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