IRC log of swbp on 2004-11-18

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:56:04 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #swbp
18:56:15 [Ralph]
Meeting: Semantic Web Best Practices & Deployment Working Group
18:56:19 [Ralph]
18:57:38 [Zakim]
SW_BPD()2:00PM has now started
18:57:47 [Zakim]
18:57:53 [Tbaker]
Tbaker has joined #swbp
18:58:01 [pepper]
pepper has joined #swbp
18:59:13 [Zakim]
18:59:24 [Zakim]
18:59:36 [Ralph]
zakim, [sophia] is Fabien
18:59:36 [Zakim]
+Fabien; got it
18:59:44 [Zakim]
18:59:51 [ekw]
ekw has joined #swbp
18:59:56 [Zakim]
18:59:56 [Zakim]
+Andreas_Harth (was ??P10)
19:00:13 [Zakim]
+Tom_Baker.a (was Tom_Baker)
19:00:18 [Zakim]
19:00:22 [aharth]
aharth has joined #swbp
19:00:30 [Ralph]
zakim, ??p13 is Alistair
19:00:30 [Zakim]
+Alistair; got it
19:00:41 [Zakim]
+Alistair_Miles (was Alistair)
19:00:59 [Zakim]
19:02:15 [Zakim]
19:02:35 [Guus]
Guus has joined #swbp
19:02:37 [Ralph]
zakim, hugo is really Steve_Pepper
19:02:37 [Zakim]
+Steve_Pepper; got it
19:03:09 [Zakim]
19:03:24 [bwm]
bwm has joined #swbp
19:03:37 [Zakim]
19:03:47 [bwm]
Zakim, ??p19 is bwm
19:03:47 [Zakim]
+bwm; got it
19:04:15 [Zakim]
19:04:29 [Ralph]
zakim, ??p20 is Jeff
19:04:29 [Zakim]
+Jeff; got it
19:04:53 [Ralph]
Regrets: Darren, Libby, ChrisW, BenA, DanBri, Marco, Jeremy, BenjaminN, TomA, Gary
19:04:55 [pepper]
(partial) regrets from pepper: have to be back on booth at 3pm
19:05:16 [Guus]
Alan Rector has snt regrets to me
19:05:33 [Ralph]
Regrets+ Alan
19:06:06 [DavidW]
DavidW has joined #swbp
19:06:36 [Ralph]
Topic: Adminstivia
19:06:50 [Ralph]
zakim, who's on the phone?
19:06:50 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Phil_Tetlow, Fabien (muted), Ralph, Andreas_Harth, Tom_Baker.a (muted), Alistair_Miles, Evan_Wallace, Steve_Pepper, Guus_Schreiber, bwm, Jeff
19:07:07 [Zakim]
19:07:18 [Zakim]
19:07:33 [Ralph]
zakim, tucana is David_Wood
19:07:33 [Zakim]
+David_Wood; got it
19:08:18 [Zakim]
19:08:22 [Zakim]
+Alistair_Miles (was ??P24)
19:09:13 [Zakim]
19:09:20 [Ralph]
Scribe: bwm_scribe
19:09:39 [bwm_scribe]
Steve has requested early coverage of RDFTM section
19:09:45 [Zakim]
19:09:48 [Zakim]
+Alistair_Miles (was ??P24)
19:09:52 [bwm_scribe]
david: any objections?
19:09:55 [bwm_scribe]
... no
19:10:29 [bwm_scribe]
ralph: I've put regrets into irc
19:10:36 [Tbaker]
they look good
19:10:49 [bwm_scribe]
david: review of minutes of oct 28
19:10:51 [Tbaker]
no objections
19:10:55 [bwm_scribe]
... any objections?
19:11:03 [bwm_scribe]
... no objections - minutes approved
19:11:14 [bwm_scribe]
... minutes from f2f
19:11:16 [Tbaker]
f2f minutes look good too (for the part I participated on the phone)
19:11:19 [bwm_scribe]
Steve: I've looked at them
19:11:27 [bwm_scribe]
david: any objections?
19:11:31 [bwm_scribe]
... no
19:11:34 [bwm_scribe]
... minutes accepted
19:11:44 [bwm_scribe]
... telecon times
19:11:53 [bwm_scribe]
... in response to email from Chris
19:12:09 [bwm_scribe]
guus: he has a point
19:12:25 [bwm_scribe]
ralph: is this week slip a temporary aberation?
19:12:42 [bwm_scribe]
david: we talked at f2f about this at f2f
19:13:01 [bwm_scribe]
ralph: I propose we look ahead into January to decide when we should meet
19:13:23 [bwm_scribe]
david: thanksgiving, christmas and new year don't work
19:13:35 [bwm_scribe]
... keep to slipped schedule for the rest of this year
19:13:50 [bwm_scribe]
ACTION: david to propose a telecon schedule fo rthe new year
19:14:26 [bwm_scribe]
Guus notes that a meeting on jan 6, the bi-weekly schedule would fit well with the tech plenary
19:14:47 [bwm_scribe]
ralph: we are agree dot meet on 02 Dec 2004
19:14:48 [Tbaker]
dec 2 is ok
19:14:58 [bwm_scribe]
... regrets from ralph as there is a w3c meeting
19:15:02 [bwm_scribe]
guus: we should meet
19:15:21 [bwm_scribe]
david: RESOLVED next meeting is 02 Dec 2004
19:15:27 [bwm_scribe]
2: action review
19:15:35 [Ralph]
ACTION BenB read ODM documents
19:15:37 [Ralph]
-- continued
19:15:48 [Ralph]
ACTION BenB read ODM documents
19:15:50 [bwm_scribe]
BenB read ODM documents [2]
19:15:56 [bwm_scribe]
19:16:04 [bwm_scribe]
gary ng review ODM [7]
19:16:17 [bwm_scribe]
ralph: gary claims completion - will post evidence to irc
19:16:19 [Ralph]
ACTION gary ng review ODM
19:16:24 [Ralph]
19:16:49 [bwm_scribe]
david: propose withdraw BenB read ODM documents [2]
19:16:51 [Ralph]
ACTION BenB read ODM documents -- withdrawn
19:16:56 [Ralph]
ACTION Ralph to ask WG for feedback on requirement to embed RDF/XML markup in an XHTML document
19:17:00 [Ralph]
19:17:00 [bwm_scribe]
Ralph to ask WG for feedback on requirement to embed RDF/XML
19:17:00 [bwm_scribe]
markup in an XHTML document [9]
19:18:22 [Ralph]
ACTION danbri circulate links for his existing feedback/review to dawg
19:18:23 [bwm_scribe]
danbri circulate links for his existing feedback/review to dawg
19:18:27 [Ralph]
19:18:33 [bwm_scribe]
ralph: danbri claims done
19:18:35 [Ralph]
ACTION philT look at garyng's message, see what actions if any this wg should take
19:18:43 [bwm_scribe]
philT look at garyng's message, see what actions if any this wg
19:18:43 [bwm_scribe]
shoudl take [20]
19:18:50 [Ralph]
19:18:50 [bwm_scribe]
phil: claim completion
19:18:53 [bwm_scribe]
david: concur
19:19:03 [bwm_scribe]
chrisw approach sophia about units and measures
19:19:03 [bwm_scribe]
particpating DONE
19:19:15 [bwm_scribe]
guus to note on numeric ranges after the xml datatypes TF has
19:19:15 [bwm_scribe]
19:19:19 [bwm_scribe]
guus: continued
19:19:28 [bwm_scribe]
libby to make that note into a document to read for the f2f by
19:19:28 [bwm_scribe]
25th oct [28] DONE
19:19:43 [bwm_scribe]
guus send jeremy pointer about numeric ranges and XMLS [13]
19:19:45 [bwm_scribe]
guus: continued
19:19:55 [bwm_scribe]
jjc to send around pointers on HTML TF [14] DONE
19:20:06 [bwm_scribe]
libby to send pointers to list in preparation for f2f [15] DONE
19:20:18 [bwm_scribe]
Alistair make explicit in skos core doc the fact that
19:20:18 [bwm_scribe]
you're trying to deal with potential for multiple thesauri using the
19:20:18 [bwm_scribe]
same terms, overlap etc., different from paper publishing world
19:20:47 [bwm_scribe]
Alistair: just posted email: Alistair will post url when it appears
19:21:09 [Ralph]
ACTION Ben to send this statement [regarding RDF/A] to HTML WG via email
19:21:12 [Ralph]
19:21:25 [bwm_scribe]
Brian and DanBri need to talk about what need to do for
19:21:25 [bwm_scribe]
Wordnet document to be good enough
19:21:28 [bwm_scribe]
19:21:39 [bwm_scribe]
David to reword the statement on RDF A to HTML WG
19:21:39 [bwm_scribe]
19:21:49 [bwm_scribe]
JJC review SPARQL WD re
19:21:49 [bwm_scribe]
19:22:03 [bwm_scribe]
ralph: he has sent mail which may complete that
19:22:10 [bwm_scribe]
david: done
19:22:13 [Ralph]
19:22:19 [bwm_scribe]
Phil to write up concerns about RDF/A on email
19:22:34 [bwm_scribe]
phil: please continue so I can think more about it
19:22:36 [Ralph]
19:22:47 [bwm_scribe]
ralph: propose close and phil can reopen if necessary
19:22:56 [bwm_scribe]
david: please write up your concerns
19:23:06 [bwm_scribe]
Steve to email on concerns for RDF in XHTML
19:23:07 [Ralph]
19:23:10 [bwm_scribe]
steve:done same day
19:23:23 [bwm_scribe]
VM TF to compile list of sample vocabs for the note
19:23:35 [bwm_scribe]
???: lets talk later
19:23:42 [bwm_scribe]
david: is action done
19:23:50 [bwm_scribe]
???: no
19:23:51 [Ralph]
19:24:02 [bwm_scribe]
VM TF with help from Guus to find thesaurus like example
19:24:02 [bwm_scribe]
and high end ontologies to section 3
19:24:06 [bwm_scribe]
tomB: continued
19:24:08 [Ralph]
19:24:16 [bwm_scribe]
David to contact Eric Miller re his interest in joining
19:24:17 [bwm_scribe]
19:24:20 [bwm_scribe]
david: continue
19:24:31 [bwm_scribe]
find someone to do the review the part of UML about TM
19:24:41 [bwm_scribe]
david: whose action:
19:24:51 [bwm_scribe]
???: asked me to ask ?? to do that
19:24:53 [Ralph]
Steve: I think Guus asked me to ask Lars Marius about that
19:24:56 [Ralph]
19:25:13 [Ralph]
Steve: I asked Lars Marius and he went pale
19:25:18 [bwm_scribe]
david: mark aciton complete
19:25:33 [bwm_scribe]
Jeremy Clarify which parts of UML docs HP is most
19:25:33 [bwm_scribe]
interested in reviewing
19:25:40 [bwm_scribe]
david: continue
19:25:48 [bwm_scribe]
Steve to finish rdftm TF description
19:25:50 [bwm_scribe]
Steve: done
19:25:50 [Ralph]
19:26:21 [bwm_scribe]
19:26:44 [bwm_scribe]
david: the tags want to know if anyone wants to meet with them
19:27:01 [bwm_scribe]
... should we meet with the tag?
19:27:23 [bwm_scribe]
guus: there was a generic request from the tag whether they want to meet with the tag
19:27:34 [bwm_scribe]
david: do we want to meet with the tag?
19:27:50 [bwm_scribe]
... we could state our position on xhtml working group
19:27:59 [bwm_scribe]
ralph: not sure that is an appropriate topic
19:28:12 [bwm_scribe]
... the so called httprange14 issue is
19:28:19 [bwm_scribe]
... it ought to be one of our issues too
19:28:37 [bwm_scribe]
steve: is relevevant to tom task force
19:28:39 [aliman]
+1 on talking to TAG on HTTP range
19:28:46 [bwm_scribe]
ralph: will hit other tf's too e.g. vocab management
19:28:49 [pepper]
19:28:54 [bwm_scribe]
... should talk to the tag about that
19:29:15 [bwm_scribe]
david: that issue is important to us - we've done it one way but not sure its the right way
19:29:27 [bwm_scribe]
... meeting with the tag would a good idea for us
19:29:37 [bwm_scribe]
???: would be good idea to have a general discussion
19:30:03 [pepper]
19:30:04 [bwm_scribe]
Alistair: this is the biggest issue for the porting tf
19:30:36 [bwm_scribe]
phil: lets discuss on what topics we need to discuss on the list
19:30:49 [bwm_scribe]
ralph: we could do that, but the timing is somewhat tight
19:31:25 [bwm_scribe]
... I suggest the range14 dicussion may be better with the whole tag
19:31:44 [bwm_scribe]
ACTION: Ralph take up with CG tomorrow
19:32:00 [Ralph]
s/up with/up TAG-SWBP agenda/
19:32:20 [Fabien]
19:32:45 [bwm_scribe]
ralph: I said we want to meet two of those days, prefering thu/fri
19:32:58 [bwm_scribe]
... also asked if it were practical to meet for 4 days
19:33:09 [aliman]
19:33:19 [bwm_scribe]
steve: would like to do tech work on tm - could take two days
19:33:29 [bwm_scribe]
guus: we could have breakout groups on two days
19:33:30 [pepper]
s/tm/rdftm/ :-)
19:34:02 [bwm_scribe]
19:34:02 [DavidW]
19:34:23 [bwm_scribe]
19:34:31 [bwm_scribe]
david: I'm happy with the TF description
19:34:35 [bwm_scribe]
... any objections?
19:35:20 [bwm_scribe]
... hearing none
19:35:21 [Ralph]
http-range-14 is
19:35:33 [bwm_scribe]
... we have a lot of interest in the rdftm task force
19:35:41 [bwm_scribe]
... want to get it underway
19:35:49 [bwm_scribe]
... any objections?
19:35:51 [pepper]
19:36:04 [bwm_scribe]
ralph: are we quorate?
19:36:10 [bwm_scribe]
... we have three members on the call
19:36:26 [bwm_scribe]
... thats ok
19:36:51 [bwm_scribe]
david: steve do you have commitments from the folks listed that they want to participate
19:36:55 [bwm_scribe]
steve: yes
19:37:05 [bwm_scribe]
ralph: can they make the telcon time
19:37:07 [bwm_scribe]
steve: yes
19:37:20 [bwm_scribe]
david: steve will you take an actin to get them at the next telecon
19:37:23 [bwm_scribe]
guus: I'll help
19:37:28 [bwm_scribe]
steve: thanks guus
19:37:54 [bwm_scribe]
ACTION: guus to introduce from rdftm task force to the wg
19:38:09 [bwm_scribe]
s/from/new members from/
19:38:22 [bwm_scribe]
ralph: propose approve task force creation
19:38:38 [bwm_scribe]
RESOLVED: RDFTM creation approved
19:38:50 [bwm_scribe]
david: steve floor is yours
19:38:58 [bwm_scribe]
steve; description of work explains what we do
19:39:06 [bwm_scribe]
... we need to start note on existing practice
19:39:15 [bwm_scribe]
... we need to collect test cases to evaluate proposals
19:39:27 [bwm_scribe]
... snippets of both rdf and tm for tanslation back and forth
19:39:50 [bwm_scribe]
david: can you talk to folks like nikita and danc
19:40:05 [bwm_scribe]
... they have specific concerns - valuable to collect in use
19:40:07 [bwm_scribe]
19:40:15 [bwm_scribe]
steve: iso group met in dc
19:40:23 [bwm_scribe]
... informed them about the tf
19:40:32 [bwm_scribe]
... general reaction was extremely positive
19:41:02 [bwm_scribe]
[scribe fails to record positive resoltion of W3G]
19:41:18 [bwm_scribe]
... some discussion of brining more folks in
19:41:28 [bwm_scribe]
... membership of w3c can be an issue
19:42:00 [bwm_scribe]
... what you may see is an initiative at a higher level to establish a liason group between jtc1 to allow formal input
19:42:11 [bwm_scribe]
... have a recognised position for reviewing
19:42:20 [bwm_scribe]
david: we can always send a dd to iso for comment
19:42:29 [bwm_scribe]
steve: that would probably satisfy them
19:42:37 [bwm_scribe]
david: could record in tf description
19:42:44 [bwm_scribe]
steve: could add that
19:43:03 [bwm_scribe]
guus: what you have written is good enough
19:43:14 [bwm_scribe]
... we are required to request feedback from the dependent parties
19:43:28 [bwm_scribe]
... you have to reach consensus if they give comments
19:43:44 [bwm_scribe]
ralph: identifying them in particular as a group ...
19:43:55 [bwm_scribe]
david: can we proceed int he face of an objection?
19:44:03 [bwm_scribe]
ralph: we'd handle it like any other public comment
19:44:09 [pepper]
bwm_scribe: WG3 resolution: "WG3 expresses its support for the W3C's initiative in setting up a task force to address the issue of RDF/Topic Maps interoperability and encourages the active participation of members of the Topic Maps community."
19:44:14 [bwm_scribe]
guus: we'd have to explain why he should override to the director
19:45:10 [bwm_scribe]
ralph: there would be a lot of procedural things involved in setting up a formal liason structure
19:45:23 [bwm_scribe]
... task force could be "well underway" before it could be set up
19:45:33 [bwm_scribe]
... but we could look at it if there is a strong need
19:45:47 [bwm_scribe]
... it is not completely impossible
19:45:58 [bwm_scribe]
steve: there is other work in iso that overlaps w3c work
19:46:21 [bwm_scribe]
ralph: there are a number of liason things going on between w3c and ??? and this could be added
19:46:37 [Ralph]
s/???/SC 34/
19:46:41 [bwm_scribe]
... I would propose the tf proceeds with out that and they can come back
19:46:53 [bwm_scribe]
steve: they will; the chair has an action
19:47:03 [bwm_scribe]
... contact will be made and there can be a general discussion
19:47:23 [bwm_scribe]
ralph: if you could provide a url for 13250 that would be great
19:47:28 [bwm_scribe]
steve: for the standard?
19:47:41 [bwm_scribe]
ralph: ideally yes - the normative materials the tf needs to know
19:48:16 [bwm_scribe]
ACTION: steve email 13250 to the WG
19:48:28 [bwm_scribe]
david: well done steve
19:48:33 [bwm_scribe]
steve: thanks everyone
19:48:51 [bwm_scribe]
steve: I'll leave shortly but would like to hear about port
19:49:00 [Ralph]
Topic: Task Force Updates
19:49:05 [bwm_scribe]
david: OEP?
19:49:22 [bwm_scribe]
evan: I don't think anything has happened since the f2f
19:49:33 [PhilT]
19:49:35 [bwm_scribe]
... there is an agenda item proposal for a SE tf
19:49:41 [bwm_scribe]
steve: please do port first
19:49:43 [PhilT]
19:49:45 [bwm_scribe]
david: ok
19:49:53 [aliman]
19:49:54 [bwm_scribe]
19:49:57 [Zakim]
Ralph, you wanted to ask for URIs and to
19:50:01 [DavidW]
19:50:05 [PhilT]
19:50:12 [bwm_scribe]
alistair- link to quick start
19:50:36 [bwm_scribe]
... in response to action from f2f
19:50:41 [bwm_scribe]
... there is an example
19:51:01 [bwm_scribe]
... using skos core in rdf/xml and n3 (following guus suggestion)
19:51:16 [bwm_scribe]
... recommends assigning uri's for concepts
19:51:27 [bwm_scribe]
... shoul dhave metadata about the thesaurus itself
19:51:37 [bwm_scribe]
... links to main docs
19:51:42 [bwm_scribe]
... and thats it
19:51:55 [bwm_scribe]
... If htis is the right sort of document, should we do a WD?
19:52:01 [pepper]
19:52:18 [bwm_scribe]
... I would like to publish the quick guide document and skos core vocab
19:52:26 [bwm_scribe]
... as soon as is possible
19:52:31 [Guus]
Guus has joined #swbp
19:52:36 [bwm_scribe]
... haven't produced a wd before
19:52:40 [bwm_scribe]
... need guidance and advice
19:52:44 [aliman]
19:53:01 [bwm_scribe]
david: you'll get help
19:53:01 [DavidW]
ack pepper
19:53:06 [bwm_scribe]
ralph: you have danbri
19:53:19 [bwm_scribe]
steve: subject property indicator - is there an example
19:53:28 [bwm_scribe]
alistair: this property has only just been added
19:53:33 [bwm_scribe]
... its in the spec document
19:53:43 [bwm_scribe]
... you can launch and example from there
19:53:49 [bwm_scribe]
... of using subject indicators
19:53:58 [bwm_scribe]
... I've left it out of quick guide doc
19:54:11 [bwm_scribe]
... because I've tried to scope to standard thesaurus terms
19:54:21 [bwm_scribe]
... and link to the longer document
19:54:39 [bwm_scribe]
... which includes discussion of different ways of identifying thinks
19:55:15 [bwm_scribe]
... the idea is to have an inverse functional property that refers to a psi docuement
19:55:23 [bwm_scribe]
steve: can I ask questions
19:55:26 [bwm_scribe]
david: please be brief
19:55:34 [bwm_scribe]
steve: I'd like to ask about ...
19:55:50 [bwm_scribe]
alistair: that exert is a relative uri - the full uri is ....
19:56:06 [bwm_scribe]
... the full uri is the one they used in their publication of their thesaurus
19:56:16 [bwm_scribe]
steve: I'll take other questions to the list
19:56:25 [bwm_scribe]
alistair: one question ...
19:56:40 [bwm_scribe]
... in the examples I chose to use an xml base to avoid repeating uri's
19:56:52 [bwm_scribe]
... with the possibility that people might miss the xml base
19:57:01 [bwm_scribe]
... comments on this style please
19:57:12 [bwm_scribe]
... bearing in mind that audience don't know rdf at all
19:57:22 [pepper]
bwm_scribe: specifically on use of xml:base
19:57:25 [bwm_scribe]
... please send me comments
19:57:59 [bwm_scribe]
... I'd appreciate positive comments too
19:58:08 [bwm_scribe]
steve: leaves
19:58:09 [Zakim]
19:58:19 [bwm_scribe]
david: OEP
19:58:23 [bwm_scribe]
... evan?
19:58:38 [bwm_scribe]
evan: my question concerns the SE engineering tf formation
19:58:46 [bwm_scribe]
phil: can we cover under AOB
19:59:22 [Guus]
Natasha and Alan gave a great tutorial at ISWC
19:59:35 [bwm_scribe]
david: anything specific on oep?
19:59:42 [bwm_scribe]
... hearing no response
19:59:53 [bwm_scribe]
... wordnet
20:00:13 [Ralph]
Brian: I have some progress to report
20:00:34 [Ralph]
... thanks to Andreas for his actions
20:00:48 [Ralph]
... we've made some progress on the technical aspects of the ontology
20:00:59 [Ralph]
... I have recruited some help from a student working at HPlabs
20:01:13 [Ralph]
... he's fixed some bugs and is using Protege to make some OWL statements about the Wordnet concepts
20:01:26 [Ralph]
... a number of issues have arisen
20:01:53 [Ralph]
... I've been trying to have a document that an RDFschema-only processor can make use of
20:02:06 [Ralph]
... and obviously an OWL processor would do more with this document
20:02:19 [Ralph]
... would not model all the constraints in the Wordnet structure
20:02:28 [Ralph]
... and OWL document would model more of the Worndet constraints
20:02:49 [Ralph]
... thinking of something with an RDF Schema up front and Protege-generated OWL statements at the back
20:02:58 [Ralph]
... I'd like feedback on this approach
20:03:23 [Ralph]
... we have discovered that when you combine RDFS and OWL, Protege is not happy with the result
20:03:45 [aliman]
protege OWL plugin is still pretty bug in my experience ...
20:03:51 [Ralph]
... I hope to post something to the list tomorrow
20:03:52 [aliman]
lots of things can throw it off.
20:04:00 [aliman]
20:04:22 [bwm_scribe]
david: moving on
20:04:32 [bwm_scribe]
... xml schema datatypes
20:04:38 [bwm_scribe]
david: jjc not here
20:04:42 [Guus]
I have to drop off,
20:04:45 [bwm_scribe]
jeff: I've discussed iwth jjc
20:04:53 [bwm_scribe]
... we have two new actions
20:05:03 [bwm_scribe]
one about duration
20:05:07 [bwm_scribe]
david: ok
20:05:13 [Zakim]
20:05:27 [bwm_scribe]
??: has question re duration issue
20:05:34 [bwm_scribe]
20:05:47 [bwm_scribe]
evan: you said you would put something in about durations
20:06:03 [bwm_scribe]
jeff: jjc has sent email about adding a new section about duration
20:06:12 [bwm_scribe]
david: you can ask on list
20:06:25 [bwm_scribe]
s/you/evan you/
20:06:31 [bwm_scribe]
ralph: has he sent it yet
20:06:34 [bwm_scribe]
jeff: yesterday
20:06:50 [bwm_scribe]
vocab mgmt
20:06:54 [Ralph]
-> JJC; Re: [XSCH] possible note sketch
20:07:05 [bwm_scribe]
tom: we discussed in f2f which vocabs would be featured
20:07:15 [bwm_scribe]
... foaf and dc are in
20:07:20 [bwm_scribe]
... what about skos?
20:07:43 [bwm_scribe]
... alistair you suggest that skos illustrates some of the good practices
20:07:56 [bwm_scribe]
alistair: I'm happy for it to be used if other folks are happy iwth that
20:08:09 [bwm_scribe]
tom: lets put it in and review in draft
20:08:20 [bwm_scribe]
tom: re wordnet
20:08:28 [bwm_scribe]
... its not going to be ready
20:08:51 [bwm_scribe]
... part 2 has practices like use uri references
20:08:59 [bwm_scribe]
... and part 3 where things are less clear
20:09:16 [bwm_scribe]
... since wordnet is not a maintained vocab in the same sense as others
20:09:24 [bwm_scribe]
... didn't seem like a candidate for part 2
20:09:32 [bwm_scribe]
... but could look at it for part 3
20:09:43 [bwm_scribe]
... does anyone have a strong opinion
20:09:51 [bwm_scribe]
... shame aldo isn't here today
20:09:57 [bwm_scribe]
... he did volunteer to produce some info
20:10:08 [bwm_scribe]
... about practice in the context of wordnet
20:10:24 [bwm_scribe]
... but I'm assuming that at this point this will go into part 3
20:10:56 [Ralph]
q+ to re-raise the OASIS Published Subject idea
20:10:56 [bwm_scribe]
... I've been in touch with prism vocab maintainers
20:11:02 [bwm_scribe]
... they are a good candidate
20:11:16 [bwm_scribe]
... they exemplify principles of good practice
20:11:25 [bwm_scribe]
... they are looking to see if they have a w3c member
20:11:44 [bwm_scribe]
... otherwise I was proposing them I work with them to put in information about prism as appropriate with their help
20:11:49 [bwm_scribe]
... comments or objects?
20:12:17 [bwm_scribe]
... prism is a dc based vocab for print and magazine publishers
20:12:35 [bwm_scribe]
... there still is a need for a candidate vocab for a larger scale thesaurus or ontology
20:12:45 [bwm_scribe]
... that could illustrate some of the principles of good practice
20:13:00 [DavidW]
20:13:01 [bwm_scribe]
???: there is one at FAO (fisheries?)
20:13:05 [aliman]
q+ to talk about examples
20:13:23 [DavidW]
USe the queue, please
20:13:25 [bwm_scribe]
??? its not clear we have one that is ready
20:13:26 [aliman]
??? is tomB
20:13:31 [DavidW]
ack Ralph
20:13:31 [Zakim]
Ralph, you wanted to re-raise the OASIS Published Subject idea
20:13:32 [Ralph]
20:13:36 [Ralph]
20:13:55 [bwm_scribe]
zakim, ack ralph
20:13:55 [Zakim]
I see aliman on the speaker queue
20:14:10 [bwm_scribe]
ralph: I wondered specifically about oasis published subjects
20:14:22 [bwm_scribe]
... have you had a chance to consider that
20:14:38 [bwm_scribe]
tom: oasis published subjects is already in there
20:14:45 [bwm_scribe]
... do you mean as a thesaurus
20:14:57 [bwm_scribe]
ralph: as an example of vocabulary that will be maintained
20:15:09 [bwm_scribe]
... I was thinking of f2f discussion
20:15:29 [bwm_scribe]
... we don't want to point to people whom we are not confident will continue to followb best practice
20:15:58 [bwm_scribe]
.. bringing oasis into a discussion aboout sw best practice might have other good effects
20:16:15 [bwm_scribe]
tom: we already have them in the introduction
20:16:29 [bwm_scribe]
... but that is not looking at them as a thesaurus.
20:16:34 [bwm_scribe]
... its already in there
20:16:46 [bwm_scribe]
david: alistair
20:16:52 [Zakim]
aliman, you wanted to talk about examples
20:17:26 [bwm_scribe]
alistair: if you used published subjects that would be an example of identifying terms indirectly
20:17:33 [bwm_scribe]
... and there is nothing in the draft about that
20:17:38 [bwm_scribe]
... we'd have to expand the document
20:17:55 [Ralph]
q+ to distinguish features of Published Subject vocabulary ala Wordnet
20:17:56 [bwm_scribe]
... second thing is I've just posted a couple examples of large thesauri that have published in RDF
20:18:05 [bwm_scribe]
... they are not maintaining as an rdf vocab
20:18:17 [bwm_scribe]
... they are conversions from other forms of vocabs
20:18:30 [DavidW]
ack ralph
20:18:30 [Zakim]
Ralph, you wanted to distinguish features of Published Subject vocabulary ala Wordnet
20:18:47 [bwm_scribe]
ralph: I want to distinguish different aspects of why published subjects may be interesting
20:19:07 [bwm_scribe]
... they are using some specific techniques that are out of scope for vm
20:19:25 [bwm_scribe]
... but contrasts with wordnet which is large and has a maintenance activity
20:19:37 [bwm_scribe]
... which we are unlikely to be able to influence
20:20:00 [bwm_scribe]
... but published subjects may have a less well established maintenance process
20:20:28 [bwm_scribe]
... our practice should be independent of semantics of vocab
20:20:46 [bwm_scribe]
david: rdf in xhtml
20:20:58 [bwm_scribe]
david: I'll mention thtat there have been several messages on list
20:21:08 [bwm_scribe]
... from jjc and mark, also from ben
20:21:21 [bwm_scribe]
... big question is whether html wg addressed rdf/a
20:21:35 [bwm_scribe]
ralph: we checked the web
20:21:41 [bwm_scribe]
... best we could find was the irc logs
20:21:49 [bwm_scribe]
... acknowledged our encouragement
20:21:58 [bwm_scribe]
... but no specific discussion
20:22:06 [bwm_scribe]
... they are moving to last call
20:22:17 [bwm_scribe]
david: did they note jjc's feedback
20:22:28 [bwm_scribe]
... jjc's feedback was substantial and on point
20:22:49 [bwm_scribe]
ralph: the message sent to the tf mailing list didn't have a lot of detail
20:23:03 [bwm_scribe]
... they clarified the issues
20:23:12 [bwm_scribe]
... didn't say they'd resolved the issues
20:23:23 [bwm_scribe]
... I'm asking if there can be more detail
20:23:39 [bwm_scribe]
... I didn't get a warm cosy feeling that resolutions would appear in the last working draft
20:23:51 [bwm_scribe]
... mark has said there is not a lot of work to be done
20:24:18 [bwm_scribe]
david: should we take an action to follow up more directly
20:24:37 [bwm_scribe]
ralph: I will be asking steven permberton for more detailed records of their meeting
20:25:02 [bwm_scribe]
... as a practical matter, that wg is trying to go to last call this month
20:25:56 [bwm_scribe]
ACTION: ralph contact steve pemberton to clarify html wg's position on inclusion of rdf/a in their last call wd.
20:26:02 [bwm_scribe]
david: anyone from adtf
20:26:05 [bwm_scribe]
20:26:13 [DavidW]
Tom Adams' notes on Tutorial Page:
20:26:45 [bwm_scribe]
david: se task force
20:26:47 [PhilT]
20:26:55 [bwm_scribe]
ralph: lets postpone because of time
20:27:10 [bwm_scribe]
ACTION: david put on agenda for two weeks time
20:27:30 [bwm_scribe]
phil: please send feedbacl on draft terms of reference
20:27:36 [Ralph]
-> Software Engineering Task Force Terms of Reference - For Discussion [PhilT 2004-11-17]
20:27:38 [bwm_scribe]
... posted yesterday
20:27:50 [bwm_scribe]
david: last minute comments/questions
20:27:52 [bwm_scribe]
20:27:55 [Zakim]
20:27:57 [bwm_scribe]
20:27:59 [Zakim]
20:28:01 [Zakim]
20:28:03 [Zakim]
20:28:06 [Zakim]
20:28:07 [Zakim]
20:28:09 [Zakim]
20:28:11 [Zakim]
20:28:13 [Zakim]
20:28:15 [Zakim]
20:28:17 [Zakim]
SW_BPD()2:00PM has ended
20:28:19 [Zakim]
Attendees were Phil_Tetlow, Ralph, Fabien, Andreas_Harth, Tom_Baker, Alistair_Miles, Evan_Wallace, Steve_Pepper, Guus_Schreiber, bwm, Jeff, [Tucana], David_Wood
20:28:29 [Ralph]
rrsagent, please make logs world-visible
20:28:32 [Ralph]
zakim, bye
20:28:32 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #swbp
20:28:35 [Ralph]
rrsagent, bye
20:28:35 [RRSAgent]
I see 6 open action items:
20:28:35 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: david to propose a telecon schedule fo rthe new year [1]
20:28:35 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
20:28:35 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ralph take up with CG tomorrow [2]
20:28:35 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
20:28:35 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: guus to introduce from rdftm task force to the wg [3]
20:28:35 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
20:28:35 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: steve email 13250 to the WG [4]
20:28:35 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
20:28:35 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: ralph contact steve pemberton to clarify html wg's position on inclusion of rdf/a in their last call wd. [5]
20:28:35 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
20:28:35 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: david put on agenda for two weeks time [6]
20:28:35 [RRSAgent]
recorded in