IRC log of swbp on 2005-03-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:08:41 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #swbp
14:08:41 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:09:32 [RalphS_]
RalphS_ has joined #swbp
14:10:03 [RalphS_]
Meeting: SemWeb Best Practices and Deployment
14:11:53 [bijanp]
bijanp has joined #swbp
14:11:55 [bijanp]
bijanp has left #swbp
14:12:34 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #swbp
14:12:39 [RalphS_]
zakim, this will be swbp
14:12:39 [Zakim]
ok, RalphS_; I see SW_BPD(TP)9:00AM scheduled to start 12 minutes ago
14:14:01 [RalphS_]
Chair: Guus
14:15:01 [libby]
libby has joined #swbp
14:15:11 [RalphS_]
14:15:17 [RalphS_]
... Ralph Swick, W3C
14:15:22 [RalphS_]
... Ivan Herman, W3C
14:15:38 [bijan]
bijan has joined #swbp
14:15:38 [RalphS_]
... Dan Brickley, W3C
14:15:55 [RalphS_]
Ralph lives 2 hrs from the f2f location
14:15:59 [RalphS_]
Ivan lives in Amsterdam
14:16:07 [RalphS_]
DanBri lives 8 hrs from here (in the UK)
14:16:12 [RalphS_]
... Mike Uschold, Boeing
14:16:23 [RalphS_]
... Andreas Harth, DERI
14:16:37 [RalphS_]
... Chris Welty, IBM Research, Yorktown Heights, NY
14:16:53 [Yoshio]
Yoshio has joined #swbp
14:17:01 [RalphS_]
... Alistair Miles, CCLRC
14:17:05 [RalphS_]
... Steve Pepper, Ontopia
14:17:11 [RalphS_]
... Phil Tetlow, IBM Consulting
14:17:18 [RalphS_]
... Evan Wallace, NIST
14:17:28 [ivan]
ivan has joined #swbp
14:17:44 [RalphS_]
... Gavin McKenzie, Adobe
14:17:54 [RalphS_]
... Bill McDaniel, Adobe
14:18:06 [RalphS_]
... Fabien Gandon, INRIA
14:18:34 [RalphS_]
... Libby Miller, ASemantics (Bristol Office)
14:18:44 [RalphS_]
... Noboru Shimizu, Internet Association Japan
14:19:17 [RalphS_]
... Tom Baker, Fraunhofer Gesellschaft
14:19:41 [RalphS_]
... David Wood, University of Maryland
14:19:57 [danbri-laptop]
danbri-laptop has joined #swbp
14:20:04 [RalphS_]
14:20:24 [RalphS_]
... Hiroki Sato, NTT Japan
14:20:33 [RalphS_]
... Yoshio Fukusige
14:20:41 [RalphS_]
... Marie-Claire Forgue
14:20:47 [RalphS_]
... Tom Croucher
14:21:03 [RalphS_]
... Bali Prasad
14:21:29 [RalphS_]
14:21:31 [RalphS_]
... Eric Miller
14:21:39 [RalphS_]
... David Provost
14:21:44 [Yoshio]
14:21:54 [RalphS_]
14:22:01 [RalphS_]
... Jeremy Carroll, HP
14:24:00 [Yoshio_]
Yoshio_ has joined #swbp
14:24:01 [danbri2]
danbri2 has joined #swbp
14:24:02 [aliman]
aliman has joined #swbp
14:24:13 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #swbp
14:24:25 [HiroyukiS]
HiroyukiS has joined #SWBP
14:25:01 [BalajiP]
BalajiP has joined #swbp
14:25:31 [RalphS]
RalphS has joined #swbp
14:26:03 [RalphS]
Jeremy: the TAG's reluctance to decide httpRange-14 is becoming a hinderance to the progress of a couple of our task forces
14:26:21 [danbri2]
14:27:22 [RalphS]
David: Addison Phillips asked if SWBPD would consider RFC 3066
14:27:44 [RalphS]
-> RFC 3066bis and the Semantic Web [Addison Phillips, 2005-03-02]
14:28:09 [pepper]
pepper has joined #swbp
14:28:57 [aharth]
aharth has joined #swbp
14:28:58 [DavidW]
DavidW has joined #swbp
14:29:01 [danbri-laptop]
danbri-laptop has joined #swbp
14:29:13 [ChrisW]
alistair volunteers to scribe SE
14:29:15 [sh1mmer]
sh1mmer has joined #swbp
14:29:23 [FabGandon]
FabGandon has joined #swbp
14:29:28 [ChrisW]
Jeremy volunteers to scribe VM
14:29:49 [ChrisW]
Andreas volunteers to scribe Port
14:30:03 [ChrisW]
Libby to scribe RDF XSG
14:32:33 [Christo]
Christo has joined #swbp
14:32:36 [FabGandon]
FabGandon has joined #swbp
14:32:38 [sh1mmer]
sh1mmer has joined #swbp
14:33:02 [aliman_scribe]
Phil about to talk about ODA ...
14:33:09 [aliman_scribe]
(ontology driven architecture)
14:33:18 [banbri]
banbri has joined #swbp
14:33:25 [Christo]
Jeremy volunteers to scribe VM
14:33:45 [Christo]
Andreas volunteers to scribe Port
14:33:52 [Christo]
Tom to scribe WN
14:34:03 [Christo]
Libby to scribe RDF XHTML
14:34:11 [aliman_scribe]
phil: at last f2f proposed to send message to IT community who have heard about SW ...
14:34:24 [aliman_scribe]
... to say: yes you can use SW to build systems ....
14:34:40 [aliman_scribe]
... here is primer on potential, links to technologies, benefits etc. ...
14:34:47 [Zakim]
SW_BPD(TP)9:00AM has now started
14:34:51 [ivan]
ivan has joined #swbp
14:34:52 [aliman_scribe]
... SE has published early draft of a note ...
14:35:08 [tbaker]
tbaker has joined #swbp
14:35:10 [aliman_scribe]
... since have had discussion around content ...
14:35:34 [aliman_scribe]
... posted latest version today to mailing list ...
14:35:47 [aliman_scribe]
... but has some potnetial problems - can discuss here today ...
14:35:54 [aliman_scribe]
... propose to start there. ...
14:36:00 [RalphS]
-> "Latest version of SE Draft" [Phil 2004-03-03]
14:36:07 [aliman_scribe]
... Phil thanks all who helped with the note so far ...
14:36:16 [aliman_scribe]
have made substantial changes over last 2-3 days ...
14:36:57 [banbri]
banbri has changed the topic to: SWBP F2F, agenda:
14:37:30 [Gavin]
Gavin has joined #swbp
14:37:40 [aliman_scribe]
14:37:42 [HiroyukiS]
HiroyukiS has joined #SWBP
14:37:44 [aliman_scribe]
posting from phil
14:38:12 [aharth]
aharth has joined #swbp
14:38:20 [pepper]
pepper has joined #swbp
14:38:32 [aharth]
14:38:40 [Guus]
Guus has joined #swbp
14:39:09 [Noboru]
Noboru has joined #swbp
14:39:27 [aliman_scribe]
phil goes through older version of the note ...
14:39:28 [Zakim]
+ +1.617.568.aaaa
14:39:40 [aliman_scribe]
describes what has changed in more recent version in response to comments ...
14:39:48 [RalphS]
zakim, aaaa is SWBP_MeetingRoom
14:39:48 [Zakim]
+SWBP_MeetingRoom; got it
14:40:28 [aliman_scribe]
Phil:... still some issues around style and administratvie content ...
14:40:48 [aliman_scribe]
.. abstract and intro have been cleaned up, more focussed
14:40:50 [aliman_scribe]
14:41:14 [aliman_scribe]
14:41:41 [aliman_scribe]
... docuemnt lacked focus, no clear objective, no target audience, too abstract (referring to old version) ...
14:41:49 [aliman_scribe]
... needed to be more meaty ...
14:42:11 [aliman_scribe]
... one way forward - specifiy audience ...
14:42:37 [aliman_scribe]
... objectives: to get people excited about possibilities for sw technlogies ...
14:43:11 [aliman_scribe]
... MDA from UML is powerful framework, we believe it can be augmented with SW technlgies ...
14:43:17 [Zakim]
14:43:19 [Zakim]
14:43:20 [Zakim]
14:43:36 [aliman_scribe]
... makes it possible to publish & discover ontologies etc...
14:43:45 [RalphS]
zakim, ??p7 is Jeff_Pan
14:43:45 [Zakim]
+Jeff_Pan; got it
14:43:45 [danbri]
zakim, ??P7 is Jeff
14:43:46 [Zakim]
I already had ??P7 as Jeff_Pan, danbri
14:44:08 [aliman_scribe]
... then discussed benefits ...
14:44:25 [aliman_scribe]
... with automated consistency checking get better quality of software, ...
14:44:42 [aliman_scribe]
maintenance costs reduced because of tie between model & sftwre ...
14:44:46 [aliman_scribe]
14:44:58 [aliman_scribe]
DavidW: ... aligned with Mike in general ...
14:45:06 [aliman_scribe]
section 3 (meat) did not reflect title ...
14:45:29 [aliman_scribe]
... expected to see more focus on ODA ... application of RDF/OWL to this aspect ...
14:46:09 [aliman_scribe]
... comments (1) concerns about tone/style (2) concern about direction of note ... latter more important than former ...
14:46:26 [aliman_scribe]
... uncomfortable with note moving forward as it stands .... but lots of value in this note ...
14:46:48 [aliman_scribe]
... would like more focus on ODA ... find direction to take this interesting note fowd.
14:47:07 [aliman_scribe]
Phil: issue of direction ... there is agreement that this thing is valuable. ...
14:47:25 [aliman_scribe]
... issue of charted for WG and whether directional note in this context is appropriate ...
14:47:39 [aliman_scribe]
... second point: grounding this note in current tecnlgies ....
14:47:51 [aliman_scribe]
latest version includes section about why OWL is relvnt here.
14:48:22 [aliman_scribe]
DavidW: would surprise me if some form of ontological approach wasn't used in case tools / case research / other form of MDA in the past ...
14:48:38 [aliman_scribe]
... need literatrue survey to find areas where ontlgy approaches were taken ...
14:48:49 [aliman_scribe]
then contrast with where OWL makes it better ...
14:49:16 [aliman_scribe]
... i.e. here is a big win for SW technlgies, here is background to people trying to do this thing in the past, cf. with OWL.
14:49:30 [aliman_scribe]
Phil: met to discuss this last night ... have literature refs ...
14:50:18 [aliman_scribe]
... after discussion agrred more merit.
14:50:39 [aliman_scribe]
ChrisW: was working in this 5 years ago ...
14:50:57 [aliman_scribe]
... 30 years of work in using declarative technologies in developing software ...
14:51:24 [aliman_scribe]
... what makes it different now is that, although OWL is nothing new wrt KR technlgies. ...
14:51:49 [aliman_scribe]
... but joining it with the web ... global, accessible, more relevant now, greater chance to succeed now ...
14:52:14 [aliman_scribe]
... similar to Java, nothing new but you have global accessibility to a standard ...
14:52:24 [aliman_scribe]
.... same goes for SW technlogy.
14:52:36 [aliman_scribe]
Guus: assuming we get something out there ...
14:52:45 [aliman_scribe]
is it convincing and concrete enough to have impact ...
14:53:07 [aliman_scribe]
... how relate to ODM work? ... talk about how to use these things in practise ...
14:53:32 [jjc]
jjc has joined #swbp
14:53:45 [aliman_scribe]
(strawman) give me a reason why we should publish this ?
14:53:54 [em]
em has joined #swbp
14:54:21 [jjc]
14:54:29 [aliman_scribe]
JeffP: good idea to have as many comments as poss for current draft note ...
14:54:32 [jjc]
q+ to record dissent
14:54:52 [aliman_scribe]
... agree with Mike's comments in that current note is too general ...
14:56:01 [aliman_scribe]
.JJC: is not part of agreement, does not beleieve document can be rescued in any way ...
14:56:04 [aliman_scribe]
14:56:38 [aliman_scribe]
jjc: dissent because: no clarity about any content, section 3 is the important, but only contains hype ...
14:56:48 [aliman_scribe]
... nothing of value in the note ...
14:56:57 [aliman_scribe]
... abstract does n ot relate to content ...
14:57:10 [aliman_scribe]
... this wg should not publish this doc ...
14:57:41 [aliman_scribe]
... document was circulated too early ...
14:58:16 [aliman_scribe]
... where is the value? What is worth doing further work on? Needs convincing.
14:58:21 [danbri]
14:58:32 [danbri]
14:58:50 [aliman_scribe]
MikeU: maybe could pull out some interesting points from the first draft to put into another doc ...
14:59:05 [aliman_scribe]
... potential for note on SW technlgies for SE ...
14:59:08 [fumi]
fumi has joined #swbp
14:59:46 [aliman_scribe]
... to jjc - on topics of automated se & MDA of value to write about relation of sw technliges to this?
14:59:47 [BalajiP]
BalajiP has joined #swbp
14:59:57 [aliman_scribe]
jjc: not appropriate for this WG.
15:00:21 [aliman_scribe]
... lots of other interesting ways that this could be exlpored ...
15:00:57 [aliman_scribe]
... in contrast the OMG docuemnt lacks directional big picture issues, but in terms on useful content it was worthwhile for our user community ...
15:01:29 [aliman_scribe]
... i.e. if someone asked me how to use swtechnl for se would direct them to OMG doc. ...
15:01:37 [aliman_scribe]
danrbi: scope for middle ground?
15:01:41 [aliman_scribe]
jjc: no.
15:02:40 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #swbp
15:03:06 [jjc]
jjc has joined #swbp
15:04:32 [aliman_scribe]
phil: question is who contributed to current docuemnt ...
15:04:51 [aliman_scribe]
contributors were phil, jeff pan and daniel oberle.
15:05:31 [DavidW]
Amy is working on another mike for us
15:05:33 [aliman_scribe]
Guus: to evan - should there be a link between the SE draft and the ODM draft?
15:05:52 [aliman_scribe]
evan: yes. should this be an 'how to use ODM?' doc ... no.
15:06:20 [aliman_scribe]
... there is a good place for aposition paper document ... saying there is huge potential, technliges are there, we just need to try it ...
15:06:26 [aliman_scribe]
... and ODM is trying to do that ...
15:06:39 [aliman_scribe]
... but we do need something that is more esciting than the ODM draft ...
15:06:42 [aliman_scribe]
(jjc nods)
15:07:17 [aliman_scribe]
jjc: not sure about hypotheytcial wquestion ... evan's description of doc scope sounded more positive ...
15:07:36 [aliman_scribe]
... but a long way from being convinced that appropriate for this WG to write ap osition paper ...
15:07:58 [aliman_scribe]
... but a position paper giving a roadmap doc is valuable ... but what is apprpriate forum. ...
15:08:18 [aliman_scribe]
Steve: needs to understand what is and is not appropriate for this WG. ...
15:08:41 [aliman_scribe]
thought it was about defining best practises and advnacing deployment, draw on work already done, on that basis describibng best way ...
15:08:47 [aliman_scribe]
... then how can we further deployment ...
15:09:06 [aliman_scribe]
...impression from the SE draft is that it is an exhortation to start doing things, rather than review of what has been done ...
15:09:27 [aliman_scribe]
... need to start doing things in practse, then write about doing them (rather than other way around).
15:09:41 [aliman_scribe]
DavidW: sensitive to charter, also needs of user community ...
15:09:59 [aliman_scribe]
charter says: guidelenise that are not based on former practise is out of scope ...
15:10:04 [aliman_scribe]
new research is out of scope ...
15:10:13 [aliman_scribe]
but in practise have a user community trying to figure stuff out ...
15:11:00 [aliman_scribe]
there are real world probs where semweb as whole and business commnuity could benefit from more standard ways of immigrating semweb into se ...
15:11:03 [aliman_scribe]
guidance to user community is why we are here ...
15:11:15 [aliman_scribe]
agrees that doc is no go in current form ...
15:11:51 [aliman_scribe]
but has strong feeling that doc on ontological additions to se practise ... building on 30 years of research ... focussed note on how some of previous approaches could benefit from a semweb appraoch ...
15:12:03 [aliman_scribe]
would be a good note and encourage TF to go there.
15:12:11 [aliman_scribe]
ChrisW: only skimmed the doc ...
15:12:13 [Guus]
15:12:28 [aliman_scribe]
sees big opportunity, supports idea of this TF ...
15:12:40 [aliman_scribe]
se community has lots of momentum into area of overlap with semweb ....
15:12:49 [aliman_scribe]
(but maybe doesn't know it)
15:13:04 [aliman_scribe]
... important time to bridge to that sommunity if we want some influence there ...
15:13:13 [aliman_scribe]
.. the time is right, the technlgy is right ...
15:13:27 [aliman_scribe]
need to take advantage of opportunity to connectg to the community ...
15:13:40 [aliman_scribe]
if not they will invent their own technlgy and we lose a customer.
15:13:55 [aliman_scribe]
jjc: there is a case for making some sort of document in this area ...
15:14:23 [aliman_scribe]
jjc: maybe easier to connect in timely fashio without going through W3C process ...
15:14:38 [aliman_scribe]
... what about other forum e.g. se conference ...
15:15:13 [em]
15:15:15 [aliman_scribe]
.... not opposed to idea that something is publishable ... but still needs to be convinced.
15:15:45 [aliman_scribe]
Guus: be happier if note was based on identifying relationship between standards in se community and standards in the web world, abstract from that, high level view for what that could meean in the future ...
15:16:16 [aliman_scribe]
q+ to say that it sounds like what is needed is a workshop???
15:16:53 [aliman_scribe]
MikeU: general note probably not in scope ... but could have more focussed note that is in scope.
15:17:09 [BalajiP]
BalajiP has joined #swbp
15:17:44 [aliman_scribe]
Guus: happier with document doc that is about linking standards then adds a 'vision' section to say where we could go with this ...
15:17:50 [aliman_scribe]
(instead of just a 'vision' doc)
15:18:35 [aliman_scribe]
Evan: not sure what you mean ... because ODM is about linking standards.
15:18:52 [aliman_scribe]
guus: could build tools based on ODM that translate UML to OWL ...
15:19:18 [aliman_scribe]
so note could talk about this sort of thing then adda v ision section ... ?
15:19:51 [DavidW]
ack aliman
15:19:51 [Zakim]
aliman_scribe, you wanted to say that it sounds like what is needed is a workshop???
15:20:13 [Christo]
alistair: I don't know what I'm talkking about, but this sounds like networking with people, setting up workshops, outreach
15:20:28 [Christo]
...sounds like out of scope?
15:20:29 [danbri]
q+ to suggest some practicalities to add, to balance 'vision' aspects with nearterm (eg. use cases "find me blogs/IM/tel no of people whose classes implement this interface I'm thinking of changing... find me free software components that meet some API and are certified by Org X..")
15:20:30 [DavidW]
ack jjc
15:20:31 [Zakim]
jjc, you wanted to record dissent
15:20:47 [aliman_scribe]
phil: has been excitiment about workshops ...
15:20:53 [aliman_scribe]
will probably happen anyway ...
15:21:04 [aliman_scribe]
but why do through W3C? people pay attention to W3C ...
15:21:18 [DavidW]
q+ to address whether W3c/SWBP is the right forum
15:21:21 [aliman_scribe]
lots of people looking for advice in this area .. look to W3C as authoritatvie.
15:22:27 [aliman_scribe]
... but llok at it from the outside from a professional who is despserate for guidanec who knew that W3C had been playing around with this stuff ...
15:22:42 [aliman_scribe]
but then didn't publish anything because of procedure .. looks bad. ...
15:23:02 [aliman_scribe]
what would be of benefit is if control of current SE draft is passed to someone else?
15:23:06 [jjc]
jjc has joined #swbp
15:23:30 [aliman_scribe]
danbri: W3C has been changing ... used to prepare things in private fora ... drafts like this not findable buy the public ...
15:24:00 [aliman_scribe]
process is evolving to do the work in public ... but there is lack of guidelines for building drafts in public view.
15:24:17 [aliman_scribe]
... draft has potential but needs more practidcal stuff in addition to vision ...
15:24:54 [aliman_scribe]
... there are use cases from e.g. extreme programming ....
15:25:13 [aliman_scribe]
... pracitcal examples from collaborative SE .. ?
15:25:44 [aliman_scribe]
guus: suggest that a purely visionary document is out of scope for this WG, outside our charter. ...
15:26:10 [danbri]
(my ref: pragamatic programmer,
15:26:16 [aliman_scribe]
could live with a document that contains a visionary section but contains practical links between communities, clearly extablished pragmatics which gives some beef to the vision, acceptable?
15:26:17 [RalphS]
rrsagent, pointer?
15:26:17 [RRSAgent]
15:26:21 [aliman_scribe]
Phil: yes.
15:26:26 [danbri] w/ Dave Thomas,
15:26:53 [aliman_scribe]
Evan: what do we mean by best practices & deployment? don't agree with jjc, has wider view about the goal of this group.
15:27:01 [aliman_scribe]
guus: discuss tomorrow afternnon.
15:27:10 [aliman_scribe]
guus: have clear charter wrt this.
15:27:28 [danbri]
(results of hacking w/ Dave Thomas, )
15:27:42 [aliman_scribe]
Evan: But have goal to see deploymnent of current tools in new domain ... which is goal of having paper e.g. SE draft ...
15:27:59 [RalphS]
rrsagent, please make logs world-visible
15:28:27 [aliman_scribe]
... test is we need examples of people already using this in this domain but nobody is doing that.
15:28:28 [em]
15:28:28 [danbri]
also: is relevant
15:28:30 [danbri]
15:28:46 [tbaker] - the Charter
15:28:48 [aliman_scribe]
MikeU: i.e. hard to talk about best practise when nothing is being practiced.
15:29:09 [aliman_scribe]
DavidW: uncomfortable with purely visionary work .. but try to find middle ground ...
15:29:40 [aliman_scribe]
i.e. there is significant body of former work ... so could put out a doc that says: here's how to take the ontological approach *with OWL* ...
15:29:58 [aliman_scribe]
i..e. here is a big win for you by using semweb technlgies ...
15:30:06 [aliman_scribe]
15:30:39 [aliman_scribe]
Phil: hears that we have agreement to proceed, but need to ground in current technololgies and real world expectations.
15:30:44 [aliman_scribe]
... objections?
15:31:29 [aliman_scribe]
jjc: some characterisations of the possible path for this document sound ok ... certainly not against some of the characterisations that have been suggested ...
15:32:00 [aliman_scribe]
liked Guus's chatacterisation: grounded in relations between work already done in SE community, work already done in SW commnty, links between ...
15:32:05 [danbri]
(maybe we could tweak the taskforce charter to capture whatever this concensus is...?)
15:32:20 [aliman_scribe]
Guus: hear consensus to move fwd with this doc in this direction.
15:33:14 [BalajiP]
BalajiP has joined #swbp
15:33:33 [aliman_scribe]
Guus: propses action to phil to updated SETF charter accordingly.
15:33:34 [danbri]
danbri: (said) maybe we could tweak the taskforce charter to capture whatever this concensus is...?
15:33:40 [em]
this is a 'bridge' document between communities... the more study the bridge in terms of concrete connections the more weight this bridge can support in bringing people over and understanding how these communities relate
15:33:54 [aliman_scribe]
Phil: thinks doc would benefit from someone else taking charge.
15:34:00 [aliman_scribe]
... any volunteers?
15:34:06 [aliman_scribe]
15:35:04 [Zakim]
15:35:10 [aliman_scribe]
jeff agrees to take the lead with the SE draft.
15:35:20 [aliman_scribe]
everyone thanks jeff
15:35:27 [danbri]
(applause for jeff)
15:35:31 [danbri]
15:35:36 [JeffP]
15:36:02 [Zakim]
15:36:25 [RalphS]
zakim, BrittanicB is really SWBP_MeetingRoom
15:36:25 [Zakim]
+SWBP_MeetingRoom; got it
15:36:30 [aliman_scribe]
ACTION: phil to update SETF charter in light of new focus for SETF draft note
15:37:01 [Zakim]
15:37:03 [Tom]
Tom has joined #swbp
15:37:25 [danbri]
JeffB, I'm moblogging a photo of the room so you can visualize us ;) should show up soon in
15:38:03 [danbri]
15:39:27 [danbri]
15:39:44 [JeffP]
nice pic, thanks :-)
15:41:24 [danbri]
explains why we can't get so close to the mic ;)
15:41:40 [danbri]
(you are the little grey triangle in the middle...)
15:47:35 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #swbp
16:01:24 [RalphS]
--- reconvening ---
16:01:31 [RalphS]
Topic: Vocab Management
16:02:16 [jjc]
jjc has joined #swbp
16:02:32 [jjc_scribe]
Tom: introduces document
16:02:52 [jjc_scribe]
Tom has slides - URL???
16:02:54 [DanC_]
DanC_ has joined #swbp
16:03:13 [danbri]
q+ to note 2 sense of exemplary
16:03:37 [bijan]
bijan has joined #swbp
16:03:37 [jjc_scribe]
Slides will be circulated later
16:04:33 [DavidW]
DavidW has joined #swbp
16:05:23 [DavidW]
DavidW has joined #swbp
16:05:35 [aliman]
aliman has joined #swbp
16:05:55 [DanC_]
(hmm... identify terms with URIs... rather use URIs for terms? URIs like rdf:type don't identify terms; they are terms)
16:06:16 [DavidW]
DavidW has joined #swbp
16:06:29 [jjc_scribe]
Bleeding edge? means where definitive answers not yet available
16:08:13 [DavidW]
16:08:20 [danbri]
16:08:26 [DavidW]
16:08:48 [danbri]
(DCMI is Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, see )
16:09:28 [jjc_scribe]
In third section each issue is treated with two paragraphs
16:09:43 [jjc_scribe]
indicating different positions and links to further reading
16:10:24 [jjc_scribe]
DCMI documents can fit into this VM note
16:12:00 [jjc_scribe]
q+ to give Tom action on slides
16:14:36 [danbri]
tom: re other vocabs that are online in a "pre-SemWeb" way...
16:14:43 [danbri]
(many are thesauri; i wonder the relationship to SKOS...)
16:15:03 [DavidW]
ACTION: TomB to post URL to his VM TF slides
16:15:08 [DavidW]
q- jjc
16:15:30 [DavidW]
16:17:47 [DavidW]
I like TomB's ideas for a 3rd party endorsement model for vocab extensions
16:18:18 [DanC_]
simplest way for DCMI to endorse such a statement is to say it in a document they publish, seems to me
16:19:00 [danbri]
(aside: I've just restored from spam damage, linked to the SWBP Software Eng'ing TF)
16:19:34 [DavidW]
Endorsement is different from original assertion
16:20:28 [jjc_scribe]
Shared formalisms -last slide - particularly between foaf dc and skos communities
16:21:13 [DanC_]
not necessarily, DavidW
16:22:45 [jjc_scribe]
LoC issue to do with endorsement is current concrete problem facing DC community
16:22:52 [jjc_scribe]
LoC = Library of Congress
16:23:02 [danbri]
q+ to mention from SWIF F2F on tuesday (DCMI can just say things re MARC on their site; but can explore digital signature aspects for extra assurance)
16:23:20 [DanC_]
endorsement at the document level is straightforward. Endorsement at the statement level is more tricky.
16:23:59 [jjc_scribe]
Tom finishes talk.
16:24:13 [DavidW]
ack danbri
16:24:13 [Zakim]
danbri, you wanted to mention from SWIF F2F on tuesday (DCMI can just say things re MARC on their site; but can explore digital
16:24:16 [Zakim]
... signature aspects for extra assurance)
16:24:21 [jjc_scribe]
DanBri draws attention to talk by Jose
16:24:32 [jjc_scribe]
(sorry ascii keyboard)
16:24:59 [pepper]
16:25:03 [aliman]
q+ to talk about note scoping
16:25:16 [DavidW]
ack aliman
16:25:16 [Zakim]
aliman, you wanted to talk about note scoping
16:25:23 [jjc_scribe]
Ralph points out that signing is new work, and hence out of scope for this paper
16:25:43 [jjc_scribe]
Alistair: Tom wants us to discuss scoping of current note
16:25:44 [Noboru]
Noboru has joined #swbp
16:26:07 [danbri]
(also I should've said, just pls take a look thru Jose's slides, if you missed his talk... was only an aside re this current agenda item)
16:26:28 [jjc_scribe]
Alistair: however title seems inappropriate e.g. "managing a vocab for SW - review of current practice"
16:26:34 [DanC_]
+1 title should say "this document asks more questions than it answers"
16:26:44 [ivan]
16:26:59 [jjc_scribe]
Alistair: best practice may not be cuirrent practice
16:27:32 [jjc_scribe]
TomB: the middle bit of doc is good practice
16:27:42 [jjc_scribe]
Alistair: I've just changed my mind ...
16:27:51 [DavidW]
ack ivan
16:27:58 [jjc_scribe]
Ralph: I hope this TF will propose best practice
16:28:14 [jjc_scribe]
q+ to say best practice can be understood as best current practice
16:28:54 [danbri]
(re how we do stuff in FOAF scene, last thing I wrote on this was in )
16:28:56 [jjc_scribe]
Ivan: these questions come up a lot, examples of how people approach these questions would be very valuable
16:29:20 [DavidW]
ack jjc
16:29:20 [Zakim]
jjc_scribe, you wanted to say best practice can be understood as best current practice
16:29:22 [jjc_scribe]
Mike: suggest title should be "Managing Vocabs on the SW" not "for"
16:29:28 [DavidW]
16:29:37 [RalphS]
JJC: I think "best practices" means "best current practices"
16:29:55 [Zakim]
DanC_, you wanted to offer to fly by some TAG issues that seem VM-related, now that VM moved to today
16:29:57 [DavidW]
ack Danc
16:30:07 [jjc_scribe]
Alistair: howabout "Managing SW Vocabs"
16:30:23 [jjc_scribe]
DanC: couple of TAG issues related:
16:30:35 [aliman]
8 14 35
16:30:49 [danbri]
16:30:57 [jjc_scribe]
those were the three issue numbers
16:31:09 [danbri]
16:31:16 [danbri]
16:31:27 [danbri]
16:32:06 [ivan]
16:32:07 [jjc_scribe]
DanC: namespace Document 8
16:32:21 [jjc_scribe]
DanC: this is vocab management related ....
16:32:45 [jjc_scribe]
DanC: TAG has been discussing RDF Schema's XML Schema, RDDL, HTML docs
16:33:22 [jjc_scribe]
DanC: the XML Schema validation service will follow RDDL docs
16:33:34 [jjc_scribe]
DavidW: what do you want this TF to do?
16:33:53 [jjc_scribe]
DanC: I'm just drawing your attention to these
16:33:59 [jjc_scribe]
DanC: httpRange 14
16:34:12 [jjc_scribe]
DanC: what is the range of http deref function?
16:34:21 [ivan]
16:34:33 [jjc_scribe]
DanC: this is the hash versus slash issue
16:34:49 [jjc_scribe]
DanC: RDF in XHTML 35 will be elsewhere on agenda
16:34:51 [ivan]
16:35:19 [danbri]
q+ to suggest http-range14 is a bigger block than the others, since namespace docs can be changed without as much disruptive as namespace URIs
16:35:35 [BalajiP]
BalajiP has joined #swbp
16:35:35 [DavidW]
ack ralph
16:35:35 [Zakim]
RalphS, you wanted to comment on TAG issues
16:36:05 [jjc_scribe]
RalphS: all three of these block deployment of applications and some of our TFs
16:36:26 [jjc_scribe]
Ralph: I would propose that WG find a TF that is responsible for each of these three
16:36:50 [jjc_scribe]
Ralph: I suggest we give actions to TF to develop WG position on each of these
16:36:54 [jjc_scribe]
JJC: seconded
16:37:10 [danbri]
(re -35/xhtml, that is a part of the namespace doc issue)
16:37:27 [DanC_]
(oops; I forgot one... "social meaning" has a home in the TAG issues list )
16:37:33 [jjc_scribe]
DavidW xhtml35 is in rdfhtml tf
16:38:08 [jjc_scribe]
TomB: I would like to get a short note out quick, and not get hung up on these issues
16:38:33 [jjc_scribe]
TomB: going beyond recording current TAG position is something we should do later
16:38:45 [DavidW]
ack danbri
16:38:45 [Zakim]
danbri, you wanted to suggest http-range14 is a bigger block than the others, since namespace docs can be changed without as much disruptive as namespace URIs
16:38:51 [jjc_scribe]
DanC: acknowldgeding existenc eof issue is fine,
16:39:00 [jjc_scribe]
DanBri: prioritizing
16:39:13 [jjc_scribe]
DanBri: as namespace owner with URI ending in /
16:39:36 [jjc_scribe]
DanBri: with limited attention we should work on this issue not namespace docs
16:39:48 [jjc_scribe]
DanBri: easier to change namespace doc than namespace URI
16:40:15 [DavidW]
16:40:32 [DanC_]
(you could be more explicit, danbri: it's easier to change a namespace document than to change all the documents that refer to it)
16:40:39 [jjc_scribe]
Guus: asking DanBri should we be taking a position and reporting that to TAG?
16:40:42 [DavidW]
ack ralph
16:40:50 [danbri]
(nice formulation, danc)
16:41:28 [jjc_scribe]
Ralph: I would like it to be more explicit, the WG should acknowledge its responsibility to state a position
16:41:49 [danbri]
(I don't think VM TF first Working Draft needs to wait for a position on http-range-14)
16:41:52 [jjc_scribe]
q+ to ask for straw poll on httpRange 14
16:42:19 [jjc_scribe]
Ralph: we should not punt this to TAG
16:42:22 [danbri]
16:42:34 [jjc_scribe]
+1 from jjc
16:42:56 [DavidW]
ack jjc
16:42:56 [Zakim]
jjc_scribe, you wanted to ask for straw poll on httpRange 14
16:42:57 [jjc_scribe]
Guus: prefer to have discussion tomorrow
16:43:55 [jjc_scribe]
DavidW: issue httpRange14 deferred to tomorrow 12 and 1
16:44:20 [jjc_scribe]
TomB: I want to ensure we set milestones for VM note
16:44:27 [ChrisW]
q+ to be sure there will be someone here tomorrow that can represent the tag's position
16:44:34 [jjc_scribe]
TomB: March is difficult
16:44:57 [jjc_scribe]
TomB: is it reasonable to have first draft by mid-May
16:45:39 [jjc_scribe]
Guus: midMay is a bit far away
16:45:51 [jjc_scribe]
TomB: still awaiting some input
16:46:02 [DavidW]
We are over time for this TF now and need to deal with immediate planning issues. DanC has raised the issue and we will determine a WG consensus on it tomorrow when we have time.
16:46:13 [danbri]
(re timing/contribs, I only have time to commit in April... march is taken for EU bids; may is also uncertain)
16:46:16 [DanC_]
(er... it's an editor's draft now.)
16:46:21 [jjc_scribe]
TomB: if input came mid-April, then we could circulate an editors draft by end-April
16:46:30 [DavidW]
q- ChrisW
16:46:34 [jjc_scribe]
as 'candidate working draft'
16:46:46 [danbri]
(new terminology, but also used in DAWG...)
16:46:49 [DanC_]
i.e. a proposal from the editor to the WG to publish as WD
16:47:08 [jjc_scribe]
Guus: who in particular are we waiting for? (inputs to VM note)
16:47:36 [jjc_scribe]
TomB: pillars are DCMI Foaf skos and relevant TAG issues
16:48:31 [jjc_scribe]
DavidW: what is a realistic time? (asking TomB)
16:48:45 [jjc_scribe]
TomB: for foaf we need text
16:48:53 [DanC_]
DanC: [after FYI re tag issues]. I encourage you, while working on vocabularies, either as a WG (ala SKOS) or individually (ala foaf, ...) to be aware of your approach to these issues and think about whether you'd advise others to do likewise or not.
16:48:56 [jjc_scribe]
DanBri: I can't do it in March, but can in April
16:49:22 [danbri]
(well, maybe last week of march...)
16:49:32 [jjc_scribe]
Alistair can we do it faster
16:49:48 [RalphS]
RalphS has joined #swbp
16:50:06 [jjc_scribe]
TomB: I want input from DanBri and Libby, and they are not available in March
16:50:20 [jjc_scribe]
Alistair: but the foaf bits are only an hour's work
16:50:33 [danbri]
(url for doc?)
16:50:40 [jjc_scribe]
DanBri: have you factored in procrastination time
16:51:01 [jjc_scribe]
Guus: it would be good to have this out soon
16:51:44 [jjc_scribe]
Jeremy: let's publish without foaf just a tbd
16:51:54 [jjc_scribe]
TomB: draft is currently in Wiki
16:52:04 [danbri]
there is
16:52:06 [danbri]
16:52:11 [danbri]
ah, Tom: I have a version that goes beyond that
16:52:48 [danbri]
I see " TASK: DanBri or Libby - Describe W3C usage of the word "namespace""
16:52:51 [jjc_scribe]
DanC: I read through this, but I can see it taking it significant time, it's not ready to go
16:52:52 [danbri]
a big job in itself
16:52:58 [jjc_scribe]
TomB: agreed
16:53:22 [jjc_scribe]
Guus: with a midMay schedule for WG vote
16:53:39 [aharth_scribe]
PORT taskforce
16:53:39 [RalphS]
Topic: PORT TF
16:53:51 [jjc_scribe]
Guus: timeline is that we aim for WG vote midMay, 'candidate working draft' two weeks before
16:54:55 [DanC_]
(did he ask to display this? )
16:55:17 [aharth_scribe]
Alistair: trying to get input from the group on technical bits
16:55:38 [aharth_scribe]
... presents
16:55:39 [DanC_]
(rather... )
16:55:56 [DanC_]
-> SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification W3C Working Draft In Preparation
16:57:33 [aharth_scribe]
... policy statements: naming (how we form URIs), persistence (URI should stay for a time), change (how URIs change), maintainance (how vocabularies evolve)
16:57:34 [jjc]
q+ to ask about RDF and OWL vocab management??
16:57:55 [DanC_]
(hmm... hasn't really been enacted)
16:57:59 [jjc2]
jjc2 has joined #swbp
16:58:57 [tbaker]
q+ to suggest we discuss details of URI formation offline
16:58:59 [jjc]
jjc has joined #swbp
16:59:03 [aharth_scribe]
danbri: vocabulary definition should end with a slash
16:59:39 [RalphS]
16:59:41 [DanC_]
<owl:Ontology rdf:about="">...</> ...
17:00:04 [DavidW]
q- tbaker
17:00:16 [danbri]
aside to report RDFS namespace practice: [[
17:00:17 [danbri]
17:00:17 [danbri]
17:00:17 [danbri]
dc:title="The RDF Schema vocabulary (RDFS)"/>
17:00:18 [danbri]
17:00:38 [DanC_]
is that # really in there, danbri? that surprises me
17:00:42 [danbri]
17:01:03 [tbaker]
17:01:15 [aharth_scribe]
Alistair: uppercase/lowercase convention for classes and properties
17:01:56 [DanC_]
ack danc
17:02:34 [danbri]
alistair, is my review comments on this; quite a lot of comment re policy aspects (+ draft text)
17:02:35 [aharth_scribe]
danc: points out that the Persistence Policy is a draft
17:02:54 [DavidW]
jjc, aliman has raised it as an issue and has an intention of covering it as part of the document review
17:03:00 [mimasa]
mimasa has joined #swbp
17:03:05 [DavidW]
ack danc
17:03:15 [DavidW]
ack jjc
17:03:15 [Zakim]
jjc, you wanted to ask about RDF and OWL vocab management??
17:03:50 [aharth_scribe]
ACTION: RalphS check whether it's ok to cite
17:04:10 [RalphS]
ACTION Ralph: inform the W3C Communications Team that we intend to cite as "W3C URI Persistence Policy"
17:04:37 [em]
q+ to ask if the persistence policy is in the prose document along with the schema declaration?
17:05:29 [DanC_]
what change was just agreed by the editor?
17:05:56 [aharth_scribe]
ACTION: alistair to change the wording of the link to "the persistence policy at URL http:"
17:05:56 [RalphS]
(some change which I hope doesn't result in a URI-in-your-face)
17:06:19 [DanC_]
ew ew ew. please don't do "policy at..." i.e. don't use in-your-face URIs, please.
17:06:48 [RalphS]
i.e. I hope the editor takes the intent of the ACTION wording and not the precise letter of that wording
17:07:20 [jjc]
q+ to ask for hyperlinks for DCMI class A B C D etc
17:07:39 [DavidW]
17:07:59 [aharth_scribe]
Alistair: re change, three levels of stability: unstable, testing, and stable
17:08:11 [jjc]
17:08:13 [danbri]
tom: see 'dcmi namespace policy'
17:08:29 [DanC_]
google nominates
17:08:38 [pepper]
17:08:50 [danbri]
q+ to try to smmarise my comments from
17:08:54 [DanC_]
Namespace Policy for the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) Date Issued: 2001-10-26
17:09:37 [danbri]
(alistair, see 8) Policy Statements in my )
17:09:45 [DavidW]
ack em
17:09:45 [Zakim]
em, you wanted to ask if the persistence policy is in the prose document along with the schema declaration?
17:10:18 [aharth_scribe]
em: persistence policy in prose or in machine-readable format?
17:10:29 [RalphS]
17:11:06 [tbaker]
17:11:41 [RalphS]
EricM: I'd like to see stability statements made in machine-readable form within the schema declarations
17:12:07 [DavidW]
ack danbri
17:12:07 [Zakim]
danbri, you wanted to try to smmarise my comments from
17:12:39 [aharth_scribe]
ACTION Alistair: think about machine-readable change policies
17:13:05 [RalphS]
q+ to ask about importance of javascript within SKOS Core spec document
17:13:50 [jjc]
q+ to talk about life after WG
17:14:08 [DavidW]
ack danc
17:14:08 [Zakim]
DanC_, you wanted to note and how I got stumped on TAG issue 41 and ontaria policy
17:15:38 [aharth_scribe]
danc: port document focus is thesauri, various tag issues are related to the issues raised in the draft
17:15:50 [DavidW]
ack tbaker
17:16:53 [DavidW]
ack ralph
17:16:53 [Zakim]
RalphS, you wanted to ask about importance of javascript within SKOS Core spec document
17:16:58 [aharth_scribe]
tbaker: articulate the larger context in which maintainance of terms is embedded
17:17:00 [DavidW]
q+ ralph
17:17:04 [DavidW]
ack jjc
17:17:04 [Zakim]
jjc, you wanted to talk about life after WG
17:17:41 [DavidW]
ack ralph
17:18:35 [aharth_scribe]
ralphs: javascript probably doesn't conform to pubrules
17:18:54 [DanC_]
(jjc, I'm not sure how OWL got out without a persistence policy in its namespace document... current pubrules prohibit that)
17:19:25 [tbaker]
q+ to propose that relevant w3c process docs be cited at this point
17:19:48 [danbri]
17:19:50 [danbri]
I am not personally in a position to make such pledges. Something
17:19:50 [danbri]
17:19:50 [danbri]
17:19:50 [danbri]
The Working Group is committed to a public, consensus-driven
17:19:50 [danbri]
design environment for SKOS, and to this end conducts SKOS-related
17:19:52 [danbri]
discussion in public, in particular drawing on feedback from the
17:19:52 [aharth_scribe]
alistair: presenting maintenance section that describes the procedure to change skos (consensus...)
17:19:54 [danbri]
Semantic Web Interest Group mailing list .
17:19:58 [danbri]
17:20:00 [danbri]
17:20:30 [jjc]
q+ to mention process doc
17:20:34 [tbaker]
1+ the points seem right
17:20:37 [tbaker]
17:20:54 [aharth_scribe]
alistair: should we leave the four things (naming, persistence,...) in the documents?
17:21:04 [aharth_scribe]
ACTION alistair: change the links to examples
17:21:07 [DanC_]
(I think the lack of established norms is the raison de etre of this BP WG)
17:21:09 [PhilT]
PhilT has joined #swbp
17:21:27 [danbri]
(+1 danc; I think we're test driving some VocabManagement ideas via this spec too)
17:21:42 [DanC_]
17:21:56 [aharth_scribe]
ralphs: what's the maintainance policy of a Note?
17:22:25 [DavidW]
ack jjc
17:22:25 [Zakim]
jjc, you wanted to mention process doc
17:23:11 [danbri]
q+ to propose my parags in
17:23:17 [aharth_scribe]
jjc: should we link to the process document (which we got past of it)
17:23:30 [DavidW]
ack ralph
17:23:34 [DavidW]
ack danbri
17:23:34 [Zakim]
danbri, you wanted to propose my parags in
17:23:44 [Guus]
17:23:48 [aharth_scribe]
danbri: three draft paragraphs to connect w3c processes with skos processes
17:24:06 [DavidW]
ack guus
17:24:34 [aharth_scribe]
guus: publish all skos core and skos guide together?
17:24:51 [aharth_scribe]
alistair: review status of guide: appraoved for first working draft
17:25:05 [DanC_]
(ah! now I know why we're not talking about thesaurus porting very much.)
17:25:50 [aharth_scribe]
guus: planning on timeline for three documents?
17:26:35 [tbaker]
17:26:53 [aharth_scribe]
alistair: 24th to go for all three documents
17:27:18 [aharth_scribe]
... third one reviewed once, second draft in review at the moment
17:28:19 [RalphS]
Alistair: target 17 March for updated versions of all 3 docs for discussion on 24 March
17:28:57 [aharth_scribe]
TOPIC: Applications and Demos
17:29:44 [cgi-irc]
cgi-irc has joined #SWBP
17:29:46 [aharth_scribe]
guus: what is a good application as convincing application for semantic web?
17:30:07 [aharth_scribe]
... business area and non-profit areas
17:30:28 [aharth_scribe]
libby: slides, might answer these questions
17:30:58 [aharth_scribe]
libby: weblog has descriptions about applications, using grddl and xslt
17:31:09 [aharth_scribe]
libby: doap vocabulary
17:31:21 [aharth_scribe]
... weblog difficult to use
17:31:56 [aharth_scribe]
... doap (description of a project) seems to be popular and fits well
17:32:13 [danbri]
re DOAP, see
17:33:09 [aharth_scribe]
libby: better workflow would be that people use doap to describe their projects themselves and TF links them
17:33:35 [aharth_scribe]
libby: what should be the criteria for inclusion?
17:33:43 [jjc]
jjc has joined #swbp
17:34:54 [aharth_scribe]
libby: presents doap descriptions from the weblog in a facetted browser
17:35:51 [DavidW]
17:36:14 [DavidW]
q- tbaker
17:36:44 [aharth_scribe]
libby: maybe combine DOAP submission with swig mailing list
17:37:03 [DavidW]
ack danc
17:37:03 [Zakim]
DanC_, you wanted to say moving DOAP out to the projects sounds great, but let's not let the tools discussion dominate. I think the Nature RSS paper is the best answer to Guus's
17:37:07 [Zakim]
... question that I've seen
17:37:09 [aharth_scribe]
mike: there should be a form to create the descriptions
17:37:10 [danbri]
(see for a form that generates DOAP project descriptions)
17:37:15 [bijan]
bijan has joined #swbp
17:37:39 [aharth_scribe]
danc: good strategy using doap, but tools discussion shouldn't dominate
17:37:53 [aharth_scribe]
... rss nature paper best answering guus' question
17:38:13 [aharth_scribe]
libby: what should be the policy for inclusion?
17:38:14 [danbri]
q+ re inclusion
17:38:22 [danbri]
q+ to be liberal re inclusion
17:38:27 [aharth_scribe]
... open source downloads and applications available online
17:38:27 [danbri]
q- re
17:38:30 [danbri]
q- inclusion
17:38:34 [em]
17:38:41 [pepper]
q+ to ask if TM apps qualify...
17:39:03 [aharth_scribe]
guus: criteria from the semantic web challenge (maybe a subset)
17:39:09 [em]
q+ to suggest a criteria
17:39:11 [danbri]
17:39:50 [danbri]
17:39:54 [jjc]
jjc has joined #swbp
17:39:55 [Gavin]
q+ why restrict to open source?
17:40:12 [DavidW]
17:40:17 [aharth_scribe]
mike: don't exclude big impact semantic web applications because they're not download-able
17:40:19 [DavidW]
ack danbri
17:40:19 [Zakim]
danbri, you wanted to be liberal re inclusion
17:40:27 [FabGandon]
q+ different uses of the list
17:40:53 [aharth_scribe]
danbri: swc site uses frames
17:41:05 [DavidW]
ack ralph
17:41:05 [Zakim]
RalphS, you wanted to comment on persistence
17:42:01 [aharth_scribe]
ralphs: how do i find things that are useful to a particular user group?
17:42:20 [danbri]
(re Frames, see )
17:43:06 [FabGandon]
q+ to talk about different uses of the list and process
17:43:13 [DavidW]
ack pepper
17:43:13 [Zakim]
pepper, you wanted to ask if TM apps qualify...
17:43:25 [aharth_scribe]
steve: do topic map applications qualify?
17:43:43 [aharth_scribe]
... ie. omnigator
17:44:10 [DavidW]
ack em
17:44:10 [Zakim]
em, you wanted to suggest a criteria
17:44:28 [tbaker]
tbaker has joined #swbp
17:44:56 [DanC_]
omnigator... hmm... I can imagine a convincing case for its inclusion.
17:45:19 [danbri]
RSS/Nature paper was in D-Lib magazine, DanC. See
17:45:32 [aharth_scribe]
?: what about non-english applications?
17:45:44 [BalajiP]
Nature RSS paper:
17:45:45 [pepper]
well, the omnigator is a bit special, DanC_, because it *does* support RDF
17:46:02 [pepper]
(it's also free, in case anyone was wondering)
17:46:48 [DavidW]
ack FabGandon
17:46:48 [Zakim]
FabGandon, you wanted to talk about different uses of the list and process
17:46:54 [aharth_scribe]
mike: the selection shouldn't be too restrictive
17:46:56 [tbaker]
tbaker has joined #swbp
17:47:35 [aharth_scribe]
FabGandon: also concerned with the process (review in the group?)
17:47:46 [DavidW]
17:47:53 [bijan]
bijan has joined #swbp
17:48:54 [aharth_scribe]
davidw: possible to seperate between open and closed source and profit vs. non-profit
17:49:17 [aharth_scribe]
... maintained and not maintained
17:50:46 [aharth_scribe]
guus: discuss the process of inclusion tomorrow?
17:51:44 [RalphS]
17:51:46 [RalphS]
lunch break
17:51:47 [RalphS]
17:53:17 [Gavin]
Gavin has joined #swbp
18:13:00 [DanC_]
DanC_ has joined #swbp
18:25:44 [TomC]
TomC has joined #swbp
18:28:45 [DanC_]
DanC_ has joined #swbp
18:30:14 [BalajiP]
BalajiP has joined #swbp
18:47:20 [Gavin]
Gavin has joined #swbp
18:47:51 [DanC_]
ah... found it...
18:48:02 [DanC_]
-> The Role of RSS in Science Publishing
18:48:17 [DanC_]
18:48:17 [DanC_]
D-Lib Magazine
18:48:17 [DanC_]
December 2004
18:48:17 [DanC_]
Volume 10 Number 12
18:48:57 [pepper]
a tribe of competing 'street' standards :-)
18:49:46 [Yoshio_]
Yoshio_ has joined #swbp
18:49:53 [fumi]
fumi has joined #swbp
18:59:34 [danbri-laptop]
danbri-laptop has joined #swbp
19:00:12 [HiroyukiS]
HiroyukiS has joined #SWBP
19:01:16 [DanC_]
Topic: RDF-in-HTML TF discussion (Ben)
19:02:27 [danbri-laptop]
q+ to ask HTML guys about test cases and QA of RDF/A design (RDF syntaxes are hard to test) (when they arrive here...)
19:02:32 [ivan]
ivan has joined #swbp
19:03:37 [DavidW]
DavidW has joined #swbp
19:03:37 [scribe]
ben: xhtml wg is working on rdf/a
19:03:41 [scribe]
...we hope
19:03:48 [scribe]
...we're getting an update today
19:03:56 [scribe] GRDDL we are considering moving towards REC
19:04:01 [scribe] currently a CG Note
19:04:07 [scribe]
...the only one so far existing at W3C
19:04:13 [scribe]
...a bit of a no-mans land
19:04:25 [scribe]
...discussion that having it as WG-based REC would help
19:04:31 [scribe]
guus: what's status of comments on GRDDL?
19:04:41 [scribe]
....what would REC-track take care of?
19:04:53 [scribe]
ben: we need to make sure list of usecases is complete
19:05:11 [Noboru]
Noboru has joined #swbp
19:05:20 [danbri]
HTML WG arrive]
19:05:59 [DanC_]
i.e. Steven Pemberton,
19:06:09 [BalajiP]
BalajiP has joined #swbp
19:06:22 [David]
David has joined #swbp
19:06:51 [SteveH]
SteveH has joined #swbp
19:07:18 [RalphS]
Present+ Steven Pemberton, Mark Birbeck, Richard Schwerdtfeger, ...
19:07:22 [scribe]
stevenp updates us on status
19:07:33 [danbri]
stevenp: "we are discussing draft for LC WD of XHTML 2"
19:07:58 [scribe]
...the xhtml2 wd has been updated with the rdf stuff and we're discussing that now
19:08:10 [PhilT]
PhilT has joined #swbp
19:08:26 [danbri]
19:08:35 [DanC_]
(which of the links atop is the relevant one?)
19:08:41 [scribe]
...the mapping to triples is in there, though not in the depth taht it is in the rdfa document
19:08:43 [RalphS]
-> [Editor's] draft XHTML 2.0 24 February
19:09:07 [jjc]
jjc has joined #swbp
19:09:08 [RalphS]
(Member restricted)
19:09:14 [Steven]
Steven has joined #swbp
19:09:15 [scribe]
(member restricted link)
19:09:20 [MarkB_]
MarkB_ has joined #swbp
19:09:21 [Gavin]
Gavin has joined #swbp
19:09:34 [guus]
guus has joined #swbp
19:09:34 [benadida]
benadida has joined #swbp
19:09:38 [shinichi]
shinichi has joined #swbp
19:09:38 [RichS]
RichS has joined #swbp
19:09:48 [scribe]
-> [Editor's] draft XHTML 2.0 24 February
19:10:24 [ivan]
19:10:24 [Steven]
We weren't aware
19:10:25 [scribe]
...rdf a document needs to be updated
19:10:34 [Steven]
but no prob
19:10:34 [scribe]
19:10:44 [ChrisW]
what section should we be looking at?
19:10:53 [danbri]
meta and rdf is
19:11:27 [scribe]
??? hostory - decided it would be better to separte the metadta stuff from the html stuff - this is the rdfa document
19:11:35 [scribe]
19:11:48 [scribe]
...xhtml2 draft represents the final thinking
19:12:33 [DanC_]
(ah... ok, found some examples in 22. XHTML Metainformation Attributes Module )
19:12:54 [scribe]
stevenp: the only change is that only rdf:about is inherited, everything else has to be declared explicitly
19:13:05 [Steven]
19:13:08 [Steven]
not rdf:about
19:13:15 [scribe]
19:13:22 [DanC_]
(hmm... "Sorry, Forbidden" at )
19:14:18 [scribe]
mark(?) they thought they were finished with rdfa and then issues like making a page it's own foaf page or own rss feed
19:14:51 [danbri]
19:14:51 [scribe]
...href becomes special to solve this problem
19:14:53 [danbri]
ack danbri
19:14:53 [Zakim]
danbri-laptop, you wanted to ask HTML guys about test cases and QA of RDF/A design (RDF syntaxes are hard to test) (when they arrive here...)
19:15:48 [Noboru]
Noboru has joined #swbp
19:15:58 [scribe]
danbri: being sure you're right - in rdf wg first one was prose only, rdf core used testcases - do you have time to do this sort of thing?
19:16:27 [scribe]
mark: has tried to use the testcases, but many of them don;t carry over
19:16:29 [guus]
19:16:43 [scribe]
danbri: the methodology rather...
19:17:24 [scribe]
mark: right, tried to convert rdf document testcases to rdfa and then see if we get to the same n-trioples, but would like some more tests
19:17:41 [guus]
ack ivan
19:17:44 [scribe]
...using real documents eg foaf, be good to agree on some documents to use
19:18:12 [danbri]
(yup i think having real, use-casey examples + their ntriples would be better than using obscure corner cases)
19:18:15 [scribe]
ivan: richard ishida and others have a groupo called international tagset
19:18:30 [scribe]
...these might be close to what your inetrested in
19:18:47 [guus]
ack Ralph
19:20:06 [scribe]
ralph: is thrilled to see a document updated. his expactation was that rdfa wopuld get merged into the working draft and then disappear as a separate document - I think you're saying that it has life a s aseparate document. priority for him is the working draft not rdfa
19:20:51 [scribe] the material from the standalone document that we reviewed going in as is or substantially different?
19:21:23 [danbri]
(@url for RDF/A latest?)
19:21:25 [scribe]
stevenp: not substantially diffrent but b-nodes stuff didn't make it in to this draft
19:21:25 [ChrisW]
can someone post the RDF-A url
19:21:45 [benadida]
19:21:48 [benadida]
19:22:19 [scribe]
ralph: jeremy implemenbted the oct draft and seemed to end up with many more triples than expected - was that a prose mismatch to number of triples ... etc
19:22:32 [MikeU]
MikeU has joined #swbp
19:22:56 [guus]
19:22:58 [scribe]
...repeating jeremy's tests would be good - have you looked at that?
19:23:12 [danbri]
(ralph's point is exactly why I'd like a test case collection...)
19:23:22 [scribe]
steven: think all you have to do is change the namespace. otherwise it should just work
19:23:43 [scribe]
mark: the audience for rdf/a and xhtml2 is quite different
19:24:01 [scribe]
...not indepth explanation of rdf in xhtml2 draft
19:24:19 [scribe]
..point of rdf/a was to have somethign that we could all discuss...
19:24:49 [scribe]
...this should not stop xhtml2 going on its way but steven and I do want to finish rdf/a
19:25:20 [scribe]
...xhtml2 document not sufficient to determine if you get 3 triples or 5
19:25:26 [scribe]
steven disagrees
19:25:49 [scribe]
guus: was your intention to make the drafft less precise, or is this an error
19:25:52 [danbri]
q+ to suggest an intermediate position w.r.t. tests: each of several examples linking to exactly triple-equivlent rdf/xml files
19:26:02 [scribe]
mark: deliberate, for a diffeent audience
19:26:35 [scribe]
steven: suggests that you look at it and feedback to them
19:27:17 [scribe]
ralph: it's important that the syntax is tied to the level of mathematical precision that rdf has
19:27:29 [scribe]
..and that level was in the oct draft
19:27:31 [guus]
19:27:36 [scribe] needs to be there somewhere
19:28:36 [scribe]
mark: the whole reason for us producing rdf/a was to have these discussions
19:29:15 [scribe]
ralph: his expectation was that rdf/a was a vehicle for discusssion but that it would be reintegrated into the maintream of xhtml2
19:29:46 [scribe]
mark: not necessaily a problem but one motivation for taking it out was so that other languages could use it e.g. svg
19:30:03 [danbri]
mark: svg has a 'metadata' element, which as far as i can see is completely wasted... [missed rest of point]
19:30:14 [scribe]
ralph: fully supports that, although there may be objections that its out of scope
19:31:04 [scribe]
guus: we're not trying to bring you more work...and we can probably help
19:31:47 [scribe]
danbri: compromise perhaps: link to the examples and to an exactly equivalent rdf/xml version
19:31:51 [em]
em has joined #swbp
19:31:55 [scribe]
ralph volunteers to help
19:32:34 [scribe]
ralph: the taskforce on bahlf of the wg will provide some input
19:32:53 [RalphS]
I actually said "should provide some input"
19:33:02 [RalphS]
I can't make commitments on behalf of others
19:33:13 [scribe]
ben: maybe usecases, rdfa/xhtml2, rdf/xml could form a document
19:33:23 [scribe]
sorry ralph, thanks for the correction
19:33:44 [scribe]
danc: happy to review it when it's on the TR page
19:34:07 [scribe]
stevenp: not going to release a working draft version
19:34:18 [guus]
19:34:19 [scribe]
...suspect 2 last calls will be needed anyway
19:34:27 [danbri]
19:34:33 [danbri]
q- ralphs
19:34:38 [danbri]
q- danc_
19:34:50 [DanC_]
(er... who ended up with the action there?)
19:34:58 [benadida]
(I ahve the action)
19:35:05 [DanC_]
19:35:14 [scribe]
stevenp: one thing that's emerged from discussions today is that staying what meta and rel relationship is to rdf
19:35:52 [scribe] [somethings] are now the same things [something] (sorry
19:36:21 [Steven]
19:37:17 [scribe]
...for example... need to specify the values for rel and the values for property, e.g. copyright
19:37:48 [scribe]
...e.g. start is only sensible as a rel value and not a property value, but contents could sensibly be both
19:37:49 [danbri]
q+ to ask about the namespace for start/next/alternate/contents etc (and RDFS/OWL definitions)
19:38:16 [scribe]
...just for information that falls out of this approach. not in this draft
19:38:32 [scribe]
...just for information, this is something that falls out of this approach. not in this draft
19:38:42 [scribe]
danbri: which namespace are these in?
19:38:47 [scribe]
stevenp: xhtml2 namespace
19:39:03 [scribe]
danbri: will there be an rdf schema that defines them?
19:39:13 [scribe]
stevenp: we would love help with this
19:40:25 [scribe]
ericm: using rdf/a to declare this stuff would be an excellent testcase, and educational
19:40:28 [danbri]
q+ to offer to help, per 5 years ago draft
19:40:45 [guus]
ack danbri
19:40:45 [Zakim]
danbri, you wanted to ask about the namespace for start/next/alternate/contents etc (and RDFS/OWL definitions) and to offer to help, per 5 years ago
19:40:48 [Zakim]
... draft
19:40:52 [scribe]
mark offers to show a real live xhtml2 document
19:41:02 [danbri]
19:41:12 [danbri]
(ben, I'll help if needed w/ schema stuff...)
19:41:58 [scribe]
mark: an rss reader needs multiple lists of rss feeds, like OPML, but with more information
19:42:36 [benadida]
(dan, sounds great, taking that action)
19:42:43 [benadida]
(danbri, that is)
19:43:57 [danbri]
(I don't think it's an action yet, but if it's one I can do in April, I'll certainly take it...)
19:43:59 [scribe]
...shows an xhtml2 document, with some meta names, a 'nl' navigable links' tag; meta statements in teh body of the document (inheriting from a previous href immediately above it); has an image inline - the document is the metadata
19:44:12 [scribe]
(I didn;t record an action)
19:45:05 [DanC_]
MarkB_, would you please mail that example to public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf ?
19:45:07 [guus]
19:45:12 [benadida]
(the action is to provide help to XHTML WG in defining an RDF/OWL schema for the special properties defined in their doc)
19:45:52 [scribe]
[discussion of escaped / unescaped html in meta]
19:46:23 [danbri]
q+ to ask re ns decl
19:46:32 [scribe]
guus: timelines and plans need to be diiscussed - any more qs about rdf/a?
19:47:06 [scribe]
danbri: is it possible to validate that peopel haven;t left out namepace declarations?
19:47:13 [DanC_]
(hmm... dunno what relaxng does with qnames in content)
19:47:16 [scribe]
mark not sure.
19:47:32 [Steven]
19:48:31 [scribe]
gavin(?): [missed the detail, sorry]...
19:48:45 [jjc]
schema validation includes qnames in attributes
19:48:50 [jjc]
(XML Schema)
19:48:59 [scribe]
ben: this is great, looking foreward to giving you some testcases
19:49:38 [scribe]
ACTION: danbri will help write an rdf schema for the additional xhtml2 namespace elements
19:49:57 [scribe]
though he may need a telecon and be pinged with the specifics
19:50:04 [Gavin]
gavin asked about how to distinguish between metadata on resource referred from parent element href which is inherited versus metadata on parent element
19:50:48 [scribe]
ban: our plan is to cheer you on with rdf/a and fully endorse this for xhtml2; prior htmls endorsing GRDDL, maybe a WG note or a rec
19:50:59 [scribe]
...need to discuss what this would need
19:51:02 [Gavin]
gavin understands that if href is inherited as an about, that you'll be able to associated the metadata with the linking element itself (instead of the referenced resource) by doing something like about="" on the meta element
19:51:05 [jjc]
q+ to ask about bnodes
19:51:05 [scribe]
19:51:29 [jjc]
q+ to ask about process of working together
19:51:38 [scribe]
guus: also thinking of writing a very short note about the 2 possible routes for rdf in html, with soem examples
19:52:00 [scribe]
...are you planning anything similar? if so we should coordinate
19:52:11 [scribe]
stevenp: that fits
19:52:23 [guus]
19:52:23 [em]
19:52:31 [Zakim]
danbri, you wanted to ask re ns decl
19:52:37 [danbri]
ack danbri
19:52:38 [Zakim]
jjc, you wanted to ask about bnodes and to ask about process of working together
19:52:39 [danbri]
ack danbri
19:53:28 [danbri]
q+ to aha re bnodes; i didn't realise. i thought *discussion* of bnodes was what was being dropped
19:53:32 [scribe]
jeremy: from what I've gathered is the most unwelcome change form the oct doc is the dropping of support for bnodes, so we can;t serialize all rdf graphs
19:53:50 [scribe]
...I think worth highlighting as a signifant change
19:53:50 [benadida]
(I had not realized the bnode change either)
19:54:17 [scribe]
stevenp: if a significant problem, review it and discuss how we can get it back in
19:54:45 [RalphS]
Mark: I hadn't realized that bnode support got dropped until Steven mentioned it just now; I will trace back what happened
19:54:46 [scribe]
mark: think we did have a simple solution...I think we can incorprate it fairly easily
19:54:51 [danbri]
19:55:17 [DanC_]
(hmm... something like "pronoun" rather than bnode?)
19:55:26 [scribe]
stevenp: would like to find a way of expressing it that doesn;t use rdf technical terms like 'bnodes' - should be something your grandmother would understand
19:55:56 [danbri]
re bNodes, FOAF use case I tihnk will need bnode support to capture common FOAF idioms;
19:56:10 [scribe]
mark: at one point we had xpointer thing, then bnode as an attribute, then object or thing or thingy, need to retrace thought process
19:56:19 [scribe]
guss: feedback on this before last call?
19:56:25 [tvraman]
tvraman has joined #swbp
19:57:01 [DanC_]
(er... hey... you can't make last call comments to yourself)
19:57:03 [tvraman]
raman: virtually here --- rdf:role=observer
19:57:04 [scribe]
stevenp: last call is as soon as we can, so a last call comment makes sense
19:57:15 [jjc]
jjc has joined #swbp
19:57:23 [danbri]
19:58:09 [scribe]
jeremy: we had a rquest from html wg to help with rdf/a - now you need more help with schema document - which is cool - but would like a better communication process
19:58:34 [scribe]
stevep: weekly 30 min call?
19:58:55 [scribe]
guus: the rdf in html tf calls obvious point of contact
19:59:36 [scribe]
mark: not been clear sometimes if dicsusing something I need to be there for or if you are discussing GRDDL for example
20:00:08 [scribe]
ben: that mailing list rdf in html has been almost all rdf/a. we'd love to have you for those (or part of them)
20:00:23 [scribe]
ACTION: ben set a time for the telecons
20:00:46 [Steven]
rrsagent, pointer?
20:00:46 [RRSAgent]
20:00:48 [scribe]
guus: we will send oyu the minutes of this meeting
20:00:49 [RalphS]
s^the telecons^the RDF-in-XHTML telecons^
20:00:56 [Zakim]
danbri, you wanted to aha re bnodes; i didn't realise. i thought *discussion* of bnodes was what was being dropped
20:01:18 [scribe]
danbri: was suprised by the bnode suipport being lost, bnodes very important
20:01:40 [scribe] we expect RDF/A documents to be GRDDLable? and is there anything we need to do
20:02:09 [scribe]
...jeremy and maxf have made xslt...what do we need to do with the schema?
20:02:29 [scribe]
...decide that that's the way to make these work together?
20:02:38 [scribe]
danc: qnames may make this tricky
20:02:55 [scribe]
ACTION: the rdf is html tf to discuss this
20:03:01 [DanC_]
the practicality of using GRDDL on RDF/A documents is impacted by the use of qnames in content
20:03:01 [scribe]
(was that an action?)
20:03:22 [danbri]
(jjc, do you have an xslt that can do the qname thing? does it require xslt2?)
20:03:39 [scribe]
r[sorry, scribe missed ralph's point]
20:03:58 [benadida]
Ralph suggested naming the various documents so we know which ones we're referring to
20:04:08 [scribe]
20:04:46 [scribe]
ralph: is confused because is rdf/a was standalone, then would just reference tit from xhtml2 document
20:04:55 [jjc]
my rdf/a thing was xslt2, but then I've forgotten xslt1
20:05:17 [scribe]
mark: rdf/a not even a working draft so can;t reference it, timelines are wrong.
20:05:45 [scribe]
..ideally it would have been published first and referenced
20:05:56 [RalphS]
it appears that we need two names to be able to refer to a standalone module and a module of XHTML2
20:06:11 [RalphS]
Mark: there are actually 3 modules of XHTML2
20:06:25 [scribe]
[HTML WG leaving]
20:06:53 [scribe]
20:07:16 [scribe]
GRDDL discussion - future of GRDDL
20:07:46 [scribe]
ben: what need to happen to GRDDl document to have it go in a recommendation direction [?]
20:08:26 [scribe]
ben: we want feeback form the WG on bringing GRDDL to rec track
20:08:27 [DavidW]
20:08:30 [Zakim]
RalphS, you wanted to ask about terminology moving forward
20:09:34 [scribe]
danC: the process of note/rec etc is a means tgo an end for danc - get peopel to publish rdf data. rec track makes it easier to justify the time on testcases etc
20:09:45 [jjc]
q+ to ask for time on this issue
20:09:57 [scribe]
......q: is this a 'best practice' for the sweb?
20:10:43 [scribe]
... wondering if rec might bring people out of the woodwork
20:10:57 [scribe] get feedback
20:10:57 [jjc]
jjc has joined #swbp
20:11:46 [scribe]
davidw: personally thinks GRDDL is cool, and like to see it rec track, but not sure if it's in charter
20:12:05 [scribe]
ralph: chater allows for recommendation, specifically for theembedding issue
20:12:54 [scribe]
jjc: needs to talk to colleagues about this, can't respond at this time
20:13:26 [Zakim]
jjc, you wanted to ask for time on this issue
20:13:35 [scribe]
danbri: comments would be good to hear e.g. from jena devlopers
20:13:40 [guus]
20:13:59 [scribe]
ben: yes re comments, but we don't have anything else for pre-xhtml2 without it
20:14:00 [guus]
ack RalphS
20:14:13 [scribe]
ralph: this could be addressed by a note
20:14:21 [Gavin]
20:14:43 [DavidW]
Can someone please show me where in the SWBP Charter we are allowed/expected to solve the RDF embedding question?
20:15:26 [scribe]
...the TF is inclined to move forward with a new version of the document; we need to say in there what plans are
20:15:31 [jjc]
The Working Group will, in conjunction with the HTML Working Group, provide a solution for representing RDF metadata within an XHMTL document.
20:15:33 [jjc]
20:15:41 [DavidW]
"Produce a Working Group Note on guidelines for transforming an existing representation into an RDF/OWL representation."??
20:15:45 [scribe]
...does the wg share the same opinion as the TF?
20:15:57 [jjc]
q+ to add a bit more about jena team
20:16:09 [danbri]
q+ to ask (if we want actual discussion of GRDDL detail) whether GRDDL works fine w/ XSLT1 and XSLT2; spec doesn't mention version currently, perhaps we consider this defered to markup within the cited xslt doc?
20:16:15 [DavidW]
Thanks, jjc
20:16:20 [scribe]
guus: what does the TF think it will take in resources to go to rec produce new draft - enough recources?
20:16:41 [Tantek]
Tantek has joined #swbp
20:16:44 [scribe]
danc: would like to go around the table and see if it's important to people
20:17:00 [Zakim]
jjc, you wanted to add a bit more about jena team
20:17:29 [DavidW]
q+ to discuss Charter issues
20:17:40 [scribe]
jeremy: thinks if it was rec track it would make a difference to whether to implement it
20:17:43 [shinichi]
shinichi has joined #swbp
20:18:53 [scribe]
...guesses not that high priority for jena team
20:18:58 [Zakim]
danbri, you wanted to ask (if we want actual discussion of GRDDL detail) whether GRDDL works fine w/ XSLT1 and XSLT2; spec doesn't mention version currently, perhaps we consider
20:19:01 [Zakim]
... this defered to markup within the cited xslt doc?
20:19:09 [DavidW]
20:19:30 [scribe]
danbri: if its developers vs consumers, he would be hard on the developers
20:19:43 [scribe]
..likes the idea of a big push, e.g for foaf data
20:20:02 [scribe]
...would like to know how hard it is for developers tgo do it, what it entails
20:20:04 [danbri]
20:20:09 [scribe]
20:20:28 [jjc2]
jjc2 has joined #swbp
20:21:08 [scribe]
gavin: makes me think of blogs...does it make sense to ask member and non-members to see if e.g. rdf comments would be useful?
20:21:27 [jjc]
jjc has joined #swbp
20:21:35 [scribe]
danc: talked briefly about this - depends if blogs produce xhtml or not
20:21:49 [Gavin]
20:21:49 [scribe]
...worth asking them
20:22:08 [scribe]
pepper: still not sure why we can;t just use RDF/A
20:22:25 [scribe]
ben: rdf/a only works for xhtml2, not xhtml
20:22:41 [scribe]
danbri: other things e.g. topicmaps could use it
20:23:12 [scribe]
danc: could just change schema documents and then harvest rdf out of them
20:24:26 [scribe]
tom: dc has an old spec for rdf in html using metatags. not sure how many people actually embed it. would need to check
20:25:06 [scribe]
ACTION: tom baker ask DC colleagues if many use rdf inside html
20:25:42 [scribe]
davidw: definitely a use out there - for transforming large volumes of web data
20:25:56 [scribe]
jeremy: what's the takeup of the note?
20:26:42 [scribe]
ben: feeling in the community that GRDDL is not 'offical'
20:27:05 [scribe]
...maybe all we need to do is endorse it but personally think people are waiting for rec track
20:27:39 [scribe]
gavin: if we could get all the rdf out of comment blocks then it would be very valuable
20:27:52 [guus]
20:28:34 [scribe]
danc: feedback we've had is would we need to fix all the html? if so, that's a big problem
20:29:43 [scribe]
fabian: 90% of the documents we deal with are proprietory, so don;t embed it; for educational materials we deal with it would be good added value
20:30:04 [scribe]
ralph: chicken and egg problem - we're not seeig the demand for it because they don't know about it
20:30:13 [scribe] best we can ask them to change once
20:30:31 [Gavin]
20:30:33 [jjc]
q+ to say if one change, then rdf/a
20:30:51 [scribe] fast do we think people whop want to put metadata in documents will move to xhtml2?
20:31:29 [pepper]
q+ to ask why GRDDL can't be made to work with HTML
20:31:45 [scribe]
...dangerous to retrofit something to existing documents - the authors of the documents didn't necessrily agree to the new contract implied, especially if a random document
20:32:30 [scribe]
gavin: what would be the second change?
20:32:55 [scribe]
ralph: if we ask them to trty something experimental to see if it should become a rec, imples another change
20:33:18 [scribe]
jeremy - worth waiting another year for RDF/A, if only change once
20:33:44 [scribe]
pepper: if it worked with HTMl not XHTML then it would really take off
20:34:09 [danbri]
q+ to advocate for GRDDL
20:34:16 [scribe]
danc: at the moment just uses xslt so won;t work
20:34:37 [scribe]
....not sure how it would work, need a parse for bad html
20:34:58 [Zakim]
pepper, you wanted to ask why GRDDL can't be made to work with HTML
20:35:07 [Zakim]
jjc, you wanted to say if one change, then rdf/a
20:35:14 [scribe]
guus: not enough convincing usecases at the moment - would the TF provide those?
20:36:01 [scribe]
ACTION: gavin find out from his community and contacts if they have usecases
20:36:26 [guus]
20:36:34 [guus]
ack danbri
20:36:34 [Zakim]
danbri, you wanted to advocate for GRDDL
20:36:50 [jjc]
q+ on ie update
20:37:04 [danbri]
20:37:14 [scribe]
danbri: was thinking what it would be like to wait for xhtml2 in order to use rdf in html: I'd choose GRDDL if have to choose one
20:37:48 [scribe]
jeremy: xhtml2 docuiments are immediately deployable because css can be read by existing browsers
20:38:09 [RalphS]
danbri: even the linking stuff?
20:38:20 [scribe]
guus: suggests TF waits for the input form those two actionms and maybe goes to find more usecases itself
20:38:22 [RalphS]
... it would be nice if links between pages in xhtml2 still worked in existing browsers
20:38:27 [danbri]
jjc, that's v interesting; i'd like to see the detail if you've got a pointer
20:38:49 [scribe]
guus: we can use the final slot tomorrow to discuss it if we have any more information
20:38:58 [scribe]
---20 min coffee break
20:39:17 [wdmcdaniel]
wdmcdaniel has joined #swbp
20:41:24 [jjc]
jjc has joined #swbp
20:41:26 [benadida]
benadida has left #swbp
20:41:58 [shinichi]
shinichi has left #swbp
20:44:19 [MarkB_]
MarkB_ has joined #swbp
20:44:54 [jjc]
jjc has joined #swbp
21:01:39 [DavidW]
DavidW has joined #swbp
21:01:51 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
21:01:51 [Zakim]
On the phone I see SWBP_MeetingRoom
21:03:29 [Natasha]
Natasha has joined #swbp
21:03:34 [DanC_]
DanC_ has joined #swbp
21:04:02 [Gavin]
Gavin has joined #swbp
21:04:22 [DavidW]
21:04:29 [mimasa]
mimasa has left #swbp
21:04:56 [RalphS]
ScribeNick: RalphS
21:05:08 [RalphS]
Chris: I would like to propose to move two documents to Note
21:05:27 [RalphS]
... first is "Representing Specified Values in OWL" -- aka "value partitions"
21:06:03 [RalphS]
Guus: move to Note requires that the WD has been stable and any changes are minor
21:06:13 [RalphS]
Chris: current WD was published on 3 Aug
21:06:21 [RalphS]
... editorial changes are cleaning up terminilogy
21:06:25 [RalphS]
21:06:40 [RalphS]
21:07:21 [DanC_]
(who else has read it?)
21:07:30 [libby]
21:07:39 [libby]
21:08:10 [DanC_]
-> Representing Specified Values in OWL: "value partitions" and "value sets"
21:08:16 [DanC_]
W3C Editors Draft 02 March 2005
21:08:31 [RalphS]
21:10:22 [DanC_]
(2 march... today's the 3rd)
21:10:41 [Natasha]
I can barely hear what people are saying in the room
21:10:57 [DavidW]
administrative discussions - back to content shortly
21:10:59 [Natasha]
is it just my connections or do others on the phone have the same problem?
21:11:36 [dlm]
dlm has joined #swbp
21:12:49 [benadida]
benadida has joined #swbp
21:15:10 [cgi-irc]
cgi-irc has joined #swbp
21:15:52 [RalphS]
PROPOSE accept the editor's draft as a Note conditioned upon comments from someone in the WG
21:16:03 [DanC_]
PROPOSED: to conclude work on Representing Specified Values in OWL: "value partitions" and "value sets" by publishing it as a Note, contingent on confirmation by XXX that changes since 3 Aug are editorial
21:16:10 [DanC_]
(that's what I heard. sorry for any confusion)
21:16:12 [RalphS]
PROPOSE accept the editor's draft as a Note conditioned upon comments from someone in the WG
21:16:15 [RalphS]
21:16:18 [RalphS]
thanks, DanC
21:17:07 [DavidW]
XXX == Mike Uschold
21:17:48 [RalphS]
Natasha: the changes since 3 August are more than editorial
21:18:08 [RalphS]
Chris: the content has not changed, just the way it is organized; just the structure
21:18:15 [RalphS]
+Alan (earlier)
21:18:28 [RalphS]
Alan: the only major change was 'feature' to 'quality'
21:18:40 [RalphS]
... breaking things into bullets, revising the diagram
21:19:17 [RalphS]
... put into the diagram the notion of disjoint by default
21:20:39 [RalphS]
PROPOSED: to conclude work on Representing Specified Values in OWL: "value partitions" and "value sets" by publishing it as a Note, contingent on confirmation by Mike Uschold that changes since 3 Aug are editorial
21:20:54 [dlm]
hand raising from dlm
21:20:54 [RalphS]
21:21:11 [RalphS]
Chris: moving on to Classes As Values
21:21:37 [RalphS]
... changes in organization and wording
21:21:58 [RalphS]
... Mike proposed some more editorial changes last night
21:23:13 [RalphS]
... specifically, for the considerations sections, making each pattern consistent
21:23:21 [FabGandon]
21:23:27 [RalphS]
Mike: and rephrasing approach 4 to improve clarity
21:26:40 [Natasha]
21:26:41 [DavidW]
Natasha's email regarding this draft:
21:27:35 [danbri-laptop]
danbri-laptop has joined #swbp
21:27:59 [RalphS]
DanC: has the WG shopped this around and gotten feedback that these are useful?
21:28:19 [RalphS]
Alan: we got a flurry of feedback in September
21:28:26 [RalphS]
... we've presented this in tutorials
21:29:48 [RalphS]
21:29:48 [RalphS]
ref earlier "value partitions" draft, the path to the current editor's draft is
21:29:48 [RalphS]
-> SWBPD Home Page
21:29:48 [RalphS]
--> OEP TF page "editor's draft")
21:29:48 [RalphS]
21:29:49 [RalphS]
21:29:51 [RalphS]
21:30:18 [ALR]
ALR has joined #SWBP
21:30:23 [tbaker]
tbaker has joined #swbp
21:30:47 [RalphS]
DanC: what about names for patterns?
21:30:59 [RalphS]
Natasha: I thought about it, but didn't finish
21:33:21 [RalphS]
the path to the document currently under discussion is
21:33:21 [RalphS]
-> OEP TF page
21:33:21 [RalphS]
--> Representing Classes As Property Values on the Semantic Web 2 March
21:33:57 [RalphS]
David: there are open issues in the Status of this Document
21:34:03 [RalphS]
... e.g. a promise to develop a dictionary of terms
21:34:08 [RalphS]
... do you have a schedule for this?
21:34:15 [RalphS]
Chris: yes, we are working on this
21:34:23 [RalphS]
... we had hoped to have a glossary by this meeting
21:34:34 [RalphS]
zakim, what conference is this?
21:34:34 [Zakim]
this is SW_BPD(TP)9:00AM conference code 7927
21:34:42 [RalphS]
zakim, who's on the call?
21:34:42 [Zakim]
On the phone I see SWBP_MeetingRoom
21:35:01 [RalphS]
zakim, this is sw_bpd
21:35:01 [Zakim]
RalphS, this was already SW_BPD(TP)9:00AM
21:35:02 [Zakim]
ok, RalphS; that matches SW_BPD(TP)9:00AM
21:35:05 [RalphS]
zakim, who's on the call?
21:35:05 [Zakim]
On the phone I see SWBP_MeetingRoom
21:35:53 [RalphS]
David: the highlighted terms are a to-do item
21:36:05 [RalphS]
Chris: the highlighting and the to-do list will be removed
21:36:45 [RalphS]
... when we publish the Glossary, we will make it consistent with the usage in this document
21:36:49 [DanC_]
(ah... yes, having the TODO in there vs proposing to conclude work had me scratching my head too. moving the TODO list to the TF page would make sense to me)
21:37:22 [RalphS]
David: what about the first bullet? ["identify several OWL DL compatible approaches..."]
21:38:01 [RalphS]
David: for a document that will live longer than this WG, I would prefer that the to-do list be removed
21:38:16 [RalphS]
ACTION: Natasha remove the 'Open issues' from the Status of this Document
21:38:50 [RalphS]
ACTION: Chris move Classes as Values and Value Partitions to
21:39:42 [RalphS]
Mike: Alan highlighted pros and cons, that seems to be useful
21:40:05 [RalphS]
... are people comfortable with using this approach in Classes as Values?
21:40:12 [RalphS]
David: I found the pros & cons very useful
21:40:21 [RalphS]
Guus: for Classes as Values I think there should be no opinion
21:40:51 [RalphS]
Mike: not saying 'good' or 'bad' about the pattern overall
21:41:15 [RalphS]
Guus: I feel strongly we should stay with a neutral approach
21:41:24 [RalphS]
... this Note is about DL vs. non-DL
21:41:35 [RalphS]
... it is dangerous to make subjective statements here
21:41:54 [RalphS]
Mike: is saying "maintenance is costly" too subjective?
21:42:09 [DanC_]
ah... "# There is a maintenance penalty"
21:42:30 [RalphS]
David: saying "this is expensive to maintain" might require further review
21:42:43 [RalphS]
Natasha: I would not want to make a judgement for everything
21:42:55 [RalphS]
... some cases are obvious already
21:43:02 [RalphS]
... I prefer a neutral approach
21:43:36 [RalphS]
PROPOSE to accept contingent on editorial changes to be proposed by Mike and accepted by Natasha
21:43:51 [dlm]
no objection
21:44:12 [RalphS]
(vote by show of hands)
21:44:19 [RalphS]
Evan: this seems to be a convoluted process
21:45:20 [RalphS]
... there seem to be substantial structural changes happening
21:45:38 [RalphS]
... we're making a judgement about the nature of these changes
21:46:04 [RalphS]
David: specifically, we just discussed changes to the value judgements in the document and decided not to make such changes
21:46:14 [RalphS]
Alistair: abstain
21:46:31 [RalphS]
RESOLVED to accept contingent on editorial changes to be proposed by Mike and accepted by Natasha
21:47:11 [danbri-laptop]
(re wordnet, i've not studied Aldo's new work)
21:47:36 [RalphS]
Chris: the N-ary relations draft is still undergoing change
21:47:50 [RalphS]
... this document will have content changes
21:48:01 [RalphS]
... Ralph has the action to review this when it is ready
21:48:09 [RalphS]
... also a new editor's draft on simple part-whole relations
21:48:22 [RalphS]
... new draft co-edited by Alan and myself
21:48:28 [RalphS]
... ready for comments by others
21:49:01 [RalphS]
-> Simple part-whole relations in OWL Ontologies 1 March
21:49:10 [RalphS]
Guus: volunteer to review
21:49:16 [RalphS]
Bill: volunteer to review
21:50:16 [RalphS]
Chris: I hope soon after the OEP telecon 2 weeks from now that this will be ready for review
21:50:19 [DanC_]
Last-Modified: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 16:05:53 GMT
21:50:49 [DanC_]
(though it bears the date 1 Mar 2005)
21:51:32 [RalphS]
Elisa: will be spending time with Evan discussing units and measures note
21:51:52 [RalphS]
Evan: I have a new task to work on this at NIST
21:52:01 [RalphS]
... I've been looking at a lot of OWL ontologies now
21:52:15 [RalphS]
... there are a lot of OWL ontologies for units, well fleshed-out
21:52:27 [RalphS]
... first task is to produce a set of criteria for evaluation
21:52:30 [dlm]
i would like to be on the queue
21:53:00 [RalphS]
Evan: the WG is not supposed to pick "winners", correct?
21:53:14 [RalphS]
Guus: you could propose some minimal criteria for usefulness
21:53:47 [RalphS]
Deb: GEO group has a starting point for units and measures in OWL also
21:53:51 [RalphS]
Evan: based on ISO work?
21:53:57 [RalphS]
Deb: not sure -- will ask
21:54:42 [RalphS]
Evan: my intention is first to develop some evaluation criteria
21:54:59 [guus]
21:55:18 [RalphS]
ACTION: Evan and Elisa develop criteria for evaluating units and measures ontologies
21:55:22 [Valentina]
Valentina has joined #swbp
21:55:28 [dlm] is the working group meeting I am at . they have starting points in owl for units and measures, numerics, scaling, and comparators
21:55:43 [RalphS]
Guus: I see 3 types of things that could go into the note
21:56:21 [RalphS]
... a generic schema for units and measures
21:56:29 [RalphS]
... initial examples from Tom Gruber
21:56:39 [RalphS]
... 2. actual units and measures themselves
21:56:47 [RalphS]
... 3. patterns for using these; showing how to apply them
21:56:53 [Valentina]
ciao bello
21:57:00 [RalphS]
... could concentrate on some at first
21:57:11 [RalphS]
Elisa: there are hundreds of units we could consider
21:57:19 [RalphS]
... so it would be helpful to narrow the scope
21:58:40 [RalphS]
Chris: still waiting for Jerry Hobbs to join the WG [to work on time ontology]
21:58:46 [RalphS]
... have pinged relevant AC Rep
21:59:48 [DanC_]
(Chris, I'm kinda motivated to help with getting Hobbs to join the WG; I might have time to phone his AC rep)
22:00:40 [RalphS]
further discussion scheduled for 12:00-1:00 EST tomorrow
22:01:01 [RalphS]
David: what is the publication plan for the glossary? wikipedia?
22:01:25 [RalphS]
Chris: not sure, will link somehow from WG pages; expect it to contain ~20 terms
22:01:46 [RalphS]
Guus: maybe include as an appendix in future Notes
22:03:01 [RalphS]
Topic: WordNet
22:03:11 [RalphS]
Guus: up until a few weeks ago we had little input
22:03:18 [RalphS]
... now we have a lot of input; still processing it
22:04:02 [RalphS]
Chris: I read one of the documents
22:04:08 [DanC_]
from the agenda...
22:04:11 [DanC_]
[13] WNET: Ontowordnet
22:04:11 [DanC_]
22:04:11 [DanC_]
[14] WNET: WordNet data model:
22:04:11 [DanC_]
22:04:11 [DanC_]
[15] WNET: ISLE lexical entries
22:04:12 [DanC_]
22:04:54 [tbaker]
tbaker has joined #swbp
22:04:55 [FabGandon]
FabGandon has joined #swbp
22:05:24 [RalphS]
Chris: I read the 'mapping' document
22:05:56 [RalphS]
... reconciling with good ontology practice
22:06:03 [tbaker]
tbaker has joined #swbp
22:06:07 [RalphS]
... recognized semantic issues with the toplevel of wordnet
22:06:15 [RalphS]
... all good considerations from my point of view
22:06:42 [RalphS]
Guus: good action list was developed at Bristol f2f
22:06:50 [RalphS]
... would be valuable to merge this
22:06:50 [danbri-laptop]
22:07:29 [RalphS]
DanBri: I am excited to see the ontologized approach moving along
22:07:48 [RalphS]
... but I'm worried that we're lurching around; feels like independent academic research being reported to the WG
22:08:01 [RalphS]
... how can we better work together to avoid 2-3 month gaps
22:08:12 [RalphS]
... how does Brian's work fit with Aldo's?
22:08:22 [RalphS]
Guus: Aldo's email suggests he is building on Brian's work
22:09:02 [RalphS]
DanBri: I would like to see more of the discussion on the mailing list
22:09:57 [danbri-laptop]
(I wonder whether a dedicated mailing list might help provide a place for dedicated wordnet/semweb collaboration...)
22:09:58 [RalphS]
Topic: more on OEP
22:10:57 [RalphS]
ACTION Chris: ask Alan to take over the Qualifying Cardinality Restrictions Note from Guus
22:11:18 [danbri-laptop]
22:11:21 [Zakim]
DanC_, you wanted to ask about previewing the XML Schema discussion, and noting some DAWG stuff
22:12:10 [RalphS]
DanC: SPARQL has a lot of symbolic matching
22:12:37 [RalphS]
... but if a variable binds to a number you can test, e.g. greaterThan
22:12:50 [RalphS]
... a set of test cases is being written for SPARQL
22:13:21 [RalphS]
... if SWBPD wants to get involved in this [ref. XML Schema datatypes], this would be a good time
22:13:39 [RalphS]
JJC: I met for an hour this week with [@@]
22:13:50 [RalphS]
... found no big disconnects
22:14:10 [RalphS]
... the key issue appears to be at the semantic level of RDF datatype reasoning
22:14:35 [DanC_]
q+ to give an example: does this query win or lose? ... AND "1/1"^^my:rational != "2/2"^^my:rational
22:14:54 [RalphS]
... e.g. are "1.0"^^integer and "1.0"^^float equal? syntactically yes, real question is at the semantic level
22:15:10 [RalphS]
... we're unlikely to reach an answer before SPARQL goes to Last Call
22:15:19 [RalphS]
... I don't feel this open issue is a show-stopper
22:15:36 [RalphS]
DanC: big design principle was to import from XQuery
22:15:43 [Zakim]
DanC_, you wanted to give an example: does this query win or lose? ... AND "1/1"^^my:rational != "2/2"^^my:rational
22:16:16 [RalphS]
s/[@@]/Don Chamberlin/
22:17:00 [RalphS]
JJC: in discussing with Don Chamberlin and the SPARQL editors, when we got to a hard question the answer in XQuery was "we structured the language so you can't ask that"
22:17:44 [RalphS]
DanC: my example has more to do with open-world vs. closed-world reasoning
22:18:12 [DanC_]
"1/1"^^my:rational != "2/2"^^my:rational
22:18:27 [DanC_]
not("1/1"^^my:rational = "2/2"^^my:rational)
22:19:08 [RalphS]
DanC: one design moved the not to the outside; inner returns False as my:rational was not recognized
22:19:37 [RalphS]
... inner might instead return "don't know"
22:20:20 [RalphS]
Stephen Harris: XQuery may use some variation on returning "don't know"
22:21:00 [RalphS]
JJC: I also took an action to research how OWL-DL handles unknown datatypes
22:21:23 [RalphS]
... I came away from yesterday's discussions [with SPARQL editors] without a lot of anxiety
22:22:00 [RalphS]
DanC: ref. yesterday's plenary discussion about versioning, OWL has some things; might make this more visible
22:22:34 [RalphS]
... could suggest to TAG to look at using OWL versioning for other things
22:22:47 [danbri-laptop]
22:22:47 [RalphS]
Guus: OWL versioning was simple to do
22:23:00 [RalphS]
DanC: but the solution is relatively unknown; might be worth an article
22:23:16 [RalphS]
TomB: versioning seems to be in scope for Vocab Management
22:23:31 [RalphS]
... would be nice to find a common mechanism that works for SKOS, FOAF, ...
22:23:40 [RalphS]
DanC: TAG next meets in June
22:23:41 [danbri-laptop]
(hmm OWL Versioning is mixxed up in the Full vs Lite/DL design... Annotation properties etc)
22:24:08 [danbri-laptop]
22:24:09 [danbri-laptop]
<owl:AnnotationProperty rdf:about="&dc;creator">
22:24:09 [danbri-laptop]
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="&xsd;string"/>
22:24:09 [danbri-laptop]
22:24:10 [danbri-laptop]
22:24:10 [RalphS]
TomB: DCMI has a versioning model but we haven't yet figured out how to formally declare it
22:24:11 [danbri-laptop]
22:24:42 [RalphS]
... OWL would be one candidate way to express this
22:24:44 [DanC_]
-> 7.4 Version information in OWL Reference
22:24:57 [RalphS]
Chris: but you wouldn't be likely to use the built-in OWL versioning mechanism
22:25:09 [RalphS]
... OWL version has no semantics; it is only annotation
22:25:36 [RalphS]
... I expect [DCMI] wants to write a schema for versioning
22:26:17 [RalphS]
DanC: I referred Henry Thompson to Jeff Heflin as the source of the OWL versioning design
22:26:23 [RalphS]
Guus: that was correct
22:26:30 [ivan]
ivan has left #swbp
22:27:20 [RalphS]
[adjourned to 0900 tomorrow]
22:27:32 [Noboru]
22:28:14 [benadida]
benadida has left #swbp
22:32:10 [RalphS]
rrsagent, bye
22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
I see 16 open action items:
22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: phil to update SETF charter in light of new focus for SETF draft note [1]
22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: TomB to post URL to his VM TF slides [2]
22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: RalphS check whether it's ok to cite [3]
22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ralph to inform the W3C Communications Team that we intend to cite as "W3C URI Persistence Policy" [4]
22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: alistair to change the wording of the link to "the persistence policy at URL http:" [5]
22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Alistair to think about machine-readable change policies [6]
22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: alistair to change the links to examples [7]
22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: danbri will help write an rdf schema for the additional xhtml2 namespace elements [8]
22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: ben set a time for the telecons [9]
22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: the rdf is html tf to discuss this [10]
22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: tom baker ask DC colleagues if many use rdf inside html [11]
22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: gavin find out from his community and contacts if they have usecases [12]
22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Natasha remove the 'Open issues' from the Status of this Document [13]
22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Chris move Classes as Values and Value Partitions to [14]
22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Evan and Elisa develop criteria for evaluating units and measures ontologies [15]
22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Chris to ask Alan to take over the Qualifying Cardinality Restrictions Note from Guus [16]
22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
recorded in