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 http://www.w3.org/2005/03/03-swbp-irc
- 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_]
- Present:
- 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_]
- Observers:
- 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_]
- s/Bali/Balaji/
- 14:21:31 [RalphS_]
- ... Eric Miller
- 14:21:39 [RalphS_]
- ... David Provost
- 14:21:44 [Yoshio]
- s/Fukusige/Fukushige/
- 14:21:54 [RalphS_]
- Present+
- 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]
- +1
- 14:27:22 [RalphS]
- David: Addison Phillips asked if SWBPD would consider RFC 3066
- 14:27:44 [RalphS]
- -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Mar/0015.html 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]
- -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Mar/0033.html "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: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Mar/0024.html
- 14:37:30 [Gavin]
- Gavin has joined #swbp
- 14:37:40 [aliman_scribe]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Mar/0033.html
- 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]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Feb/att-0109/ODA_and_SWSE__Editors_Draft__ver0.7.htm
- 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]
- MikeU:
- 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]
- +??P7
- 14:43:19 [Zakim]
- -??P7
- 14:43:20 [Zakim]
- +??P7
- 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]
- q?
- 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]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Mar/att-0033/ODA_and_SWSE__Editors_Draft__ver1.4.htm
- 14:58:32 [danbri]
- via http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Mar/0033.html
- 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]
- q?
- 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]
- q?
- 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, http://www.pragmaticprogrammer.com/
- 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]
- See http://www.w3.org/2005/03/03-swbp-irc#T15-26-17
- 15:26:21 [aliman_scribe]
- Phil: yes.
- 15:26:26 [danbri]
- ...chat w/ Dave Thomas, http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/35297
- 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, http://www.w3.org/2001/12/rubyrdf/swdoc/ )
- 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]
- q?
- 15:28:28 [danbri]
- also: http://usefulinc.com/doap is relevant
- 15:28:30 [danbri]
- q-
- 15:28:46 [tbaker]
- http://www.w3.org/2003/12/swa/swbpd-charter - 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]
- jeff?
- 15:35:04 [Zakim]
- -SWBP_MeetingRoom
- 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]
- NO CARRIER
- 15:35:36 [JeffP]
- thanks
- 15:36:02 [Zakim]
- +BrittanicB
- 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]
- -Jeff_Pan
- 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 http://www.foaf-project.org/2004/media/
- 15:38:03 [danbri]
- s/JeffB/JeffP/
- 15:39:27 [danbri]
- -> http://beta.foaf-project.org/2004/media/wp-content/moblog-images/2005-03-03_154344_820_0.jpg
- 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]
- q?
- 16:08:20 [danbri]
- q-
- 16:08:26 [DavidW]
- q-
- 16:08:48 [danbri]
- (DCMI is Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, see http://www.dublincore.org/ )
- 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]
- np
- 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 http://esw.w3.org/topic/SoftwarePackaging 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 http://www.w3.org/Talks/2005/0229-jk-rdf-sig/ 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 http://www.w3.org/Talks/2005/0229-jk-rdf-sig/ 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]
- s/Jose/José/
- 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]
- q+
- 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 http://rdfweb.org/topic/FOAFCommunityProcess )
- 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]
- q?
- 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]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html
- 16:30:57 [jjc_scribe]
- those were the three issue numbers
- 16:31:09 [danbri]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#namespaceDocument-8
- 16:31:16 [danbri]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#httpRange-14
- 16:31:27 [danbri]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#RDFinXHTML-35
- 16:32:06 [ivan]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#namespaceDocument-8
- 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]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#httpRange-14
- 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]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#RDFinXHTML-35
- 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 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#rdfURIMeaning-39 )
- 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]
- q?
- 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]
- +1
- 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 http://esw.w3.org/topic/VocabManagementNote
- 16:52:06 [danbri]
- (latest?)
- 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? http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/guide/ )
- 16:55:17 [aharth_scribe]
- Alistair: trying to get input from the group on technical bits
- 16:55:38 [aharth_scribe]
- ... presents http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/
- 16:55:39 [DanC_]
- (rather... )
- 16:55:56 [DanC_]
- -> http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/ 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... http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Persistence 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]
- s/slash/hash/
- 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]
- <owl:Ontology
- 17:00:17 [danbri]
- rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
- 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]
- yes
- 17:01:03 [tbaker]
- q-
- 17:01:15 [aharth_scribe]
- Alistair: uppercase/lowercase convention for classes and properties
- 17:01:56 [DanC_]
- ack danc
- 17:02:34 [danbri]
- alistair, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Feb/0054.html 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 http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Persistence
- 17:04:10 [RalphS]
- ACTION Ralph: inform the W3C Communications Team that we intend to cite http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Persistence 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]
- q?
- 17:07:59 [aharth_scribe]
- Alistair: re change, three levels of stability: unstable, testing, and stable
- 17:08:11 [jjc]
- q-
- 17:08:13 [danbri]
- tom: see 'dcmi namespace policy'
- 17:08:29 [DanC_]
- google nominates http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-namespace/
- 17:08:38 [pepper]
- s/analagous/analogous/
- 17:08:50 [danbri]
- q+ to try to smmarise my comments from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Feb/0054.html
- 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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Feb/0054.html )
- 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]
- s/Hiroki/Hiroyuki/
- 17:11:06 [tbaker]
- q+
- 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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Feb/0054.html
- 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 http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/util/changePolicy.n3 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]
- milder:
- 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 public-esw-thes@w3.org .
- 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]
- q-
- 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_]
- (quite)
- 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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Feb/0054.html
- 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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Feb/0054.html
- 17:23:44 [Guus]
- q+
- 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]
- q+
- 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 http://usefulinc.com/edd/notes/DOAP
- 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]
- q?
- 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 http://doapy.bonjourlesmouettes.org/doap-a-matic 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]
- q?
- 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]
- see http://challenge.semanticweb.org/
- 17:39:50 [danbri]
- http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/swc/swapplication.html
- 17:39:54 [jjc]
- jjc has joined #swbp
- 17:39:55 [Gavin]
- q+ why restrict to open source?
- 17:40:12 [DavidW]
- q?
- 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 http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#frames )
- 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 http://www.dlib.org/dlib/december04/hammond/12hammond.html
- 17:45:32 [aharth_scribe]
- ?: what about non-english applications?
- 17:45:44 [BalajiP]
- Nature RSS paper: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/december04/hammond/12hammond.html
- 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]
- q?
- 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_]
- -> http://www.dlib.org/dlib/december04/hammond/12hammond.html 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]
- ...re GRDDL we are considering moving towards REC
- 19:04:01 [scribe]
- ...is 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]
- WG: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Group/
- 19:08:35 [DanC_]
- (which of the links atop http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Group/ 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]
- -> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Group/2005/WD-xhtml2-20050224/ [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]
- -> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Group/2005/WD-xhtml2-20050224/ [Editor's] draft XHTML 2.0 24 February
- 19:10:24 [ivan]
- q+
- 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]
- cool
- 19:10:44 [ChrisW]
- what section should we be looking at?
- 19:10:53 [danbri]
- meta and rdf is http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Group/2005/WD-xhtml2-20050224/mod-metaAttributes.html#sec_22.2.
- 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]
- s/hostory/history
- 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]
- xhtml:about
- 19:13:08 [Steven]
- not rdf:about
- 19:13:15 [scribe]
- thanks
- 19:13:22 [DanC_]
- (hmm... "Sorry, Forbidden" at http://www.w3.org/2002/06/xhtml2/ )
- 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]
- q?
- 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]
- q?
- 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]
- ...is 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]
- http://www.formsplayer.com/notes/rdf-a.html
- 19:21:48 [benadida]
- (rdf/a)
- 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]
- q?
- 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]
- q?
- 19:27:36 [scribe]
- ...it 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]
- q?
- 19:34:19 [scribe]
- ...suspect 2 last calls will be needed anyway
- 19:34:27 [danbri]
- q-
- 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_]
- (tx)
- 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]
- ...link/meta [somethings] are now the same things [something] (sorry
- 19:36:21 [Steven]
- http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Group/2005/WD-xhtml2-20050224/mod-metaAttributes.html#s_metaAttributesmodule
- 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 http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/discovery/rdf-dev/purls/papers/sitemap/ 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]
- ... http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/discovery/rdf-dev/purls/papers/sitemap/ draft
- 19:40:52 [scribe]
- mark offers to show a real live xhtml2 document
- 19:41:02 [danbri]
- q-
- 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]
- q?
- 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]
- mimasa?
- 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]
- s/ban/ben/
- 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]
- q?
- 19:52:23 [em]
- q?
- 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]
- q?
- 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; http://rdfweb.org/mt/foaflog/archives/2003/07/10/12.05.33/
- 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]
- q?
- 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]
- See http://www.w3.org/2005/03/03-swbp-irc#T20-00-46
- 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]
- ...do 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]
- thanks
- 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]
- q+
- 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]
- ...to 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]
- q?
- 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]
- q+
- 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]
- 1.2.2
- 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]
- q-
- 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]
- s/consumers/publishers/
- 20:20:09 [scribe]
- ta
- 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]
- q-
- 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]
- q?
- 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]
- ...at best we can ask them to change once
- 20:30:31 [Gavin]
- q+
- 20:30:33 [jjc]
- q+ to say if one change, then rdf/a
- 20:30:51 [scribe]
- ...how 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]
- q?
- 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]
- q-
- 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]
- TOPIC: OEP TF
- 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]
- +Elisa
- 21:06:40 [RalphS]
- +Natasha
- 21:07:21 [DanC_]
- (who else has read it?)
- 21:07:30 [libby]
- deborah
- 21:07:39 [libby]
- (sorry)
- 21:08:10 [DanC_]
- -> http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/%7Erector/swbp/specified_values/specified-values-8-1.html Representing Specified Values in OWL: "value partitions" and "value sets"
- 21:08:16 [DanC_]
- W3C Editors Draft 02 March 2005
- 21:08:31 [RalphS]
- +Deb
- 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]
- ach
- 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]
- so RESOLVED
- 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]
- http://smi-web.stanford.edu/people/noy/ClassesAsValues/ClassesAsValues-2nd-WD.html
- 21:23:27 [RalphS]
- Mike: and rephrasing approach 4 to improve clarity
- 21:26:40 [Natasha]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Mar/0029.html
- 21:26:41 [DavidW]
- Natasha's email regarding this draft: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Mar/0029.html
- 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]
- -> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/#Tasks SWBPD Home Page
- 21:29:48 [RalphS]
- --> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/ OEP TF page "editor's draft")
- 21:29:48 [RalphS]
- ---> http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~rector/swbp/specified_values/specified-values-8.html
- 21:29:49 [RalphS]
- ----> http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/%7Erector/swbp/specified_values/specified-values-8-1.html
- 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]
- -> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/ OEP TF page
- 21:33:21 [RalphS]
- --> http://smi-web.stanford.edu/people/noy/ClassesAsValues/ClassesAsValues-2nd-WD.html 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 w3.org
- 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 http://smi-web.stanford.edu/people/noy/ClassesAsValues/ClassesAsValues-2nd-WD.html 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 http://smi-web.stanford.edu/people/noy/ClassesAsValues/ClassesAsValues-2nd-WD.html 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]
- -> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SimplePartWhole/index.html 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 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SimplePartWhole/index.html
- 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]
- q+
- 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]
- http://www.geongrid.org/workshops/geoont2005/ 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_]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Feb/0066.html
- 22:04:11 [DanC_]
- [14] WNET: WordNet data model:
- 22:04:11 [DanC_]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Feb/0068.html
- 22:04:11 [DanC_]
- [15] WNET: ISLE lexical entries
- 22:04:12 [DanC_]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Feb/0069.html
- 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]
- q+
- 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]
- q?
- 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]
- see http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#Header
- 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]
- </owl:AnnotationProperty>
- 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]
- etc
- 22:24:42 [RalphS]
- ... OWL would be one candidate way to express this
- 22:24:44 [DanC_]
- -> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#VersionInformation 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]
- quit
- 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 http://www.w3.org/2005/03/03-swbp-irc#T15-36-30
- 22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: TomB to post URL to his VM TF slides [2]
- 22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/03-swbp-irc#T16-15-03
- 22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: RalphS check whether it's ok to cite http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Persistence [3]
- 22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/03-swbp-irc#T17-03-50
- 22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: Ralph to inform the W3C Communications Team that we intend to cite http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Persistence as "W3C URI Persistence Policy" [4]
- 22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/03-swbp-irc#T17-04-10
- 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 http://www.w3.org/2005/03/03-swbp-irc#T17-05-56
- 22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: Alistair to think about machine-readable change policies [6]
- 22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/03-swbp-irc#T17-12-39
- 22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: alistair to change the links to examples [7]
- 22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/03-swbp-irc#T17-21-04
- 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 http://www.w3.org/2005/03/03-swbp-irc#T19-49-38
- 22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: ben set a time for the telecons [9]
- 22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/03-swbp-irc#T20-00-23
- 22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: the rdf is html tf to discuss this [10]
- 22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/03-swbp-irc#T20-02-55
- 22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: tom baker ask DC colleagues if many use rdf inside html [11]
- 22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/03-swbp-irc#T20-25-06
- 22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: gavin find out from his community and contacts if they have usecases [12]
- 22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/03-swbp-irc#T20-36-01
- 22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: Natasha remove the 'Open issues' from the Status of this Document [13]
- 22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/03-swbp-irc#T21-38-16
- 22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: Chris move Classes as Values and Value Partitions to w3.org [14]
- 22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/03-swbp-irc#T21-38-50
- 22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: Evan and Elisa develop criteria for evaluating units and measures ontologies [15]
- 22:32:10 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/03-swbp-irc#T21-55-18
- 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 http://www.w3.org/2005/03/03-swbp-irc#T22-10-57