IRC log of swbp on 2004-11-02

Timestamps are in UTC.

09:51:35 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #swbp
09:51:41 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #swbp
09:52:58 [RalphS]
Meeting: SWBPD F2F
09:53:03 [RalphS]
(day two)
09:53:24 [RalphS]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Oct/0163.html
09:55:04 [danbri]
danbri has joined #swbp
09:55:21 [RalphS]
Topic: RDF/OWL and Topic Maps
09:55:27 [RalphS]
Steve Pepper presenting
09:56:27 [RalphS]
http://www.ontopia.net/tmp/RDF-TM-interop.ppt
09:56:41 [RalphS]
Ralph: will this be a stable URI?
09:56:49 [Benjamin]
Benjamin has joined #swbp
09:56:53 [RalphS]
Steve: no, I will put it someplace more permanent after I correct the typos
09:57:00 [aharth]
aharth has joined #swbp
09:57:06 [DavidW]
DavidW has joined #swbp
09:57:11 [aliman]
aliman has joined #swbp
09:57:15 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2004/11/02-swbp-irc#T09-57-11
09:57:20 [RalphS]
http://www.ontopia.net/tmp/RDF-TM-interop.ppt
09:57:29 [danbri]
q+ to line up more scribes for the day
09:58:22 [burkhardt]
burkhardt has joined #swbp
09:58:46 [guus]
guus has joined #swbp
09:59:18 [RalphS]
Steve: Extreme Markup staged "confrontation" between Eric Miller and Eric Freese (in 2002) was unfortunate in that it created a perception of a rivalry
10:00:44 [RalphS]
[slide 4] TMCL is Topic Maps Constraint Language
10:01:02 [RalphS]
XTM - XML Topic Maps
10:01:16 [RalphS]
HyTM - SGML-based Topic Maps exchange syntax
10:01:33 [RalphS]
LTM - text-based "linear Topic Maps" syntax, developed by Ontopia
10:03:03 [RalphS]
Present: Steve Pepper, Benjamin Nguyen, Andreas Harth, Felix Burkhardt, Jeff Pan, Dan Brickley, Guus Schreiber, David Wood, Alistair Miles, Phil Tetlow, Libby Miller, Jeremy Carroll, Ralph Swick
10:05:02 [RalphS]
Topic Maps were developed while trying to identify the underlying semantics of a back-of-book index
10:05:24 [libby]
libby has joined #swbp
10:05:55 [RalphS]
RDF is resource-centric, Topic Maps are subject-centric
10:06:37 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #swbp
10:06:45 [RalphS]
... but with a subtle shift in the meaning of "resource", this apparent difference becomes more dialectic than diametric
10:09:37 [danbri]
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=seamless [[Having no seams: seamless stockings.
10:09:37 [danbri]
Perfectly consistent: a seamless plot in the novel.]]
10:10:26 [aliman_]
aliman_ has joined #swbp
10:12:33 [RalphS]
the distinction between the symbol ("Topic") and the referent ("subject") is quite distinct in Topic Maps
10:12:52 [aliman__]
aliman__ has joined #swbp
10:13:15 [RalphS]
Subject is explicitly defined as "Anything whatsoever, regardless of whether it exists or has any other specific characteristics, about which anything whatsoever may be asserted by any means whatsoever"
10:15:06 [RalphS]
Guus: re: 3 types of assertions in Topic Maps, my mental map is association corresponds to general statements, names correspond to rdfs:label, occurrences correspond to rdf:type statements
10:15:22 [RalphS]
Steve: not quite for occurrences; there is a built-in notion of type
10:15:40 [RalphS]
Guus: a kind of part-of semantics?
10:15:43 [DavidW]
DavidW has joined #swbp
10:15:54 [RalphS]
Steve: not really, it's like 'about' but the other way around
10:16:47 [RalphS]
... occurrences are a special form of association; they are always binary and express relationships between a concept (Topic) and an "information resource"
10:16:51 [danbri]
q+ to offer to contrast the foaf:topic and foaf:primaryTopic design [possible lunch topic if no time...]
10:16:58 [danbri]
(no rush re that)
10:17:17 [RalphS]
... "information resource" is some kind of document in the broadest sense
10:17:43 [RalphS]
... rdf:Resource corresponds to tm:Subject
10:17:57 [RalphS]
... tm:Resource is an abbreviation for tm:InformationResource
10:19:23 [RalphS]
[re: slide 14, Ralph wonders if 'basename' is a relationship in some built-in Topic Maps vocabulary]
10:20:46 [RalphS]
Steve: in order to know the exact semantics of a particular relationship you need to know the role that each thing takes
10:21:31 [RalphS]
David: where are the definitions of these associations?
10:21:44 [RalphS]
Steve: associations have types
10:21:58 [RalphS]
... an association type and an association role type is a topic
10:22:12 [RalphS]
... so to create a new type, you create a new Topic
10:22:24 [RalphS]
... syntactically these are XML elements within your Topic Map document
10:23:25 [RalphS]
Ralph: syntactically, can you get from a document that has instances to the XML document that defines the Topics?
10:23:27 [RalphS]
Steve: yes
10:23:29 [PhilT]
PhilT has joined #swbp
10:23:54 [RalphS]
DanBri: are there logcial rules associated with a Topic Map that defines, e.g., a creator association?
10:24:10 [RalphS]
Steve: TMCL is the language in which to capture such constraints
10:25:30 [danbri]
[I wonder how much of TM semantics could be captured in something like Lbase, http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/NOTE-lbase-20030905/]
10:26:28 [danbri]
jjc: reification in rdf never meant what it seemed to mean; it isn't very usable
10:26:57 [RalphS]
JJC: RDF Core WG did not remove reification from the spec recognizing that there is legacy use of it. But RDF Core did not want to encourage further use.
10:27:40 [RalphS]
DanBri: 2 parts to the puzzle; the reification vocabulary (rdf:Statement, rdf:subject, rdf:predicate, rdf:object) and the reification syntax
10:27:53 [RalphS]
JJC: the bagID stuff got removed
10:28:15 [RalphS]
DanBri: originally implementors thought they had to always create the reification triples. this is no longer the case.
10:29:25 [danbri]
cf. http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/#higherorder and http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/#model
10:32:58 [RalphS]
JJC: the rules for identify of literals is the task of the XSCH Task Force
10:34:22 [RalphS]
Steve: Topic Maps distinguish between "names" and "identifiers"
10:34:38 [RalphS]
Brian: please define "names" and "identifiers" as you use them
10:34:47 [RalphS]
Guus: let's defer that discussion
10:35:03 [RalphS]
DanBri: RDF is very clear on this point
10:36:32 [RalphS]
Steve: a URI attached to a topic that represents an information resource is a "Subject locator"
10:37:16 [guus]
Ralph, thanks for scribing, I'll ask for a scribe after the presentation
10:37:29 [RalphS]
... arbitrary subjects that are not information resources do not have a subject location.
10:37:32 [DavidW]
s/Subject locator/Subject identifier/
10:37:38 [RalphS]
... Topic Maps uses an indirection mechanism in this case
10:38:02 [RalphS]
... the information resource is the subject indicator
10:38:13 [RalphS]
... the URI of the information resoruce is the "Subject identifier"
10:38:37 [RalphS]
[I don't think David's correction is accurate]
10:38:50 [RalphS]
[at least, I believe I recorded what Steve said]
10:39:00 [DavidW]
Yes, sorry. s/Subject identifier/Subject locator/
10:39:57 [RalphS]
Steve: such a distinction between subject locator and subject identifier does not exist in RDF
10:40:07 [RalphS]
DanBri: objection -- this distinction is provided at a different level
10:40:15 [RalphS]
Guus: the RDF metamodel does not contain this distinction
10:41:41 [RalphS]
Steve: the same Topic can have many identifiers; this expresses the fact that the identifiers identify the same thing
10:42:31 [RalphS]
... Published Subjects: a distributed mechanism for assigning unique, global identifiers -- based on URLs -- to arbitrary subjects
10:43:06 [RalphS]
Guus: are published subjects for both subject identifiers and subject locators?
10:43:12 [RalphS]
Steve: subject identifiers only
10:45:25 [RalphS]
DanBri: slide 27 suggests that different URIs definitely means not the same subject
10:45:56 [RalphS]
Steve: not necessarily the same subject; you can never establish that two things are absolutely different
10:46:27 [danbri]
[which would create a landgrab; I could create a psi for Ralph Swick, meaning that nobody else could. Which would destroy the soughtafter grassroots pluralism]
10:50:42 [danbri]
[re slide 28, I'd like to revisit Q of how a PSI provider would help people distingushi a museum-as-building vs museum-as-organization]
10:52:55 [RalphS]
[I think the Topic Maps PSI mechanism differs in practice from RDF/OWL only in that Topic Maps _requires_ that the URI be dereferenced to determine the identity of the subject]
10:54:13 [danbri]
[I get adequate facilities from a primaryTopic rdf property, has v similar characteristics to those advertised for TM I think]
10:55:42 [RalphS]
[Steve promises to put a version of http://www.ontopia.net/tmp/RDF-TM-interop.ppt at a more persistent URI after corrections]
10:57:21 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2004/11/02-swbp-irc#T10-55-42
10:59:13 [aliman_]
aliman_ has joined #swbp
11:01:14 [RalphS]
[slide 47; Procedure and deliverables]
11:01:31 [RalphS]
DanBri: I think it is important to keep OWL close by from the beginning of the discussion
11:02:45 [danbri]
['cos owl:InverseFunctionalProperty critical to discussion of merging, identity reasoning etc]
11:03:32 [RalphS]
Guus: focus discussion on particular steps to be taken
11:04:03 [RalphS]
Jeremy: the published subject stuff is the most exciting bit of Topic Maps work from an RDF perspective
11:04:21 [aliman_]
q+ to talk about published subjects in SKOS
11:04:22 [RalphS]
... it would be nice to write something that permits the RDF community to use the PSI work
11:04:29 [Zakim]
danbri, you wanted to line up more scribes for the day and to offer to contrast the foaf:topic and foaf:primaryTopic design [possible lunch topic if no time...]
11:04:43 [RalphS]
DanBri: I have a strawman on a 'primarySubject' relation
11:04:55 [RalphS]
s/primarySubject/primaryTopic/
11:05:12 [RalphS]
... so you can scoop up data and use OWL reasoning
11:05:20 [danbri]
my strawman: http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/#term_primaryTopic
11:05:37 [danbri]
"The foaf:primaryTopic property relates a document to the main thing that the document is about."
11:05:54 [RalphS]
Guus: is there a metamodel for Topic Maps? I think it would be easy to write one in RDF Schema
11:05:54 [danbri]
[aliman has some stuff in SKOS in this area, too...]
11:06:23 [aliman_]
proposal for 'skos:subjectIndicator' ...
11:06:28 [RalphS]
Steve: a couple of people have written such metamodels but none are viewed as sufficient by the Topic Maps community
11:06:40 [aliman_]
which I think (danbri?) could be inverse of foaf:primaryTopic?
11:07:00 [aliman_]
(skos:subjectIndicator as an inverse functional prop)
11:07:17 [RalphS]
David: some of Steven's slides that he skipped do give reasons why a simplistic mapping should be rejected
11:07:39 [danbri]
it's related, possibly the same. i'd be happy migrating that piece of work into SKOS rather than FOAF if functionality is being duplicated.
11:07:59 [aliman_]
could leave them as each others inverse in both vocabs ... ?
11:08:03 [RalphS]
Jeremy: W3C WGs work better when they start with a completed proposal -- one that is viewed as 'finished', then the WG finds the parts that really were not finished
11:08:10 [Benjamin]
[on the rdf topic map mapping : http://www.w3.org/2002/06/09-RDF-topic-maps/ ]
11:08:11 [aliman_]
kind of nice
11:08:41 [RalphS]
... may be premature to start WG work when a [full proposal for] mappings do not yet exist
11:09:15 [RalphS]
Steve: I view this as similar to DAWG where there are a number of attempts at mappings now
11:09:24 [aliman_]
... actually realise foaf:primaryTopic and skos:subjectIndicator couldn't be full inverse, ...
11:09:45 [aliman_]
because not all pages described with a primary topic would qualify as a PSI
11:10:01 [RalphS]
Jeremy: published subjects looks like an easy piece of work to get early success
11:10:21 [RalphS]
Steve: while published subjects are important to RDF-Topic Maps interoperability, that is not all they do
11:10:40 [RalphS]
... PSI will be important for vocabulary management
11:11:04 [RalphS]
Alistair: there's been a lot of discussion in SKOS about a new predicate that would support the published subject paradigm
11:11:42 [RalphS]
DanBri: does the creator of a page have to plan that page to be a PSI?
11:12:07 [RalphS]
Steve: that is the recommendation -- a published subject page should be something that was explicitly written to be a PSI
11:12:45 [RalphS]
... it does not necessarily have to contain machine-readable content, though there are recommendations regarding the content
11:14:44 [RalphS]
Guus: who might be interested in participating in a TF on RDF-Topic Maps interaction?
11:15:03 [RalphS]
[I see Steve, DanBri, Alistair's hands and assert that one of {Eric Miller, Ralph} is likely to want to participate]
11:18:46 [RalphS]
Topic: discussion of breakout groups
11:21:06 [pepper]
pepper has joined #swbp
11:28:08 [pepe]
pepe has joined #swbp
11:28:33 [RalphS]
breakouts will be:
11:28:47 [RalphS]
1. RDF/TM TF description (Steve, Alistair, David, Libby)
11:29:09 [RalphS]
2. RDF/XHTML issues + XML Schema datatypes (Benjamin, Felix, Jeff, Ralph, Phil, Jeremy)
11:29:17 [danbri]
rrsagent, pointer?
11:29:17 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2004/11/02-swbp-irc#T11-29-17
11:29:29 [RalphS]
3. WordNet phase (Andreas, Guus, Dan, Brian)
11:30:32 [danbri]
danbri has changed the topic to: SWBP WG (Bristol F2F), agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Oct/0163.html logs: http://www.w3.org/2004/11/02-swbp-irc
11:57:10 [libby]
libby has joined #swbp
11:58:49 [aliman_]
Topic map TF discussion on #swbptm
12:34:05 [burkhardt]
burkhardt has joined #swbp
12:51:29 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #swbp
13:29:27 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #swbp
14:20:30 [aharth]
aharth has joined #swbp
14:23:17 [aliman]
aliman has joined #swbp
14:23:34 [aliman]
RRSAgent, make log world visible
14:23:34 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make log world visible', aliman. Try /msg RRSAgent help
14:24:47 [RalphS]
Ralph's notes from HTML & XSCH breakout:
14:24:48 [RalphS]
[[
14:24:54 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #swbp
14:25:00 [RalphS]
]]
14:25:16 [libby]
libby has joined #swbp
14:25:17 [aliman]
http://www.w3.org/2004/11/02-swbptm-irc#T14-24-51
14:25:21 [DavidW]
DavidW has joined #swbp
14:25:40 [danbri]
danbri has joined #swbp
14:25:52 [JeffP]
Aliman: happy with TF description
14:26:20 [guus]
guus has joined #swbp
14:26:53 [libby]
http://www.ontopia.net/tmp/RDFTM-TF-DoW.html
14:26:55 [jjc]
jjc has joined #swbp
14:27:51 [JeffP]
Ralph: confirmation?
14:28:00 [aliman]
http://www.ontopia.net/tmp/RDFTM-TF-DoW.html
14:28:06 [JeffP]
Aliman: only those in the meeting today
14:28:23 [danbri]
[re TF membership, I have a few things I want to contribute, not sure yet quite how much time I'll have for TF overall...]
14:28:53 [JeffP]
mailist?
14:29:03 [JeffP]
Guus: suggest rdftm
14:29:26 [JeffP]
Aliman: we frame the initial statement
14:29:43 [JeffP]
to combine the two families
14:30:25 [JeffP]
to provide transformation between the two
14:30:31 [JeffP]
two objects:
14:30:41 [vivien]
vivien has joined #swbp
14:31:27 [vivien]
vivien has left #swbp
14:31:30 [danbri]
Is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Nov/ wedged? not seeing recentish posts
14:31:54 [RalphS]
[very possibly, danbri ; the mail archive has wedged several times in the past week]
14:32:34 [JeffP]
three longer term objects
14:32:55 [RalphS]
Ralph: note additional W3C Process requirements if the RDFTM TF intends to produce a Recommendation (or a "Recommendation-track document")
14:33:08 [JeffP]
Steve: that means sth not part of the short term objectives
14:33:46 [JeffP]
Aliman: The initial focus is on features defined in ISO 13250 Topic Maps.
14:34:07 [JeffP]
Other Topic Maps-related standards (such as TMCL and TMQL) may be considered at a later date.
14:35:21 [JeffP]
Steve: we discuss on various detailed issues, and suggest consider them later on
14:36:55 [JeffP]
Aliman: DELIVERABLES
14:36:56 [RalphS]
[discussion of dropping the word 'complete' in approach "2. Choose one or more of these as a starting point for defining a complete methodology." ]
14:37:32 [JeffP]
Guus: what do mean by "Note"?
14:37:45 [JeffP]
David: we can intent to have a "note"
14:38:06 [JeffP]
Guus: WG note on this issue.
14:38:27 [JeffP]
Steve: any W3C member can provide note?
14:38:37 [JeffP]
Ralph? not true
14:39:03 [JeffP]
Ralph: member submission vs. WG note
14:39:19 [JeffP]
Guus: WG note is different from recommendation
14:39:32 [JeffP]
Guus: we can use working draft
14:40:00 [JeffP]
our note is not for public review yet
14:40:45 [JeffP]
Aliman: DEPENDENCIES are left updated by steve
14:41:39 [RalphS]
Alistair: dependency on PORT TF for SKOS
14:41:52 [JeffP]
David: by the next teleconf
14:42:18 [JeffP]
are you addressing any use case in this TF?
14:42:43 [JeffP]
Guus: it might get lots of attention from other communities
14:43:03 [JeffP]
Guus suggests two co-ordinaters
14:43:27 [JeffP]
one for W3C and the other for ISO
14:44:19 [JeffP]
David: not sure if we need coordinators
14:45:18 [JeffP]
Steve: we can get some publications out of it
14:45:42 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #swbp
14:46:55 [DavidW]
ACTION: David to contact Eric Miller re his interest in joining the RDFTM TF.
14:47:00 [JeffP]
Dan: someone might write about it at xml.com
14:48:12 [JeffP]
Action: steve to finish rdftm TF description
14:48:33 [JeffP]
ACTION: Steve to finish rdftm TF description
14:49:40 [JeffP]
Ralph: feedback?
14:50:00 [JeffP]
Steve: the note should cover all the existing approaches
14:50:36 [JeffP]
Ralph: WG NOte implies we don't have further version of it
14:50:41 [JeffP]
otherwise it is a draft
14:51:49 [JeffP]
Steve: TF only produce draft?
14:52:09 [JeffP]
Ralph: TF provides proposed draft
14:52:39 [JeffP]
WG decide if it can become WG working draft
14:53:02 [JeffP]
Steve: what are the final output from WG
14:53:21 [JeffP]
Ralph: recommendation or a WG note
14:53:46 [JeffP]
WG provides last call working draft
14:53:59 [JeffP]
provide evident to director
14:54:49 [JeffP]
Ralph: change the second point
14:56:20 [JeffP]
Guus: WG consensus can lead to a WG note
14:57:00 [JeffP]
Guus: time?
14:57:39 [JeffP]
rdf/xhtml
14:58:43 [JeffP]
Ralph presents ...
14:59:02 [JeffP]
Ralph has sent a note to the mailing list
14:59:50 [aliman]
aliman has joined #swbp
15:01:20 [JeffP]
Ralph: Phil concerned that RDF/A addresses a closed community; the opportunity
15:01:36 [JeffP]
to express a variety of use cases around RDF/A is limited.
15:01:54 [JeffP]
Phils agrees to provide some use cases
15:02:43 [JeffP]
Jeremy says good tools are part of the solution to manage proper usage.
15:03:34 [JeffP]
Benjamin and Jeff willing to help
15:03:53 [JeffP]
Jeff agrees to give comments of current draft
15:04:55 [JeffP]
Jeremy points out there are two related working drafts had last call last year
15:05:03 [JeffP]
hard to get further comemnts
15:06:51 [JeffP]
Guus: can we handle the late suggestion?
15:07:19 [JeffP]
Jeremy: we should have done it much earlier
15:07:30 [aliman_]
aliman_ has joined #swbp
15:07:46 [aliman__]
aliman__ has joined #swbp
15:07:58 [JeffP]
Guus: is it critical?
15:08:17 [JeffP]
David: waht about rdf/a
15:08:36 [RalphS]
Jeremy: w.r.t. the value space question, the most critical thing is that implementors do the same thing -- which choice is made won't matter as much
15:09:05 [TomAdams]
TomAdams has joined #swbp
15:09:11 [TomAdams]
TomAdams has left #swbp
15:09:52 [JeffP]
David: we should be prepared to comment on rdfa in the next few months
15:10:14 [JeffP]
Jeremy: i have made all the negative points in their mailing list
15:10:56 [JeffP]
David: Mark has been had his way
15:11:21 [JeffP]
Ralph: we have to be persuade
15:12:15 [danbri]
today's negative comment on rdf/a: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2004Nov/0007.html
15:12:44 [JeffP]
Guus: TF draft will be ready after their f2f meeting
15:13:05 [JeffP]
move to the third meeting
15:14:04 [JeffP]
Guus: we revise the TF
15:14:26 [JeffP]
we look at the prolog source of WN
15:14:40 [JeffP]
and went through the list of all issues
15:15:15 [JeffP]
requirement that URI should be humna readable
15:16:16 [JeffP]
we should do some test on URIs
15:17:02 [danbri]
see: [[
15:17:03 [danbri]
From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
15:17:03 [danbri]
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 08:34:33 -0500
15:17:03 [danbri]
To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
15:17:04 [danbri]
Subject: wordnet breakout: raw notes
15:17:06 [danbri]
Message-ID: <20041102133433.GA14689@homer.w3.org>
15:17:10 [danbri]
]]
15:17:12 [danbri]
which isn't in archives yet.
15:17:16 [JeffP]
we postpone discussion on some issues
15:18:39 [JeffP]
Guus: ask Jan to write trnasformation into RDF/OWL
15:19:52 [JeffP]
we include wn:lexicaForm
15:20:25 [JeffP]
we also resolve Prinston team re requirements
15:20:50 [JeffP]
resolved not to add a verb group for mow
15:21:46 [JeffP]
we provide two versions of WN
15:22:36 [JeffP]
we can complte by the end of the year
15:23:24 [JeffP]
move to class-centred representation ...
15:24:16 [JeffP]
Final section:
15:24:25 [JeffP]
1. UML stuff
15:25:17 [JeffP]
we can also talk about location of next f2f
15:26:30 [aliman_]
aliman_ has joined #swbp
15:27:35 [JeffP]
Guus: teleconf is useful
15:27:52 [JeffP]
ODM group is more ambitious now
15:28:06 [JeffP]
also do metamodel mapping
15:28:12 [JeffP]
they use OWL full
15:28:32 [JeffP]
as the anchor point for translations
15:28:52 [JeffP]
other metamodels: rdf, topic maps
15:29:05 [JeffP]
also mapping to scl but only one way
15:29:29 [JeffP]
they will have a two way UML - OWL Full mapping
15:29:41 [JeffP]
mapping between ER models and OWL Full
15:29:58 [JeffP]
possible for express as well
15:30:16 [JeffP]
they expect our feedback
15:30:39 [JeffP]
we should review their draft in Dec
15:31:05 [JeffP]
we should plan in advance for review
15:31:31 [JeffP]
Jeremy: HP agees to review
15:31:56 [JeffP]
Dan: comments?
15:32:53 [JeffP]
6 pages or 2 lines comments?
15:34:02 [JeffP]
Phil: they mainly want to be awared
15:34:32 [danbri]
[@@url for UML/RDF doc(s) to review?]
15:34:57 [JeffP]
Guus: which part HP want to review?
15:35:07 [JeffP]
Jeremy: not sure
15:35:28 [JeffP]
Guus: TM TF should review the connection between OWL full and TM
15:35:44 [JeffP]
if their work is good, we can take it
15:35:57 [JeffP]
Steve: we can include it inro our previous work
15:36:23 [jjc]
ACTION: Jeremy Clarify which parts of UML docs HP is most interested in reviewing
15:36:49 [JeffP]
ACTION: find someone to do the review the part about TM
15:37:30 [JeffP]
Guus: two chapters
15:37:52 [JeffP]
TM metamodels and its mapping to OWL Full
15:38:02 [JeffP]
Guus: next teleconf
15:39:19 [JeffP]
Dec will be the review period
15:40:06 [JeffP]
Guus: I can do metamodel of OWL full and mapping to UML
15:40:21 [JeffP]
ask PatH to review the scl part
15:40:32 [JeffP]
who are interested in OWL full to ER?
15:41:09 [JeffP]
David: Tate Jones can do that
15:41:51 [JeffP]
Guus: it makes sense to help them as much as possible
15:42:07 [JeffP]
David: will the OWL to ER be chapter review?
15:42:21 [JeffP]
Guus: yes
15:42:51 [JeffP]
next f2f at W3C tag family
15:43:10 [JeffP]
time for a US-based f2f
15:44:27 [libby]
28 February- 4 March 2005, Boston, MA, USA, Hyatt Harborside Hotel
15:44:48 [libby]
(tech plenary dates)
15:45:04 [JeffP]
Guus: whole week meeting
15:45:42 [JeffP]
WG f2f meeting
15:45:48 [JeffP]
and TF meetings
15:45:53 [aliman__]
aliman__ has joined #swbp
15:45:55 [JeffP]
up to us
15:46:28 [JeffP]
Jeremy: shold be working with XML schema working group etc.
15:47:06 [JeffP]
Steve: we can have TF meetings first then WG meetings
15:47:46 [JeffP]
Ralph: we can ask
15:47:59 [JeffP]
Guus: ok for everyone?
15:48:42 [JeffP]
Guus: Nov 18 next teleconf
15:48:48 [JeffP]
Guus: ok?
15:49:19 [JeffP]
David: I think 18 is fine
15:49:30 [JeffP]
what time?
15:49:53 [aliman]
aliman has joined #swbp
15:50:56 [JeffP]
Guus: 1500 UTC
15:51:53 [JeffP]
Steve: what is the time in washington?
15:51:57 [libby]
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=11&day=18&year=2004&hour=15&min=0&sec=0&p1=0
15:52:07 [JeffP]
Ralph: 2pm boston time
15:52:15 [libby]
or
15:52:16 [libby]
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=11&day=18&year=2004&hour=19&min=0&sec=0&p1=0
15:52:20 [RalphS]
2pm Boston is now 1900 UTC
15:52:55 [JeffP]
Guus: Nov 18, 1900 UTC
15:53:41 [JeffP]
after that we stick to two weeks schedule
15:54:06 [RalphS]
2 December 1500 UTC
15:54:08 [JeffP]
Guus: www panel
15:54:11 [RalphS]
16 December 1900 UTC
15:54:48 [JeffP]
David: May 10 2005, japan
15:54:49 [RalphS]
(noting that 2 December is during the Advisory Committee meeting)
15:55:30 [JeffP]
we need strong representation from this WG
15:56:11 [JeffP]
who will be in Japan then and want to be involved
15:57:08 [JeffP]
Steve: I am tempted but need to talk to the boss
15:57:18 [JeffP]
good chance to present our work
15:57:40 [JeffP]
David: panel submission dl: shortly
15:58:21 [JeffP]
Steve, Jeremy, ...
15:58:49 [JeffP]
David: someone from NI ...
16:00:08 [JeffP]
Guus: review
16:00:28 [JeffP]
table about TF and members
16:01:40 [JeffP]
Felix agrees to help ADTF
16:02:21 [JeffP]
we decided to drop some TFs ...
16:02:46 [RalphS]
Guus is showing the table in the 2004-03-04 F2F minutes: http://www.w3.org/2004/03/04-SWBPD
16:02:54 [JeffP]
David: one to explain SW to developpers
16:08:52 [JeffP]
Phil willing to parcitipate in TF revise
16:09:48 [DavidW]
WRLD TF to be considered again in March/April 2005, after some TFs complete (maybe VM, WORDNET, RDFHTML?).
16:10:33 [DavidW]
David, Phil, probably Jim H willing to participate in WRLD TF next year.
16:13:48 [JeffP]
thank the local host Jeremy!
16:14:01 [JeffP]
very nice service!
16:14:07 [danbri]
jjc++
16:15:20 [JeffP]
We will do a good job in our first year!
16:15:37 [JeffP]
bye
16:15:40 [RalphS]
Steve: thanks to Free University of Amsterdam for dinner!
16:15:46 [RalphS]
[applause]
16:15:59 [RalphS]
[adjourned]
16:17:25 [RalphS]
zakim, bye
16:17:25 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #swbp
16:17:32 [RalphS]
rrsagent, bye
16:17:32 [RRSAgent]
I see 4 open action items:
16:17:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: David to contact Eric Miller re his interest in joining the RDFTM TF. [1]
16:17:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/11/02-swbp-irc#T14-46-55
16:17:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Steve to finish rdftm TF description [2]
16:17:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/11/02-swbp-irc#T14-48-33
16:17:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Jeremy Clarify which parts of UML docs HP is most interested in reviewing [3]
16:17:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/11/02-swbp-irc#T15-36-23
16:17:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: find someone to do the review the part about TM [4]
16:17:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/11/02-swbp-irc#T15-36-49