbriscribe, you wanted to ask for actions
11:01:39 <danbriscribe> oops :)
11:01:41 <danbriscribe> q+ to ask for actions
11:01:48 <danbriscribe> guus: more discussion tommorrow?
11:02:04 <danbriscribe> al: might be useful to run new features of skos core past the WG
11:02:11 <danbriscribe> ...because of the subject indicator discussion
11:03:05 <danbriscribe> guus: so i hear two issues; 1st is potential examples, 2nd is to talk about topic maps [& denotes property]
11:03:28 <danbriscribe> ...ie. open issues within task force; alongside discussion of rel'n to topicmaps tf
11:03:37 <danbriscribe> ralph: david commented about standard use casees
11:03:59 <danbriscribe> ...guus has emphasised that there are use cases; please lets pick some.
11:04:02 <DavidW> q?
11:04:08 <danbriscribe> ...concern i have with foaf is that it is simple and intuitive
11:04:21 <danbriscribe> ...but foaf is already developed, and rdf friendly
11:04:31 <DavidW> ack RalphS
11:04:31 <Zakim> RalphS, you wanted to caution about standard use cases
11:04:38 <danbriscribe> guus: foaf is a description template, not a vocab
11:04:59 <danbriscribe> ralph: not clear useful to list foaf as a skos use case
11:05:40 <danbriscribe> ...anything we do, there's some community out there, who we should know about and whoese needs we should address
11:06:02 <Zakim> danbriscribe, you wanted to ask for actions
11:07:55 <danbriscribe> al: I could've written this by showing classic print thesauri followed by skos version; could do that, but foaf developer folks wouldn't follow. There are different communities who need different kinds of example.
11:08:02 <danbriscribe> guus: who is main community? digital library?
11:09:00 <danbriscribe> al: point is that this is skos core guide... is that the right title for the right document?
11:09:40 <danbriscribe> ...another point is a primer specifically for using skos w/ thesauri
11:09:43 <RalphS> "Expressing Your Thesaurus in the Semantic Web"
11:09:46 <danbriscribe> guus: how about not having skos in title
11:10:23 <RalphS> Steve: not just thesaurii; also controlled vocabularies, subject headings
11:10:34 <danbriscribe> (various proposals uncaptured; discussion of whether just thesauri ...)
11:11:04 <danbriscribe> all: great work alistair!
11:12:02 <pepper> pepper has joined #swbp
11:12:22 <RalphS> rrsagent, pointer?
11:12:22 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2004/11/01-swbp-irc#T11-12-22
11:21:35 <danbriscribe> q+ scribe volunteers welcomed [except Ralph]
11:21:40 <danbriscribe> q+ to note scribe volunteers welcomed [except Ralph]
11:31:01 <danbriscribe> RalphS, I believe the intro to http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wordnet-sw-20040713.html explains how SKOS, Wordnet, and RDF/OWL fit together. Would be great if you could review that bit of the doc in particular.
11:35:28 <RalphS> [thanks, DanBri; I will take a look there]
11:36:50 <libby> ---wordnet TF
11:36:51 <libby> guus: history: history wordnet in rdf several times - but none endorsed by princeton
11:36:53 <danbriscribe> thanks libby
11:37:14 <JeffP> JeffP has joined #swbp
11:37:42 <RalphS> Scribe: Libby
11:37:57 <libbyscribe> ...phase one - wordnet datastructures in RDF/OWL - no changes, make it so that everytime wornet is updated, get an rdf/owl version too
11:38:24 <libbyscribe> ...brian has been working on a draft: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wordnet-sw-20040713.html
11:39:02 <libbyscribe> ...details to be worked on: wordnet has synsets, a group of terms. many linguistic relationships between the synsets and the terms
11:39:29 <danbri> q+ to encourage review of wordnet-sw Intro section (re overlap between TFs, eg. wordnet vs skos vs TMs etc)
11:39:38 <danbri> q- danbriscribe
11:39:45 <libbyscribe> ...main problem with the phase one conversion is lack of people's time: more work on the document and then liase with princeton
11:39:57 <libbyscribe> ...? someone was definitely interested in working on this
11:40:02 <RalphS> [ WordNet Task Force description is http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/tf ]
11:40:07 <libbyscribe> ...which maybe enough
11:40:08 <RalphS> s/?/Christianne Fellbaum/
11:40:17 <libbyscribe> thanks ralph
11:40:22 <RalphS> [hope I spelled her name closely enough]
11:40:55 <libbyscribe> guss: issues: what shoudl the base uri be for wordnet; how shoudl updates be handled? and how shoudl words be repreesnted
11:41:41 <libbyscribe> ...this is the only document we have really. focus discussion on how to get more effort into here
11:42:07 <libbyscribe> danbri: everyone wants to do the exciting stuff not phase one stuff: this is hard wor
11:42:09 <libbyscribe> k
11:42:22 <libbyscribe> guus would love to do it if he had the time
11:43:20 <libbyscribe> danbri: good for all to review the introduction to this...easy to confuse the differnt tasks, e.g. could skos grow to address any of the wordnet tasks?
11:44:04 <libbyscribe> ....some of these are research questions e.g. similarity of structures between thesaurus and a lexical database
11:44:09 <aliman> q+ re skos wordnet
11:44:26 <libbyscribe> jeremy: maybe just a few terms to connect those...maybe in a separate namespace
11:44:33 <aliman> q+ to say a word on skos & wordne
11:45:05 <libbyscribe> brian: issue in modelling wordnet is : what is it you're modelling - a lexical concept, a sequence of characters? 
11:45:13 <RalphS> [Christiane attended our 27-May WG meeting to talk about WordNet-SWBP collaboration; see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004May/0149.html ]
11:45:38 <libbyscribe> ....people using it in RDF want a large set of classes not "the word bicycle"
11:45:46 <libbyscribe> danrbi: yes - two traditions
11:46:05 <libbyscribe> guus: we decided to do the lexical one first and the classes one in phase 2
11:46:21 <danbri> q-
11:46:44 <danbri> q+ to ask guus re 'adding an interpretation later'
11:46:47 <libbyscribe> some text from guus: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/public/wn.txt
11:47:23 <libbyscribe> jeremy: we could just discuss the resource issue?
11:47:47 <libbyscribe> david: do it with skos?
11:47:59 <libbyscribe> jeremy: complexifying stage 1
11:48:53 <libbyscribe> guus: problem is too many representations and people like a common reference
11:49:01 <danbri> q?
11:49:54 <libbyscribe> ralph: has princeton endorsed any rdf reepresentations?
11:50:07 <libbyscribe> benjamin: decker one linked form their page
11:50:18 <libbyscribe> david: but none of these are complete representations
11:50:25 <danbri> [they'll list anything that uses wordnet; they don't QA those links]
11:50:35 <libbyscribe> jeremy: could a grad student take this document through the process?
11:50:54 <libbyscribe> guus: it's not just a grad student exercise....
11:51:10 <libbyscribe> ralph: but we could help answer some of teh harder questions
11:51:41 <libbyscribe> ...any candidates? even at princeton maybe?
11:51:57 <libbyscribe> guus: might have a candidate, btu would need a group to ask questions of
11:52:36 <libbyscribe> ralph: a student might drive the group by asking specific questions
11:53:04 <libbyscribe> david: do we gain anything as a wg by using skos for this/investigating this link
11:53:21 <libbyscribe> guus: doesn;t think there's much of a link betwewen skos and stage 1
11:53:41 <libbyscribe> david: librrain case - their terms have a lexical route, they might benefit
11:53:51 <danbri> q?
11:53:57 <libbyscribe> guus: librarins and wordnet are distinct communities
11:54:12 <libbyscribe> ...wants to get something out fast
11:54:18 <danbri> ack aliman
11:54:18 <Zakim> aliman, you wanted to say a word on skos & wordne
11:54:59 <jjc2> jjc2 has joined #swbp
11:55:14 <libbyscribe> aliman: agrees that 1st step, skos not appropriate. pragmatic point - people don;t want two solutions for one problem: cleaner at first anyway to offer one solution
11:55:34 <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to ask guus re 'adding an interpretation later'
11:56:05 <libbyscribe> danbri: agrees with that. also peopel confuse teh powers of skos and the powers of rdf, lots of education to do there. cobining the two will confuse matters even more. 
11:56:25 <libbyscribe> ...already acknowldged in teh docs that these could become closer later, leave it at that
11:56:59 <libbyscribe> ...wordnet is a model of the english language - work in other places to generalize the model to other languages e.g. euroowordnet, japanese
11:57:06 <Zakim> RalphS, you wanted to propose that specialization [in documents] helps us more in deployment than generalization
11:57:21 <libbyscribe> ...be exiting to have this language neurtral stuff later. plenty of simple work for now
11:57:44 <libbyscribe> ralph: generalization can make it less attractive to a particular community
11:58:18 <aliman> q-
11:58:39 <danbri> (http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/talks/200404-nict/Overview-2.html I plugged wordnet (class model) to NICT folks nr Kyoto)
11:58:41 <libbyscribe> guus: we just say: use this one (with princeton) - and not say why ercept ina  background document
11:59:21 <libbyscribe> danbri: "use this one" worries me - as there are naturally 2
12:00:04 <libbyscribe> ...you (guus) are talking about adding to the lexical version with classes later....
12:00:22 <libbyscribe> guus: class representation is too difficult, one taht we all agree on...
12:00:28 <libbyscribe> danbri: make it a brutish one
12:00:54 <libbyscribe> guus: the revisions are the issue
12:01:43 <libbyscribe> ...agreement in the TF telecon is to work wioth princeton to help with representation at the lexical level plus discuss with them transformations tools that could help with different versiosn
12:02:17 <libbyscribe> ...in the maintenance phase the schema doesn;t change, just the content; for the rdf classes version the schema does change
12:02:37 <libbyscribe> ralph: do we know the mechanics of how they update the database?
12:02:54 <libbyscribe> danbri: they do a release every 6 months or so
12:03:07 <aharth> ftp download at ftp://ftp.cogsci.princeton.edu/pub/wordnet/
12:03:58 <libbyscribe> brian: 4things to do in TF: basic schema; talk to people whove done other represerntations and involve them; needs to interact with princeton, getting them to include it in their distribution etc; finally build some tools to create the RDF representation
12:04:06 <libbyscribe> ...all depends on the first one
12:04:18 <libbyscribe> ..lots of work in this TF above producing the document
12:04:31 <libbyscribe> guus: first step is critical but not the only thing
12:05:09 <libbyscribe> brian apologises for not having got further with this. happy for someone to pick it up and finish it; otherwise brian will find the time to get a first cut by the end of the year
12:06:31 <libbyscribe> danbri: q for brian: do you ahve a sense of how much more work needs ot be done on the document before a pre-working draft release of teh document. impacts on interacting with other producers
12:06:56 <libbyscribe> brian: betweeb 2 weeks (grad student) and end Dec (brian, given his time contraints)
12:07:17 <libbyscribe> ralph: would it be harmful to toss a coin to pick an existing representation?
12:08:08 <libbyscribe> ...would like to keep the tf around until we get more resources rather than suspend it
12:08:26 <danbri> q+ to make clear that my Wordnet rep is innapropriate for this WD; I could contrib more text on how the representational styles vary
12:08:49 <libbyscribe> guus started with the swiss one... [scribe missed name]
12:09:03 <libbyscribe> ...we're very close to that one
12:09:29 <libbyscribe> danbri: my version is not a lexical version, can;t use that
12:09:58 <libbyscribe> [[
12:09:59 <libbyscribe> - KID Group, Univ. of Neuchatel, OWL representation
12:09:59 <libbyscribe>   http://taurus.unine.ch/GroupHome/knowler/wordnet.html
12:10:00 <libbyscribe> ]]
12:10:05 <danbri> [as are half the others; this WD-draft is as good as it gets, I think]
12:10:07 <libbyscribe> http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/public/wn.txt
12:10:45 <danbri> http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think6.html ... article by Uche coding to Melnik's version
12:10:47 <libbyscribe> [Univ. of Neuchatel version is the one the TF drafts are close to]
12:10:54 <danbri> q+ to suggest contacting Uche re sample code
12:11:13 <libbyscribe> ralph: probably there is soemthign in jeremy's suggestion for a grad student to do
12:11:26 <RalphS> s/probably/perhaps/
12:11:30 <libbyscribe> guus: steve - is there a link between PSIs and this work?
12:11:38 <libbyscribe> steve: yep
12:11:49 <libbyscribe> guus: could use these as publisheed subjects
12:11:51 <libbyscribe> steve: yep
12:12:04 <RalphS> i.e. if there is content that Guus and Brian already have that is not yet represented in a new version of the Working Draft, it sounds like there's a place for an editorial resource to help
12:12:56 <libbyscribe> danbri: might be interested in contacting say uche, re contacting developers
12:13:21 <libbyscribe> guus: Univ. of Neuchatel version is a more complete version of the melnik version
12:13:50 <libbyscribe> danbri: would like a few words on the spec about lexical vs class representation - could do this text
12:14:19 <libbyscribe> ralph: design rationale - useful but not essential...
12:14:29 <libbyscribe> guus: would be nice
12:14:49 <libbyscribe> ralph: basic design would not wait for the design rationale
12:15:25 <libbyscribe> brian: danbri's offer to interface with develeopers in this area would be very useful
12:15:52 <libbyscribe> ACTION: brian and danbri need to talk about what need to do for document to be good enough
12:16:14 <libbyscribe> guus; review the decisions that need to be taken on this document tomoorw? 11.30 -1
12:16:42 <libbyscribe> danbri add another action then...?
12:17:18 <libbyscribe> [missed brian's comment sorfry]
12:17:41 <libbyscribe> danbri worried about not knwoing when we've got it right
12:17:57 <libbyscribe> guus: this what the working draft will do
12:19:17 <libbyscribe> guus: considers all the other parts as very important, incl class representation, how to use the lingistic representtaion for annotation of images, say
12:19:23 <RalphS> [yes, the working draft will get visibility for the design which then gets feedback on the correctness]
12:19:43 <RalphS> [that is, _publication_ of a working draft]
12:20:19 <libbyscribe> guus: who wants to join discussion tomorrow? 
12:20:31 <libbyscribe> guus, al, danbri(?), brian
12:20:43 <libbyscribe> (sorry if I missed anyone there)
12:21:39 <libbyscribe> andreas will scribe next session (thanks andreas :)
12:21:45 <libbyscribe> --break for lunch
13:37:05 <libbyscribe> libbyscribe has joined #swbp
13:42:35 <aharthscribe> guus: adtf is next
13:45:02 <RalphS> scribe: Andreas
13:45:12 <aliman> aliman has joined #swbp
13:45:13 <DavidW> DavidW has joined #swbp
13:45:25 <JeffP> JeffP has joined #swbp
13:45:32 <aharthscribe> guus: people want to see showcase applications that show added value of the technology 
13:45:59 <aharthscribe> ...some nontechnical examples to make that point
13:46:39 <RalphS> http://esw.w3.org/mt/esw/archives/cat_applications_and_demos.html
13:46:45 <aharthscribe> ...semantic web challenge 2003: AKTive Space, DOPE, Building Finder, Museum 
13:47:03 <RalphS> [ADTF description is http://esw.w3.org/topic/SemanticWebBestPracticesTaskForceOnApplicationsAndDemos ]
13:47:23 <aharthscribe> ...things in common: integrate different large data sources, RDF/OWL used for syntactical interoperability 
13:47:37 <aharthscribe> ...storage and access issues the main things to worry about
13:47:53 <aharthscribe> ...schema mapping required
13:48:11 <aharthscribe> ...use of owl:sameAs was an issue
13:48:47 <aharthscribe> ...information integration and presentation is an issue
13:49:24 <aharthscribe> ...unfortunately only in-house because it's about computer science
13:49:43 <aharthscribe> ...DOPE: very typical based on a thesaurus
13:49:53 <aharthscribe> uses EMTREE thesaurus based on mesh
13:50:26 <aharthscribe> 5M Medline abstracts, 500k full-text articles
13:50:41 <aharthscribe> ...disambiguation of search terms an issue
13:51:15 <aharthscribe> ...use case: search for information about aspirin
13:53:29 <aharthscribe> ...medicine is important area, professionally used
13:53:52 <aharthscribe> ...won a technology award recently
13:54:09 <aharthscribe> BuildingFinder: USC
13:54:39 <aharthscribe> ...use various sources (satellite images, roadmap info, address information)
13:54:59 <RalphS> [Longwell would be another good addition to http://esw.w3.org/mt/esw/archives/cat_applications_and_demos.html ; http://simile.mit.edu/longwell/ ]
13:55:17 <aharthscribe> ...reverse address lookup not possible in some eu countries
13:55:33 <aharthscribe> ...image alignment algorithms
13:56:03 <aharthscribe> ...point to a satellite image and find out the name of the person who lives there
13:56:25 <aharthscribe> ...combination of structural and image processing techniques (multimedia info)
13:56:37 <aharthscribe> ...Finnish museums on the web
13:56:58 <RalphS> -> http://atlas.isi.edu/semantic/servlet/SemanticServlet BuildingFinder
13:56:59 <aharthscribe> ...unfortunately in finnish
13:57:26 <aharthscribe> ...weblog providing us already with some decent material, maybe not sufficient
13:58:11 <aharthscribe> libby: presents weblog
13:58:24 <aharthscribe> ...how to get rdf descriptions out of the weblog
13:58:52 <aharthscribe> ...weblog started out of part of the swad-e project weblog
13:59:04 <aharthscribe> ...plan to use the weblog as part of the skos effort
13:59:28 <aharthscribe> ...application page: title, uri, descriptions about projects
13:59:45 <aharthscribe> ...who to contact, more information, categories
13:59:55 <aharthscribe> ...17 applications in the weblog already
13:59:59 <danbri> q+ to ask if using (or consistent with) GRDDL, ie. http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/NOTE-grddl-20040413/
14:00:20 <aharthscribe> ...bit cumbersome to fill in the template
14:00:43 <aharthscribe> ...because of spans in the template it's possible to use GRDDL and XSLT to extract the information
14:00:44 <danbri> q-
14:01:19 <aharthscribe> ...uses doap (description of a project) vocab to encode information about the projects
14:01:35 <aharthscribe> ...mixed-and-matched with dc and foaf
14:01:49 <danbri> ah, <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
14:01:49 <danbri> <head  profile="http://swordfish.rdfweb.org/discovery/2004/06/adtf/#">
14:01:52 <danbri> ...in head of http://esw.w3.org/mt/esw/archives/cat_applications_and_demos.html
14:02:01 <aharthscribe> ...uses swed: ns for categories
14:02:20 <danbri> DOAP, see http://usefulinc.com/doap
14:02:30 <danbri> (not to be confused with DOPE?)
14:02:45 <aharthscribe> ...swed (semantic web environment and directory): facetted browser
14:03:05 <RalphS> [ SWED is at http://www.swed.org.uk/swed/ ]
14:03:23 <aharthscribe> ...contains environmental information
14:03:50 <aharthscribe> ...SWED browser worked quite nicely for the semweb applications and demos
14:04:15 <RalphS> Libby: SWED uses SKOS to describe categories
14:04:28 <aharthscribe> ...categorization by name, and other properties
14:05:12 <jjc> q+ to ask about swed data collection
14:05:40 <aharthscribe> ...build-in harvester can be used to add data from remote sites
14:05:46 <danbri> example of Redland w/ SKOS and DOAP descriptions... [another great swad-europe deliverable :-]
14:05:54 <aliman_> aliman_ has joined #swbp
14:06:10 <RalphS> [I wonder if SWED has any provenenance yet]
14:06:22 <aliman__> aliman__ has joined #swbp
14:06:23 <aharthscribe> ...possible to add data and filter on properties
14:06:25 <RalphS> s/provenenance/provenance/
14:07:05 <aharthscribe> ...creation of records about projects could be done by the application authors themselves
14:07:17 <jjc> http://swordfish.rdfweb.org:8080/adtf/ is top level uri for what libby is presenting
14:07:22 <aharthscribe> ...then harvested 
14:07:32 <danbri> q+ to seek confirmation that we're happy with community project self-description (trust ppl not to be vain selfpromoting dorks)
14:07:52 <aharthscribe> ...doap uses freshmeat categories for software projects
14:07:58 <Guus> q?
14:08:12 <Zakim> jjc, you wanted to ask about swed data collection
14:08:42 <aharthscribe> jjc: question about harvesting and control policy
14:09:35 <aharthscribe> libby: possible to trust a certain domain name
14:09:36 <Zakim> RalphS, you wanted to ask about provenance in SWED
14:09:48 <aharthscribe> ralphs: maintaining provenance data?
14:10:18 <aharthscribe> libby: really uses SWED as an application, keeps track of trusted sources and other sources
14:10:48 <aharthscribe> jen golbeck's work is related
14:11:10 <DavidW> q?
14:11:59 <aharthscribe> davidw: difficult for users to accept is presentation of raw uri's
14:12:18 <aharthscribe> ...we are providing human-readable labels
14:12:45 <aharthscribe> ...non-technical users focus on longish uris
14:13:00 <danbri> [it's as if Dan Connolly were in the room with us, re 'in your face URIs' :-]
14:13:13 <aharthscribe> ralphs: that's what rdfs:label is for
14:13:27 <aharthscribe> danbri: truncation mabye?
14:14:57 <danbri> [aside: recent sobering experience re slipping into geek assumptions; the woman sat next to me on plane on friday hadn't heard of iPods/MP3, and I found myself realising I was suprised]
14:15:02 <Guus> q?
14:15:05 <aharthscribe> ralphs: in this case truncation doesn't work
14:15:40 <pepper> libby: you have some DOAP i could borrow for my introduction tomorrow?
14:16:13 <RalphS> Guus: OpenDirectory is the closest existing categorization
14:16:56 <aharthscribe> davidw: open directory is used for categorization, but is not really appropriate
14:17:24 <RalphS> [yes, left-most truncation on the DOAP category example Libby was projecting contains the only human-interpretable information; that freshmeat and sourceforge were part of the classification]
14:17:57 <danbri> pepper, here's one I made (somewhat carelessly) for FOAF project: http://www.foaf-project.org/doap.rdf
14:18:07 <aharthscribe> libby: need labels and uris
14:19:07 <aharthscribe> davidw: having demos that are compelling to end users tucana is interested it
14:19:36 <aharthscribe> aliman: got a student who's looking at a wiki tool for building a thesaurus
14:19:38 <pepper> thx, danbri
14:19:48 <pepper> something a bit more extensive would also be nice
14:20:10 <aharthscribe> guus: demos page is a demonstration in itself
14:20:26 <aharthscribe> ...how to operate this?
14:20:37 <danbri> ack danbri
14:20:37 <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to seek confirmation that we're happy with community project self-description (trust ppl not to be vain selfpromoting dorks)
14:20:41 <aharthscribe> ...18 new applications in the semantic web challenge
14:20:42 <danbri> q-
14:21:19 <aharthscribe> guus: what areas are missing?
14:22:00 <aharthscribe> danbri: what's the motivation for making vocabularies owl dl friendly?
14:22:35 <aharthscribe> guus: most applications use rdf and owl:sameAs
14:23:55 <aharthscribe> ...maybe it's too early for owl applications, takes two years for applications to use new stuff
14:24:53 <Guus> q?
14:25:06 <aharthscribe> jjc: maybe have options on what semantic web technologies are used in the applications
14:25:40 <aharthscribe> ralphs: maybe a bit technical
14:26:14 <aharthscribe> ...what's the process of maintaining the software package?
14:26:34 <danbri> [for listing RDF vs OWL DL vs Full etc., I find narrative content ("what we did was...:") much much more valuable than simple checkboxes ("we use OWL DL.").]
14:27:02 <aharthscribe> guus: later on maybe do a survey, keep the barrier low for data entry
14:27:57 <aharthscribe> ...have to depend on ongoing projects that showcase applications
14:28:09 <RalphS> saying what technologies are used is also liable to be out-of-date; will someone remember to update the "Now uses full OWL" entry when they go beyond the DL subset?
14:28:33 <aharthscribe> guus: owl and xml datatype discussion
14:28:49 <RalphS> Topic: XML Schema Liaison
14:29:26 <RalphS> [XSCH Task Force description is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Apr/0125.html ]
14:29:31 <aharthscribe> jjc: issues the task force is addressing came up in the webont and ?? wg
14:29:46 <RalphS> s/??/RDF Core/
14:30:12 <RalphS> JJC: two questions about how to use XML Schema datatypes with RDF
14:30:42 <aharthscribe> jjc: current situation is a compromise between what's ideal and what's possible
14:31:26 <aharthscribe> ...user-defined datatypes
14:31:55 <aharthscribe> ...issue here that there's no agreement what uris to use for user-defined datatypes
14:33:06 <aharthscribe> ...when are two type literals the same
14:33:43 <aharthscribe> ...issue here: are 0 as a float and 0 as an integer the same?
14:34:19 <aharthscribe> rdf and owl testcases don't include testcases on this question
14:35:00 <aharthscribe> ...datatypes come from xml schema, not part of the semantic web activity
14:35:17 <RalphS> [JJC discussing http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Oct/att-0049/xsh-sw-note.html ]
14:36:05 <aharthscribe> ...some response from the xml schema wg
14:36:25 <aharthscribe> ...need the buy-in of the xml community, but need to progress as well
14:36:47 <aharthscribe> ...xquery/xslt are also working with the xml schema datatype
14:37:23 <aharthscribe> ...a lot of w3c groups are potentially involved
14:37:32 <Guus> Related issue: numeric ranges require iser-defined datatypes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Apr/0066.html
14:39:37 <aharthscribe> ralphs: producing a sketch that people can comment on maybe a good idea
14:39:57 <aharthscribe> jjc: possible solutions
14:40:21 <RalphS> JJC: the DAML+OIL solution works for datatypes that has a name
14:40:57 <aharthscribe> ...using name attribute to fragID the xml schema descriptions
14:41:23 <aharthscribe> ...however, not in conformance with RFC2396 and xml schema mime type
14:43:25 <aharthscribe> ...for sw people, this solution is better
14:43:45 <aharthscribe> ...alternative: xml schema component designators wd
14:44:10 <aharthscribe> ...powerful solution to navigate in the schema using xpointer
14:44:27 <aharthscribe> ...however, quite complex
14:45:16 <aharthscribe> ...possible solution: use both id and name
14:46:25 <aharthscribe> ralphs: it's important to distinguish between a concept and a particular description of the concept
14:47:33 <aharthscribe> danbri: made the conflation using uri's for identification and getting the description by dereferencing the uri
14:47:52 <Guus> q?
14:50:37 <aharthscribe> jjc: xml refers to syntactic objects, on semantic web the resource that denotes itself is interesting
14:51:05 <aharthscribe> ...uri of a description is the uri of the thing described
14:51:49 <aharthscribe> ralphs: other ways of constructing an uri: bnode xpointer scheme?
14:53:36 <aharthscribe> jjc: both the id soluction and the xscd solution could work
14:54:07 <aharthscribe> s/soluction/solution
14:54:27 <aharthscribe> ...next item: comparison of values
14:55:45 <aharthscribe> ...comparison between float's and int's
14:55:59 <aharthscribe> ...simplest possible solution: all the types are different
14:56:16 <aharthscribe> ...but somewhat counterintuitive
14:56:39 <aharthscribe> ...long and int are derived from the same primitive type
14:56:51 <aharthscribe> guus: number datatype would help
14:57:36 <aharthscribe> davidw: we have super datatype of number
14:58:40 <RalphS> XML Schema 'decimal' type is http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#decimal
14:58:46 <aharthscribe> ...implemented in product because of customer demand
14:58:56 <RalphS> XML Schema 'float' type is http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#float
15:00:24 <aharthscribe> jeffp: what are the current answers from the xml datatype spec?
15:01:25 <aharthscribe> jjc: no consensus within the xml schema group regarding the issues
15:03:03 <aharthscribe> ...the document should be clear about that though. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Nov/att-0092/04-num-hierarchy.png
15:03:04 <aliman_> aliman_ has joined #swbp
15:04:21 <aharthscribe> jeffp: is it a subsumption hierarchy or definition hierarchy?
15:04:38 <danbri> q+ to ask about relationship to DAWG / SPARQL
15:04:49 <aharthscribe> jjc: two extremes: all types are different vs. strong mathematical representation
15:05:36 <danbri> [ context: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20041012/#extendedtests ]
15:05:43 <aharthscribe> ...xpath 2.0 documents mention the eq operator that says "2.0 eq 2" is true
15:06:04 <aliman__> aliman__ has joined #swbp
15:06:53 <aharthscribe> ...xslt have typed literal objects and operations can be done on these literals
15:09:15 <aharthscribe> guus: what next steps need to be taken?
15:09:41 <aharthscribe> jjc: key question: publish a document without xml community?
15:10:08 <aharthscribe> ...continue to work on the document and then ask for input on an editor's draft
15:11:17 <aharthscribe> ...timeline could be distribution to the other wg's before chrismas
15:14:53 <danbri> q?
15:14:58 <danbri> ack danbri
15:14:58 <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to ask about relationship to DAWG / SPARQL
15:15:01 <RalphS> [I was unaware of the XML Schema Component Designators work -- looking at it now, it does appear to be a strong connection with this datatype issue]
15:15:46 <aharthscribe> danbri: relationship to DAWG/SPARQL and xquery operators?
15:15:49 <danbri> see http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20041012/#extendedtests
15:16:01 <RalphS> [XML Schema: Component Designators
15:16:03 <RalphS> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xmlschema-ref-20040716/
15:16:09 <RalphS> W3C Working Draft 16 July 2004
15:16:09 <RalphS> ]
15:16:31 <aharthscribe> jjc: following the xslt 2.0 is more likely to be in line with the dawg group
15:16:40 <Zakim> RalphS, you wanted to say that mathematicians will laugh if we adopt the viewpoint that xsd:decimal has a disjoint value space from xsd:float
15:16:50 <danbri> action: jjc review SPARQL WD re http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20041012/#extendedtests 
15:17:01 <danbri> (thanks jjc!)
15:17:25 <Tbaker> Tbaker has joined #swbp
15:17:32 <Guus> q?
15:21:24 <danbri_dna> danbri_dna has joined #swbp
15:21:43 <Tbaker> It is 15:20 there now, and VM will be discussed on the telecon 55 minutes from now?
15:22:04 <aliman_> aliman_ has joined #swbp
15:29:16 <benadida> benadida has joined #swbp
15:31:08 <Zakim> SW_BPD(f2f)3:00AM has now started
15:31:16 <Zakim> +Ben_Adida
15:32:48 <Tbaker> Is the F2F meeting pretty much on schedule?
15:36:30 <danbri_dna> not sure; we're in coffee break now. will ask chairs when we regroup.
15:36:54 <larsbot> larsbot has joined #swbp
15:37:50 <Zakim> -Ben_Adida
15:37:51 <Zakim> SW_BPD(f2f)3:00AM has ended
15:37:52 <Zakim> Attendees were Ben_Adida
15:40:19 <Tbaker> thanks - anyway, i'm out here now
15:46:10 <libby> libby has joined #swbp
15:47:32 <RalphS> zakim, who's on the phone?
15:47:32 <Zakim> I notice SW_BPD(f2f)3:00AM has restarted
15:47:33 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one
15:47:36 <Zakim> +??P3
15:47:45 <RalphS> zakim, ??p3 is HP-Bristol
15:47:45 <Zakim> +HP-Bristol; got it
15:47:48 <benadida> zakim, call Ben_Adida
15:47:48 <Zakim> I am sorry, benadida; I do not know a number for Ben_Adida
15:47:55 <benadida> ahah! I'm calling in
15:48:30 <Zakim> +Ben_Adida
15:48:39 <burkhardt> burkhardt has joined #swbp
15:49:39 <DavidW> DavidW has joined #swbp
15:50:42 <RalphS> Topic: HTML TF
15:51:22 <RalphS> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Nov/0003.html [HTML] Status for RDF/XHTML [BenA]
15:51:45 <aharth> aharth has joined #swbp
15:52:06 <PhilT> PhilT has joined #swbp
15:53:09 <guus> guus has joined #swbp
15:53:32 <JeffP> JeffP has joined #swbp
15:58:50 <RalphS> Ben: RDF-in-XHTML-TF has been in existence since 1999
15:58:52 <jjc> Zakim, who's on the call?
15:58:52 <Zakim> On the phone I see HP-Bristol, Ben_Adida
15:59:05 <RalphS> ... users include FOAF, TrackBack, GEO-URL
15:59:20 <RalphS> ... Dublin Core, and more recently Creative Commons
16:00:03 <RalphS> ... main issue is how to embed RDF triples in HTML
16:00:28 <RalphS> ... have been focussing now on the sections that are dependent on the HTML WG's current timetable
16:01:06 <RalphS> ... working in parallel on making sure we understand our requirements
16:01:19 <benadida> http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdf-in-xml.html
16:01:45 <RalphS> ... there are items in the 27 May 2003 document that we are no longer sure still make sense
16:02:01 <RalphS> ... e.g. direct embedding of RDF/XML syntax
16:02:56 <Tbaker> Tbaker has joined #swbp
16:03:15 <danbri> danbri has joined #swbp
16:04:40 <pepper> pepper has joined #swbp
16:05:01 <benadida> Ralph: the problem is complicated because at least 2 WGs need to cooperate, and possibly 3.
16:05:01 <DavidW> DavidW has joined #swbp
16:05:14 <benadida> ... also, their charter does not allow them to request certain changes of XML schema (for example)
16:05:24 <benadida> s/their/the HTML WG's/
16:05:24 <burkhardt> burkhardt has joined #swbp
16:06:08 <danbri> q+ to check familiarity with new W3C Compound Documents WG
16:06:29 <aliman> aliman has joined #swbp
16:07:34 <Tbaker_> Tbaker_ has joined #swbp
16:08:04 <RRS> RRS has joined #swbp
16:10:20 <alimanscribe> alimanscribe has joined #swbp
16:10:30 <Zakim> + +49.308.109.aaaa
16:11:10 <Tbaker_> yes, it's tom
16:11:18 <RRS> zakim, aaaa is Tom_Baker
16:11:18 <Zakim> +Tom_Baker; got it
16:11:20 <alimanscribe> Jeremy send proposals to make RDF A simpler
16:11:33 <alimanscribe> need to offer proposals to HTML WG before last call
16:11:40 <alimanscribe> (Ben says)
16:12:04 <alimanscribe> s/send/sent
16:12:41 <alimanscribe> Jeremy: initial review (from 1 week ago) some issues came up ...
16:12:48 <alimanscribe> has done implementation of RDF A ...
16:12:58 <alimanscribe> serious issue: RDF A is too complicated
16:13:10 <alimanscribe> some of the rules are too complicated ....
16:13:27 <alimanscribe> the number of different ways of representing a triple in RDF A is 432...
16:13:57 <alimanscribe> if you run examples from spec you get more triples than the author said
16:14:01 <alimanscribe> ...
16:14:08 <alimanscribe> Ralph: the spec needs more work ...
16:14:19 <alimanscribe> either to represent authors intent, or to fix triples ...
16:14:30 <alimanscribe> opportunity: the words in the spec could be simpler
16:14:32 <alimanscribe> ...
16:14:43 <alimanscribe> and could fix triples at same time
16:14:46 <benadida> q
16:14:55 <alimanscribe> Jeremy: some clear simplifications ...
16:15:00 <alimanscribe> but doesn't go far enough l...
16:15:18 <alimanscribe> Jeremy's mail from this morning offers more simplification
16:15:23 <alimanscribe> more functionality ...
16:15:42 <alimanscribe> (JJC's email to the TF)
16:15:42 <RRS> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2004Nov/0001.html Jeremy's simplification of RDF/A
16:16:30 <alimanscribe> Ben: it's good because can represent more complex triples, literals ...
16:16:46 <alimanscribe> and an RDF triple in an HTML clickable way ...
16:17:00 <alimanscribe> without duplicating anything in markup ...
16:17:07 <alimanscribe> which is good property of GRDDL
16:17:11 <alimanscribe> ...
16:17:26 <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to check familiarity with new W3C Compound Documents WG
16:17:37 <guus> q?
16:17:45 <alimanscribe> Danbri: new WG at W3c compound documents
16:18:13 <guus> q?
16:18:24 <jjc> jjc has joined #swbp
16:18:44 <alimanscribe> Ben: lot's of important techinical detais re RDF A - please take a look!
16:18:50 <alimanscribe> ...
16:19:03 <alimanscribe> Now get some initial feedback asap for html WG
16:19:17 <alimanscribe> ... look at 3 line statement from Ben's email ...
16:19:30 <alimanscribe> important message to HTML WG: we';re moving in the right direction.
16:19:56 <danbri> danbri has joined #swbp
16:19:57 <alimanscribe> Ralph: This meeting output: statement that Ben put in his mail from today ...
16:20:04 <benadida> statement: We find RDF/A to be a big step forward and encourage the HTML WG to use it in place of the 22 July MetaInformation module. Our forthcoming detailed comments and suggestions on RDF/A are intended to perfect this work in fulfilling the long-standing needs of the RDF deployment community to embed semantic web data within HTML documents.
16:20:05 <alimanscribe> Can we all endorse that statement?
16:20:10 <DavidW> q+ to ask how comfortable Jeremy is with 152 remaining triple patterns.
16:20:48 <alimanscribe> Guus: are willing to make this direction statement?
16:20:58 <JeffP> JeffP has joined #swbp
16:21:02 <alimanscribe> ralph: what questions do we want to ask of the TF?
16:21:22 <alimanscribe> Phil: direction is superb ...
16:21:25 <RalphS> What questions does the WG wish to ask the TF before deciding on the endorsement?
16:21:42 <alimanscribe> pragmatics - concerned about potential abuse within XHTML user community ...
16:21:44 <danbri> q?
16:21:55 <alimanscribe> question need to push forward incolusion of metadata for XHTML 2
16:22:01 <danbri> ack danbri
16:22:01 <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to check familiarity with new W3C Compound Documents WG
16:22:05 <danbri> [done]
16:22:08 <alimanscribe> ... rather than hold back and look at richer set of use cases ...
16:22:28 <RalphS> Phil: concerned about the potential abuse of RDF/A within HTML, perhaps focus on RDF/XML embedding
16:22:30 <alimanscribe> use of metadata inside XHTML may be misinterpreted by general public ...
16:23:04 <alimanscribe> if I were writing metadata in web page now, would do it to drive search engines.
16:23:22 <alimanscribe> Guus: this is important point, but outside scope of this WG
16:23:29 <alimanscribe> Ben: what do you consider abuse?
16:24:03 <danbri> q+ to ask whether we consider it "best practice" to use RDF/A at namespace URIs, to allow mixed human- and machine- oriented vocab/ontology documentation
16:24:07 <alimanscribe> ACTION: Phil to write up concerns on email
16:24:28 <alimanscribe> Danbri: how strongly are we pushing this as as a new RDF syntax?
16:24:43 <alimanscribe> ... originally to handle FOAF namespace ...
16:25:08 <alimanscribe> ... hoped that the FOAF namespace document could be validated for RDF content ...
16:25:26 <alimanscribe> ... so do we support the practise that e..g. the FOAF RDF description ...
16:25:35 <alimanscribe> be written as embedded in an XHTML document?
16:25:47 <RalphS> DanBri: should ontologies be written in RDF/A
16:25:50 <RalphS> [me says No!]
16:25:53 <alimanscribe> I.e. should we write ontologies in RDF A?
16:26:09 <danbri> [in which case, 1 original FOAF use case remains unmet]
16:26:17 <alimanscribe> Ben: goal is to produce alternative serialisation for RDF ...
16:26:21 <alimanscribe> Ralph: goal?
16:26:41 <alimanscribe> Ben: requirement to embed arbitrarily complex RDF statements in XHTML ...
16:26:44 <RalphS> [but it would be an interesting exercise to see how much of the expression of an ontology in RDF/A could be done]
16:26:49 <alimanscribe> to satisfy is a goal.
16:27:00 <alimanscribe> Guus: meant to e used mainly for annotation purposes ..
16:27:14 <alimanscribe> Jeremy: RDF A IS a new RDF syntax ...
16:27:24 <alimanscribe> Ralph: but this in itself is not a goal.
16:27:47 <alimanscribe> ... i.e. implies something wrong with existing syntaxes. 
16:27:57 <alimanscribe> The result is to create a new syntax ...
16:28:04 <alimanscribe> but this is soultion to original requirement.
16:28:31 <alimanscribe> Ralph: Use RDF A to express an OWL ontology?  No, not a goal or recommendation.
16:28:42 <alimanscribe> Danbri: what about my original FOAF use case?
16:28:51 <DavidW> RDF/XML has known problems as an XML vocabulary and as a serialization format
16:28:53 <alimanscribe> Want single resource for both humans and machines.
16:29:15 <alimanscribe> Phil: This new variant of RDF will become the defacto standard syntax ...
16:29:17 <RalphS> DanBri: my use case was to write a single document at my namespace that could be both presentation and RDF without content negotiation
16:29:37 <alimanscribe> Guus: can people outside the TF support positive statement for RDFA
16:29:39 <alimanscribe> ?
16:29:54 <alimanscribe> danbri: on the fence, wants to talk to compound docs WG
16:30:17 <alimanscribe> SteveP: opening a can of worms ... lead to trouble ...
16:30:30 <alimanscribe> but in the mandate of the TF support for complete RDF ...
16:30:57 <alimanscribe> ... think RDF subset for simple annotations sufficient.
16:31:00 <RalphS> Steve: the problem is that the requirement was for complete RDF support, not "just enough" to write metadata _about_ a document
16:31:06 <Guus> Guus has joined #swbp
16:31:07 <alimanscribe> ACTION: Steve to email on concerns for RDF in XHTML
16:31:25 <alimanscribe> David: should not treat RDF/XML as sacrosanct ...
16:31:44 <alimanscribe> problems with it ... we have an opportunity to recognise that RDF is to concept, NOT the syntax ...
16:32:01 <alimanscribe> this proposal leads to use cases for HTML authors ... and more ...
16:32:13 <benadida> q?
16:32:17 <alimanscribe> would rather clean this up than see RDF/XML fixed, or RDF/XML in XHTML.
16:32:38 <alimanscribe> Danbri: In RDF Core, test cases used rigorously ...
16:32:54 <alimanscribe> worried that design work so far happened without test case infrastructure ...
16:33:11 <alimanscribe> ralph: we have an action to express all RDF test cases ...
16:33:39 <alimanscribe> Ben: I have an action to make sure this works with creative commons and with FOAF ...
16:33:57 <RalphS> [make sure that DanBri differentiates between users of FOAF and the FOAF namespace document]
16:34:06 <alimanscribe> David: we have to get formal comments to HTML WG before use case work.
16:34:20 <alimanscribe> Guus: very positive about this work, with reservations about test cases ...
16:34:27 <alimanscribe> but if going to happen, then happy.
16:34:37 <alimanscribe> Jeremy: political goal to be positive.
16:35:03 <alimanscribe> Guus: propose to make general positive statement, with technical caveats
16:35:07 <danbri> me: "It's great and it's useful and it's progres... but it doesn't address my use case (FOAF namespace documentation: RDF/XML inside XHTML); I want to know how that'll be progressed. Shoudl we begin a conversation w/ Compound Documents WG?"
16:35:08 <danbri> q+ to note (i) syntax design is hard to do Quality Assurance over; corner cases creep in (ii) RDFCore benefitted massively from Test Cases approach
16:35:41 <alimanscribe> Guus: add wording about test cases
16:35:44 <alimanscribe> David concurs
16:35:53 <alimanscribe> Danbri: fulfil SOME of the needs
16:36:16 <alimanscribe> Who should do test cases?
16:36:31 <alimanscribe> Ralph: ask them to do all of our test cases
16:36:33 <danbri> maybe 'many of the...'
16:36:43 <alimanscribe> Danbri: they should be using test case driven framework.
16:37:02 <alimanscribe> Ralph: don't want them to feel that all test cases must be met.
16:37:30 <alimanscribe> Guus: rephrase the statement?
16:37:44 <alimanscribe> ACTION: David to reword the statement on RDF A to HTML WG.
16:37:46 <danbri_dna> danbri_dna has joined #swbp
16:38:04 <alimanscribe> Jeremy: they need DIFFERENT test cases ...
16:38:19 <alimanscribe> RDF Core test cases are a starting point ... may not want to use all ...
16:38:32 <alimanscribe> Danbri: framework for doing it using NTRIPLES.
16:38:47 <alimanscribe> Ben: HTML WG meets next week ... not all will agree to RDFA
16:39:03 <alimanscribe> ... if impose too constraints now, they may revert to metainformaiton approach ...
16:39:21 <alimanscribe> can we include test cases in detailed comment s to come?
16:39:44 <alimanscribe> Guus: in fact test cases are implicit in any spec 
16:39:55 <alimanscribe> so can leave this out of comment
16:40:42 <Zakim> + +91.46.7.aabb
16:41:09 <Tbaker> Tbaker has joined #swbp
16:42:53 <DavidW> Try this one:  We find RDF/A to be a big step forward and encourage the HTML WG to use it in place of the 22 July MetaInformation module. Our forthcoming detailed comments and suggestions on RDF/A are intended to perfect this work in fulfilling long-standing needs of the RDF deployment community to embed semantic web data within HTML documents.  
16:43:57 <alimanscribe> Guus: proposed to send this as comment to HTML WG
16:44:00 <alimanscribe> second Jeremy
16:44:06 <alimanscribe> motion carried
16:44:21 <alimanscribe> ACTION: Ben to send this statement to HTML WG via email
16:45:38 <RalphS> zakim, aabb is Chris_Welty
16:45:38 <Zakim> +Chris_Welty; got it
16:45:54 <Zakim> -Ben_Adida
16:46:07 <benadida> (I'm signing off to take care of the action item, good luck!)
16:46:43 <Zakim> -Chris_Welty
16:46:51 <alimanscribe> TOPIC: VM TF
16:46:56 <alimanscribe> ****************
16:47:22 <alimanscribe> Guus: outline current docs and issues please.
16:47:35 <alimanscribe> Tom: sent out timetable ...
16:47:50 <RalphS> [VM Task Force description is http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/ ]
16:47:51 <alimanscribe> Tom: sent out timetable ...
16:48:04 <alimanscribe> alimanscribe has joined #swbp
16:48:26 <RalphS> [Tom's timetable is in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Oct/0147.html ]
16:48:28 <alimanscribe> Tom: put document on list before holidays ...
16:48:39 <alimanscribe> Move to CVS for finer editing by January ...
16:48:46 <alimanscribe> First public release mid Feb ...
16:49:09 <benadida> benadida has left #swbp
16:49:13 <danbri> danbri has joined #swbp
16:49:17 <alimanscribe> Other section try to describe some principles of good practise ...
16:49:29 <alimanscribe> then third section discussing unclear issues ...
16:50:47 <alimanscribe> After discussion ... there are some points could be added ...
16:51:09 <alimanscribe> Do we have large scalse vocab to use as example of good practise ? ...
16:51:16 <alimanscribe> or discuss this in open issues?
16:51:50 <alimanscribe> ... but before getting into issues - is the timetable realistic, does the outline look good?
16:52:14 <alimanscribe> ... aim to quickly flesh out the draft with low hanging fruit ...
16:52:34 <alimanscribe> agree on main points ... then begin refinement.
16:52:41 <alimanscribe> Guus: timeschedule?
16:53:06 <alimanscribe> ... ambitious but feasible (good to be ambitious)
16:53:27 <alimanscribe> ... also fits well with charter for TF to produce results within 2-4months
16:53:49 <alimanscribe> David: there has been interest re ontaria ...
16:54:25 <alimanscribe> interest in evaluating ontologies posted on ontaria against VM recommendations
16:54:32 <alimanscribe> and posting compliance ont he site ...
16:54:44 <alimanscribe> i.e. this is the kind of use this thing will be put to.
16:54:51 <alimanscribe> Tom: compliance is a heavy word ...
16:55:02 <alimanscribe> we are trying to get agreement on some basic principles ...
16:55:29 <alimanscribe> to evaluate ontologies against these principles could be good bu t..
16:55:42 <alimanscribe> we are talking about quite geenral principles ...
16:56:06 <alimanscribe> Guus: this note does say anything about 'compliance' but customers may ask about 'compliance' ...
16:56:27 <alimanscribe> ralph: this WG is producing docs with are 'best practises' ...
16:56:32 <jjc> q+ to talk about patent policy
16:56:36 <alimanscribe> whatever can be mechanically tested will be.
16:56:56 <alimanscribe> Danbri: part of this TF leaving machine readable evidence for management of a vocab ...
16:57:07 <alimanscribe> but machines cannot tell if statements are true ot not ...
16:57:24 <alimanscribe> wories me when people look for a big pile of 'good' or 'bad' ontologies ...
16:57:48 <jjc> q+ to talk about rdfs:label
16:57:49 <alimanscribe> Guus: N.B. we are talking about vocabulary management ...
16:57:56 <alimanscribe> proper usage criteria ...
16:58:09 <alimanscribe> we can endorse this without going into a good/bad debate.
16:58:41 <dlm> dlm has joined #swbp
16:58:58 <alimanscribe> David: there is good/bad URIs and issues without going near whetehr an ontology is itself good for a specific job ...
16:59:22 <Tbaker> agree with David
16:59:25 <Guus> q?
16:59:30 <alimanscribe> Jeremy: can these principles say: use RDFS label?
16:59:45 <Guus> ack DavidW
16:59:45 <Zakim> DavidW, you wanted to ask how comfortable Jeremy is with 152 remaining triple patterns.
16:59:56 <Guus> ack danbri
16:59:56 <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to ask whether we consider it "best practice" to use RDF/A at namespace URIs, to allow mixed human- and machine- oriented vocab/ontology documentation and to
16:59:59 <Zakim> ... note (i) syntax design is hard to do Quality Assurance over; corner cases creep in (ii) RDFCore benefitted massively from Test Cases approach
17:00:03 <Guus> ack jjc
17:00:03 <Zakim> jjc, you wanted to talk about patent policy and to talk about rdfs:label
17:00:06 <alimanscribe> ... and re 'conformance' this says rec rather than note ... would rather not go there.
17:00:23 <Guus> q?
17:00:25 <Tbaker> q+
17:00:35 <pepper> pepper has joined #swbp
17:00:36 <alimanscribe> David: we can put out a series of good ideas as a best ractise groujp ...
17:00:40 <alimanscribe> without taling about compliance ...
17:01:01 <alimanscribe> but as Guus says, people may choose to evaluate compliance relative to our note ...
17:01:06 <Zakim> +??P13
17:01:09 <alimanscribe> even though it is not a W3C recommendation.
17:01:28 <alimanscribe> David withdraws the word 'compliance' :)
17:01:38 <Tbaker> q-
17:01:54 <danbri> danbri has joined #swbp
17:02:13 <RalphS> rrsagent, pointer?
17:02:13 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2004/11/01-swbp-irc#T17-02-13
17:02:51 <DavidW> DavidW has joined #swbp
17:02:59 <alimanscribe> Tom: a suggestion came up to have an example vocab that provides example of good practise points
17:03:01 <alimanscribe> ...
17:03:23 <alimanscribe> examples of different types of vocabulary ...
17:03:54 <alimanscribe> describe FOAF, DC, SKOS, .... illustrate range of vocab tyupes ...
17:04:09 <alimanscribe> pointer to how management is done for these vocabs ...
17:04:25 <alimanscribe> still not clear to do about the really large ontologies ...
17:04:46 <alimanscribe> there are some big vocabs that do not use URIrefs ,,,
17:05:27 <pepper> q+
17:05:47 <alimanscribe> what should we use re large complex ontology as example?
17:06:14 <alimanscribe> e.g. FAO fisheries, wordent, NCI ..
17:06:41 <alimanscribe> guus: we take some simple vocab for section 2 ...
17:06:47 <alimanscribe> want to keep as simple as poss.
17:06:54 <DavidW> q+ to ask Tom whether the VM TF has addressed guidance for multi-user editing and merging of edits for very large ontologies.
17:07:03 <alimanscribe> Tom: so OK to feature simpler vocabs in section 2 ...
17:07:11 <alimanscribe> leave high end onts for esction three?
17:07:21 <alimanscribe> Guus: exactly.
17:07:30 <alimanscribe> Guus: which vocabs on the table as examples?
17:07:40 <alimanscribe> FOAF DC SKOS Wordnet
17:07:55 <alimanscribe> + maybe major medical/life sciences vocab
17:08:09 <alimanscribe> Wordent section 2/3?
17:08:18 <alimanscribe> (last three lines TOM)
17:08:48 <alimanscribe> Guus: FOAF excellent example
17:09:07 <Tbaker> q+
17:09:12 <alimanscribe> Danbri: good example, shares stuff with DC ...
17:09:26 <alimanscribe> Guus: also nice to hive more terminology style vocab ...
17:09:32 <alimanscribe> e.g. FAO thesaurus
17:09:39 <PhilT> PhilT has joined #swbp
17:10:09 <alimanscribe> I.e. maintained RDF representation by owning authority
17:10:19 <alimanscribe> Danrbi: two classes of thing to do:
17:10:38 <alimanscribe> ... 1. interview people on how they managed older vocabs
17:10:55 <alimanscribe> ... 2. manage specifically in relation to RDF representations ...
17:11:16 <RalphS> Guus: my preference would be to choose something that is already expressed in RDF by its owning organization
17:11:33 <alimanscribe> David: spoke to NCI guys last week ...
17:11:34 <RalphS> Alistair: opportunity to pick something that already has a history of evolution
17:11:37 <pepper> q- (was going to talk about the OASIS published subject sets for countries and languages, but the moment has passed)
17:11:46 <alimanscribe> have 5-6 guys 
17:11:48 <pepper> q- (to was going to talk about the OASIS published subject sets for countries and languages, but the moment has passed)
17:11:59 <alimanscribe> + chief editor who merges by hand changes
17:12:09 <alimanscribe> ... process is painful ...
17:12:17 <pepper> q-
17:12:21 <alimanscribe> want standard tools to handle change ... i.e. real world problem ...
17:12:31 <alimanscribe> difficult for large onts edited by multiple peoplle ....
17:12:37 <jjc> q+ to note DanC's mail message on RDF/A
17:12:43 <alimanscribe> so people appreciate guidance on how to markup an ont ...
17:12:48 <alimanscribe> to support change management.
17:13:54 <Zakim> DavidW, you wanted to ask Tom whether the VM TF has addressed guidance for multi-user editing and merging of edits for very large ontologies.
17:14:07 <alimanscribe> Guus: any more on sample vocabs?
17:14:15 <Guus> q?
17:15:57 <alimanscribe> Tom: for people coming new to W3C ...
17:16:06 <alimanscribe> want to collect issues into one place ...
17:16:18 <alimanscribe> this note would be helpful if could summarise in 2-3 paras ...
17:16:28 <alimanscribe> what the major papers are, what there scope is etc.
17:16:37 <alimanscribe> Guus: agree
17:17:06 <Tbaker> action on the table for ... what? (acoustic...)
17:17:13 <DavidW> DavidW has joined #swbp
17:17:17 <alimanscribe> ACTION: VM TF to compile list of sample vocabs for the note ...
17:17:31 <DavidW> q?
17:17:41 <RalphS> Guus: FOAF, Dublin Core, plus something more thesaurus-like would be sufficient
17:17:44 <alimanscribe> Guus: Candidates FOAF, DC, and one thesaurus style vocab (missing candidate)
17:18:05 <alimanscribe> ... look into candidate for this ...
17:18:08 <pepper> pepper has joined #swbp
17:18:51 <Tbaker> q+
17:19:14 <alimanscribe> Ralph: we need to find someone who'll keep maintaining things in good way ...
17:19:15 <danbri> danbri has joined #swbp
17:19:31 <alimanscribe> Jeremy: also need to choose example with good modelling, even though modelling is not the focus.
17:19:52 <alimanscribe> Steve: (on published subjects) 
17:19:57 <alimanscribe> ...
17:20:13 <alimanscribe> ... what about vocabs where don't use URIs ...
17:20:19 <Zakim> RalphS, you wanted to say that in the VM case the only reason to push to an external example (e.g. non-FOAF) is to engage some specific community
17:21:42 <alimanscribe> ralph: whatever we pick for third, need to be reasonably confident about their current practise, or that they will follow our best practse ...
17:21:53 <alimanscribe> OASIS may be possibility ...
17:22:20 <alimanscribe> Jeremy: published subjects good if meet quality threshold.
17:22:48 <alimanscribe> Steve: may meet in DC at XML conf 2004 week of nov 14-
17:23:09 <alimanscribe> Guus: summarising:
17:23:13 <RalphS> [specifically, if we can nudge OASIS in a better direction by involving their Published Subjects in this work, that might improve the world]
17:23:18 <alimanscribe> ... positive feedback on outline and timeschedule ...
17:23:29 <alimanscribe> endorsemenet of using DC and FOAF as examples ...
17:23:52 <alimanscribe> ACTION: VM TF with help from Guus to find thesaurus like example
17:23:58 <alimanscribe> ... and high end onts to section 3
17:24:30 <alimanscribe> Tom: final point: appreciate help setting up wiki.
17:24:49 <alimanscribe> danbri volunteers
17:25:15 <RalphS> [I accept the actions listed by my name in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Oct/0150.html ]
17:25:17 <Zakim> -Tom_Baker
17:25:27 <Tbaker> thank you!
17:25:32 <pepe> pepe has joined #swbp
17:25:58 <Zakim> jjc, you wanted to note DanC's mail message on RDF/A
17:26:54 <Zakim> +Chris_Welty
17:27:39 <RalphS> Topic: OEP Task Force
17:27:52 <dwoodscribe> dwoodscribe has joined #swbp
17:28:30 <pepe> Short background reading for RDF/TM session tomorrow: http://www.ontopia.net/tmp/RDFTM-TF-DoW.html
17:28:52 <RalphS> Guus: issue to discuss: how do we get additional people involved in some task forces? e.g. Sandpiper
17:28:53 <dwoodscribe> dwoodscribe has joined #swbp
17:29:42 <RalphS> ... according to current W3C policy it is difficult to ask people to become invited experts from companies
17:30:26 <dwoodscribe> dwoodscribe has joined #swbp
17:32:46 <dwoodscribe> dwoodscribe has joined #swbp
17:33:51 <dwoodscribe> Ralph:  Reminds all members of W3C economics and the benefits of joining.  There are good reasons not to invite experts from non-member companies unless they have skills we specifically need and cannot get in another manner.
17:34:55 <dwoodscribe> ... Invited experts may also join when an organization's joining is in progress.
17:36:36 <dwoodscribe> Guus:  Good for everyone to know policy.
17:38:02 <dwoodscribe> Deb:  This particular request was from a very small company.  Joining may be difficult for very small companies.
17:39:47 <dwoodscribe> Ralph has an action to discuss this with the company.
17:42:02 <dwoodscribe> David:  Companies are responsible for making the decision to join or justify the reason not to.
17:42:31 <dwoodscribe> Guus:  Editors of documents do not have to be members of WGs or W3C.
17:42:54 <dwoodscribe> Ralph:  Not sure that is a good precident to set.
17:43:38 <Guus> q?
17:44:06 <danbri> danbri has joined #swbp
17:44:37 <dwoodscribe> David:  Since Ralph has an action, we should move onto OEP business.
17:44:50 <RalphS> [agree, let's move on to "real" business]
17:45:02 <aliman_> aliman_ has joined #swbp
17:45:27 <dwoodscribe> Deb:  There are other companies who are in the same position.  Should we generate our Note with them as authors, but not members?
17:45:47 <aliman__> aliman__ has joined #swbp
17:45:50 <RalphS> Deb: OWL Time would be another note that would benefit from the involvement of individuals who are from non-Member companies
17:47:02 <dwoodscribe> Jeremy has a preference that editors and authors be bound by the patent policy.
17:47:14 <jjc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2004Nov/0004.html was msg from DanC I mentioned half hour ago
17:49:03 <danbri> danbri has joined #swbp
17:49:34 <dwoodscribe> Guus:  More about the priorities for the OEP work?
17:50:02 <dwoodscribe> Deb:  Reviewing http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/
17:52:12 <RalphS> Deb: regarding ADTF -- suggest that there be a connection to SemWebCentral site
17:52:23 <Zakim> -Chris_Welty
17:52:53 <Zakim> + +39.046.182.aacc
17:53:46 <dlm> http://www.semwebcentral.org/
17:53:51 <RalphS> zakim, aacc is Chris_Welty
17:53:51 <Zakim> +Chris_Welty; got it
17:55:43 <RalphS> Guus: SemWebCentral is more oriented to tools
17:56:00 <RalphS> Deb: yes, but it's a general resource for the community
17:56:22 <RalphS> Libby: I was not aware of SemWebCentral -- I will take a look at it
17:56:35 <Zakim> -Chris_Welty
17:56:36 <Zakim> -Deb
17:56:37 <Zakim> -HP-Bristol
17:56:38 <Zakim> SW_BPD(f2f)3:00AM has ended
17:56:39 <Zakim> Attendees were HP-Bristol, Ben_Adida, +49.308.109.aaaa, Tom_Baker, +91.46.7.aabb, Chris_Welty, Deb, +39.046.182.aacc
18:00:23 <RalphS> Guus: candidate for TF breakouts tomorrow are: HTML, WordNet, XSCH, ...
18:01:08 <RalphS> ... Topic Maps (to draft a TF description)
18:03:01 <RalphS> DanBri: maybe this WG should work with the TAG on hash vs. slash
18:03:16 <RalphS> Guus: hash vs. slash might be on agenda for Technical Plenary
18:04:13 <RalphS> [adjourned]
18:42:24 <danbri> danbri has joined #swbp
18:55:19 <libby> libby has joined #swbp
18:56:22 <ChrisW-scribe> ChrisW-scribe has joined #swbp
18:56:34 <ChrisW-scribe> anyone still here?
18:56:59 <ChrisW> ChrisW has left #swbp
18:57:13 <danbri> no :)
18:58:50 <libby> heh
18:59:35 <danbri> ssh
20:22:17 <Zakim> Zakim has left #swbp