13:18:31 RRSAgent has joined #swbp 13:18:31 logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/03/04-swbp-irc 13:18:44 Meeting: SemWeb Best Practices & Deployment 13:19:26 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Mar/0024.html 13:20:02 -> http://www.w3.org/2005/03/03-swbp-irc irc log from day 1 13:20:12 danbri2 has joined #swbp 13:20:26 rrsagent, please make logs world-visible 13:45:10 Yoshio has joined #swbp 13:49:16 ivan has joined #swbp 13:56:40 RalphS has joined #swbp 13:56:52 Zakim has joined #swbp 13:56:57 zakim, this will be swbp 13:56:57 ok, RalphS; I see SW_BPD(TP)9:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes 13:57:14 aharth has joined #swbp 13:57:26 RRS has joined #swbp 13:57:29 JeffP has joined #swbp 13:58:51 SW_BPD(TP)9:00AM has now started 13:58:59 +??P0 13:59:21 Hi 13:59:49 danbri-laptop has joined #swbp 14:01:23 PhilT has joined #swbp 14:01:59 I got it, thanks 14:02:32 libby has joined #swbp 14:04:03 DavidW has joined #swbp 14:04:25 -??P0 14:04:26 SW_BPD(TP)9:00AM has ended 14:04:27 Attendees were 14:05:14 guus has joined #swbp 14:06:16 FabGandon has joined #swbp 14:06:34 jjc has joined #swbp 14:06:44 hello 14:06:58 Hi Jeremy 14:07:45 SW_BPD(TP)9:00AM has now started 14:07:52 +??P0 14:09:11 + +1.617.568.aaaa 14:09:54 zakim, ??p0 is Jeff_Pan 14:09:54 +Jeff_Pan; got it 14:10:06 zakim, aaaa is SWBPD_MeetingRoom 14:10:06 +SWBPD_MeetingRoom; got it 14:10:51 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-wg/2005Jan/0027.html Re: XML Schema Datatypes and the Semantic Web [Dave Peterson 2005-01-31] 14:10:55 pepper has joined #swbp 14:12:34 MSM has joined #swbp 14:12:42 zakim, SWBPD_MeetingRoom has Jeremy, Guus, DavidW, TomB, Libby, Fabien, BillM, Evan, Phil, Mike, Chris, Andreas, Ralph 14:12:42 +Jeremy, Guus, DavidW, TomB, Libby, Fabien, BillM, Evan, Phil, Mike, Chris, Andreas, Ralph; got it 14:12:53 ChrisW has joined #swbp 14:13:37 zakim, SWBPD_MeetingRoom also has Michael_SperbergMcQueen, Patrick_Stickler, David_Provost 14:13:37 +Michael_SperbergMcQueen, Patrick_Stickler, David_Provost; got it 14:14:05 zakim, SWBPD_MeetingRoom also has Alistair 14:14:05 +Alistair; got it 14:14:17 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw/ 14:14:17 PatrickS has joined #swbp 14:14:26 scribe: ivan 14:14:39 --- xml schema problems ---- 14:14:55 -> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw-20050127/ XML Schema Datatypes in RDF and OWL 14:15:17 jc: document has not changed much since the first version 14:15:28 tbaker has joined #swbp 14:15:34 ... has been editorial changes, except for when to use what 14:15:40 ... that is the only major change 14:15:59 ... question: do we publish it? 14:16:01 wdmcdaniel has joined #swbp 14:16:13 ... two comments: hayes' dawg review 14:16:26 ... one small comment from peterson on a mistake i made 14:17:16 ... the document was initially was for review the datatypes and to when are two values equal? 14:17:34 ... the rdf and owl semantics do not specify that (for float and ints for example) 14:17:47 ... xquery/xslt had a problem for the duration 14:18:15 ... they were pulled out from the rdf/owl, but xpath2 solves that and the text refers to that 14:18:35 ... section 5 is on the use of numeric types is for a different set of readers 14:18:52 timbl has joined #swbp 14:18:53 ... it gives some suggestion on when to choose what 14:19:37 ... on the user dfeined datatypes the problem is: xml schema gives a mechanism to define his/her own datatypes 14:20:03 ... owl/rdf design requires to identify datatypes with URI-s, xml schema do not necessarily do that 14:20:11 ... the two will not work together 14:20:29 ... we decided to postpone this problem 14:21:02 ... there are ways to address this, the issue is more that it covers too many specs 14:21:51 definitino of adultAge just prior to http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw/#sec-daml-soln 14:21:57 s/tino/tion/ 14:21:57 ... daml+oil uses the name of a schema type uses the URI of the document plus # and the name to address an element 14:22:25 ... that works, there are implementations, it is seriously non aligns with recs 14:23:00 ... the problem is what is the frag id in general;, the architecture says that it is up to the document what the frag id is 14:23:35 danbri2 has joined #swbp 14:23:36 ... the daml+oil is nowhere close to what the xml or the xml schema solution might be. 14:24:02 ... the second solution is to use xml schema component designators from the xml schema group, currently a stable working draft 14:24:21 msm: the binding vote should be close, close to be in last call 14:24:56 jc: what we trying to do is a pretty basic use case to the xml schema component designator 14:25:09 Current SCDs draft: http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/xmlschema-current/SCD/scds.html 14:25:18 s/draft/editors' draft/ 14:25:30 aliman has joined #swbp 14:25:36 ... however, because of the generality of the solution, the frag id is pretty complex (based on xpointer) 14:25:54 (jc shows the example in the document) 14:26:28 msm: the change we have made is to make the expression a bit simpler, it will look much more like an xpath expression 14:26:55 zakim, SWBPD_MeetingRoom also has DanBri, Yoshio_Fukushige 14:26:55 +DanBri, Yoshio_Fukushige; got it 14:27:04 zakim, SWBPD_MeetingRoom also has TimBL 14:27:04 +TimBL; got it 14:27:20 jc: this is still more complicated than the daml+oil solution, and has difficulties when using n3 which uses qnames 14:27:48 ... after the ':' n3 requires n3 names, which does not include '(' and others 14:27:53 ...#xscd(/type(adultAge)) becomes ...#xscd(/type::adultAge) -- or, if the type adultAge is assigned to a namespace bound to prefix 'p', ...#xscd(/type::p:adultAge) 14:28:04 ... so it will lead to problems with deployed formats 14:28:21 ... so it is ugly, but the generality is attractive 14:29:29 jc: there is an issue which is at the hear of pat's comment: according to xsd the component designators are for the simple type definitions 14:29:53 msm: no, the simple type definion is an abstraction 14:30:19 Does it identify something that is a member of rdf:Datatype? 14:30:48 the abstractions are what a schema is made of 14:31:20 ... the reason it took so long is that the theological work to say that we are pointing at the abstraction and not the xml 14:31:37 ... i am not sure whether it was crucial but this is it 14:32:06 MSM: specifically, the phrase "i.e. referring to the definition rather than to the type defined." is wrong 14:32:49 jc: what is clear is that the way rdf/owl talks on datatypes means that the theological debate is probably unnecessary 14:32:58 ... the simple case shouild work 14:33:18 ... it does not seem that hard 14:33:46 ... i have looked at the xml schema solution and the daml+oil 14:34:11 The "simple type definition" is an abstraction (name, base type definition, facets); we call it a "definition" to distinguish it from the value and lexical space which follow logically from the base type and facets. (Distinction between intension / extension) 14:34:17 ... the rfc2316 says you take the url, you get a document with a mime type, and that tells you how to interpre the frag id 14:34:25 tbaker has joined #swbp 14:35:05 ... the xml schema documents are xml documents (appl+xml) the mime type permits a bare name, there is a certain amount of deployed experience 14:35:38 ... with bnare name, with a name after the '#' and that is an xml id, and that the frag id refers to the xml element 14:35:56 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw/#sec-id-attr 14:35:59 ... we could modify the xml schema to put an id on 14:36:33 ... then the daml+oil solution is close to a solution. At least to me it does not seem to be so theologically unsound to do that 14:36:56 to use the the same uri to address the datatype described with that portion of xml 14:37:20 ... pat's makes a difference between the xml datatype and the note in the rdf semantics 14:37:25 gmckenzi has joined #swbp 14:38:04 .. in my view the id solution is probably a good solution. the xml schema designators one is the general solution, but if you own the xml schema file, than using id seems to be better 14:38:18 ... however, there is a theological debate around this 14:38:25 .. that is the issue 14:39:02 guus: you propose is to say in our document is to stick an id into the xml schema if you own it 14:39:09 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Feb/0118.html Jeremy's reply to Pat Hayes' comments 14:39:36 jc: the document seeks opinions. My personal opinion is that the use of the id and the designator solution is optimal 14:40:01 timbl: rdf/xml says that its ID overrides the xml things 14:40:06 HiroyukiS has joined #SWBP 14:40:09 ... schema would do the same thing 14:40:13 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005JanMar/0192.html Pat Hayes' comments 14:40:27 ... so you cannot use the bare names you could not use it to refer to a chunk of xml 14:40:51 ... would that be such a departure that it would horrify 14:40:55 TimBL: a schema could have a MIME type definition which defines that the fragids identify the type, not definition of it (like for rdf/xml) 14:41:25 msm: what could help the working group: what has thus far kept us to go is that registering a mime type is a mine field 14:41:44 .. the procedure is now shorter, so that may be feasible, and I can take that back to the group 14:42:12 ... but there is a concern: i can imagine wanting to talk about simple type definiton and the xml element used to declare it 14:42:37 if we make the ability to point depending to the mime type i loose the ability to refer to the xml element itself 14:43:19 ... jc's id solution means refers not to what we have but to something that is adjacent, because you know what it means 14:43:31 ... in the strict sense it relies on a processor 14:43:44 q? 14:44:42 ... i would suggest that strictly speaking all of the bits in the scud (schema component designator): it is a problem that it is longer via xscd, but this tells you exactly via the xpointer mechanism what the exact id is 14:45:02 ... it addresses the fact that it refers to an element adultAge. 14:45:32 ... in any practical context, they add a prefix to distinguish a prefix to avoid name collision 14:45:55 ... so I agree it is longer, but it is semantically simpler 14:46:24 patrick: i am all for to have semantically meaningful, can we handle that using a namespace 14:46:27 zakim, who is on the phone? 14:46:27 On the phone I see Jeff_Pan, SWBPD_MeetingRoom 14:46:28 SWBPD_MeetingRoom has Jeremy, Guus, DavidW, TomB, Libby, Fabien, BillM, Evan, Phil, Mike, Chris, Andreas, Ralph, Michael_SperbergMcQueen, Patrick_Stickler, David_Provost, Alistair, 14:46:30 ... DanBri, Yoshio_Fukushige, TimBL 14:46:34 s/patrick:/Mike:/ 14:46:38 jc: in rdf/xml you can use entities, and that works fine 14:46:54 ... but in n3 does not have qname abbreviation 14:47:02 jeff - we're hearing background noise 14:47:06 can you mute? 14:47:14 .. if the last character is not a proper one 14:47:25 patrick: is there a way around that, updating n3? 14:47:26 thanks 14:48:14 timbl: ')' is used for punctuation, you could put an entirely URI there, you could talk to ROy to see how that framework works 14:48:16 q+ to suggest that regarding a schema as a higher-level langauge than an XML document is 14:49:02 patrick: it is really important not to loose focus on how people using datatypes can do that 14:49:16 One possibly relevant fact: like XPath, SCDs will have short-forms, so "/type::p:adultAge" can be abbreviated to "/~p:adultAge" and "/attribute::p:adultAge" can be abbreviated to "/@p:adultAge" 14:49:22 ... the best practice using xml schemas should fit in a larger way of using datatypes in general 14:49:51 ... you can use some other mechanism (java etc), we should also talk about abstractions and not only that particular processor 14:49:58 q+ to suggest that regarding a schema as a higher-level langauge than an XML document is sensible. One can't and shouldn't keep all the layers visible. A similar comparison could be made between plain text and xml. The use of the # name also allows content negotation among many languages 14:50:19 timbl, you wanted to suggest that regarding a schema as a higher-level langauge than an XML document is and to suggest that regarding a schema as a higher-level langauge than an 14:50:22 ... XML document is sensible. One can't and shouldn't keep all the layers visible. A similar comparison could be made between plain text and xml. The use of the # name also 14:50:24 ... allows content negotation among many languages 14:50:45 (I'm v intrigued by "The use of the # name also allows content negotation among many languages") 14:50:48 timbl: you can look at schema represents an infoset 14:51:02 ... you can always go back to the source and make a link 14:51:33 ... the schema defines types, it is not xml it is a schema language 14:51:46 ... if they want to use it as xml, then it could be served as xml 14:52:25 (scribe has given up...) 14:53:09 msm: as long as there is a way to get 'back', you want to optimize and choose the opt. points wisely, so optimizing chooising the declaration rather than xml is o.k. 14:53:20 ... but tehre are some unexploded mines:-( 14:54:23 MSM: typo in 2.4 -- should be base="xsd:integer" 14:54:24 ... consider your example it points to another type (integer) for the restriction 14:54:40 ... any processor would have a complete udnerstanding of adultAge 14:54:57 ... the problem is when the base is not integer, but my:humanAge, for example 14:55:09 ... if humanAge is declared in another schema document 14:55:30 ... then depending how this is done, I may end up combining this with version 1 or version 2 14:55:50 ... so the result is that the source declaration can end up with different interpreations 14:55:55 +q 14:56:08 q+ 14:56:16 ... strictly speaking the definition defines adultAge in context of the full schema 14:56:32 ... we do not have version solution, so we do not have a good solution for this 14:56:51 .. if the base type is an xsd: one or is in the same document, you do not ahve a problem 14:57:31 patricks: in the example you give, I would assert that is not a problem as long as you use different names 14:57:39 ... you are talking about two different abstractions 14:57:59 RalphS, you wanted to ask TimBL to what degree the semantics are designated by the mime type vs. namespaces 14:58:55 ralphs: tim's notion to use mime types to explain the semantics of the document is fine, but maybe there may be a tag issue on whether the semantics are carried through the namespaces 14:59:20 q+ 14:59:31 Patrick, yes, in principle. But consider situations like that of the HTML namespace. The abstraction 'p element' is (according to community practice) regarded as a single abstraction. But the legal contents are specified one way in the transitional definition, and a different way in the strict definition. 15:00:25 IvanH: do you want to use xml:id rather than id ? 15:00:28 schema:id 15:00:38 ivan: you may want to use xml:id 15:00:38 (tim's right; it's a philosophical not theological discussion) 15:00:51 jc: second issue is practially more difficult 15:01:03 .. is the comparison of floats and decimals 15:01:39 ... within xml schema there primitive types and the other simple types that are derived by restriction 15:01:41 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw/#sec-values 15:01:50 ... eg decimal is arbitrary long 15:02:09 ... there are around 17 primitive tupes 15:02:35 ... all the relevant specs are clear that when you derive from a type the underlying semantics does not change 15:02:57 ... rdf/xml are agnostic on the issue whether 1.0 integer is the same as an 1.0 decimal 15:03:20 ... xml schema is geared to a specific use case: schema processing 15:03:29 ... in that case it is fine 15:03:43 msm: we are required to describe validation precisely 15:04:22 ... the schema position is: yes these are quantitative values, 1.0 has obvious relationsships to 1 15:04:32 ... they are not identical for schema purposes 15:04:57 ...and applications may (eg, xpath2.0 operators) do more 15:05:10 ... schema is a bit like an assembly language 15:05:41 ... nothing prevents an application to define casting 15:05:46 ... rdf can do that 15:06:14 jc: solution #1: to do exactly waht schema does, ie, they are different 15:06:49 solution #3: xml schema gives you a mathematical specification 15:07:08 use that 15:07:28 ... that would also be a very purist line, but may not be useful, it has surprises 15:07:56 ... solution #2: xpath has solved the problem, they have defined 'eq', so use that 15:08:13 ... although there are surprises because 'eq' is not transitive, for example 15:08:22 ... it might be a show stopper 15:08:40 ... at some level a choice has to be made 15:08:54 ... we may be lucky and get a good feedback 15:09:06 guus: the schema people would prefer #1? 15:09:25 q+ to ask how this relates to RDFS range of eg:ageInYears 15:09:25 msm: none of the 3 solution would cause a problem for us 15:10:08 q- 15:10:30 q+ 15:10:56 IvanH: DAWG has chosen the XPath solution 15:11:09 ... it would be nice if SWBPD did not give totally different advice than DAWG 15:11:25 JJC: DAWG is doing something slightly different; they're specifying semantics of a query language, not of the underlying data 15:11:33 q+ to ask which xpath (1.0 or 2.0 datamodel) DAWG use, and whether that matters here? 15:11:45 IvanH: they're defining a quality of the underlying resources 15:12:00 JJC: this may rule out the purist option 15:12:41 msm: strictly speaking what qt does is to define an operator called 'eq' and you may define it as you want 15:12:53 q? 15:12:53 ... so you could define a set of operators 15:13:03 ack danbri 15:13:03 danbri, you wanted to ask which xpath (1.0 or 2.0 datamodel) DAWG use, and whether that matters here? 15:13:12 danbri: the dawg guys are commited xpath 1 or 2? 15:13:21 s/commited/commited to/ 15:13:23 jc: 2, they are using the operators of xpath2 15:13:37 guus: does not that influence your choice? 15:13:58 jc: it will make it the xpath solution more attractive, but may not be the only one 15:14:17 guus: but it would be very strange if there are two different interpretations 15:14:29 ... might be useful to talk to the dawg people on that 15:14:41 jc: i had already some discussions, but not conclusive yet 15:14:45 q+ 15:15:03 ... maybe we can add some indication of preference saying that a direction works better on sparql than some other 15:15:26 ... but it would good to publish this soon 15:15:55 patricks: when you look at the options, it is important to get the best solution without breaking of owl 15:16:10 s/owl/owl reasoners/ 15:16:15 ... if you choose only those that are safe for owl that would be good 15:16:31 ... this chunk of useful equivalence is safe for our reasoner 15:16:40 s/our/owl/ 15:16:52 ... i would encourage those that are involved in owl reasoners to comment 15:17:36 tbaker has joined #swbp 15:17:48 jc: i think we could comment what we got after getting the comments of today 15:17:57 guus: I would like to publish now 15:18:08 ... we could get general feedback 15:18:39 action jc: incorporate the comments + pats' comments + peterson's comments 15:19:27 jc: we could slightly change the intent saying that 'currently solution this or that is best' 15:19:43 guus: it might be clearer for feedback if editorial prefernce is listed 15:19:54 s/prefernce/preference/ 15:20:41 evin sould review again 15:20:54 s/evin/Evan/ 15:21:05 jc: realisticaly I would hope to get back end of next week 15:21:43 guus: would be nice to make a decision on publishing on the next telco 15:23:45 Bijan is given floor 15:24:37 Speaking about WSDL => RDF mapping 15:24:37 tbaker has joined #swbp 15:24:54 Primary thing being mapped is abstract component model of wsdl 15:24:55 Topic: Mapping abstract model of WSDL 15:25:30 components have component properties that relate them to 15:25:38 sets of components or components 15:26:02 -Jeff_Pan 15:27:04 either a straight mapping where all the details of wsdl component model 15:27:10 are expressed in RDF/OWL 15:27:46 OR create a simpler model that glosses over some of the details of the wsdl model 15:27:57 q+ 15:27:58 but expresses the key concepts adequately 15:28:03 q? 15:28:29 q+ 15:29:05 HiroyukiS has changed the topic to: Bijan is given floor 15:29:47 using the more faithful mapping wsdl-straight requires good blank node supports 15:29:50 ack ChrisW 15:30:43 in wsdl-straight property names tend to relate to plurals, whereas in wsdl-ont-nice a property name links 15:30:52 to a single component 15:31:02 Patrick: on cc/pp 15:31:04 ack PatrickS 15:31:13 do not underestimate impact of model on query 15:31:30 nice approach makes it easy to write queries 15:31:38 q+ 15:31:54 *I did wrong IRC operation 15:33:01 libby has changed the topic to: SWBP F2F, agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Mar/0024.html 15:33:28 q+ 15:33:43 ack 15:34:11 ack jjc 15:34:21 ack 15:34:35 jjc: the difference is only mapping of forall contains 15:34:40 ack P 15:34:59 bijan: but then the english definition text differs from RDF model 15:35:04 q+ to suppor the nice format, agreeing with Patrick. 15:35:58 q+ 15:36:17 timbl: keep it simple stupid, make mapping automatic, 15:36:25 q- 15:36:25 timbl: strip out all the sets 15:36:48 chrisw: why left hand side chosen? 15:36:58 i.e. the wsdl-striaght 15:37:20 there is also a Z notation for wsdl-straight 15:37:42 bijan: issues to do with faithful as in as close to transciption as possible 15:39:13 bijan: possible way forward use nice model with straight model as informative appendix 15:40:47 sh1mmer has joined #swbp 15:47:36 bijan has joined #swbp 15:51:12 zakim, pointer? 15:51:12 I don't understand your question, Yoshio. 15:52:02 bijan has joined #swbp 15:55:08 HiroyukiS has joined #SWBP 15:58:51 Guus: breakout topics ... 15:59:10 slides for RDFTM: http://www.ontopia.net/work/survey-pres.html 16:00:03 ... TAG issues, application & demos, OEP 16:00:39 PatrickS has joined #swbp 16:00:47 DavidW has joined #swbp 16:01:22 zakim, who's on the phone? 16:01:22 On the phone I see SWBPD_MeetingRoom 16:01:23 SWBPD_MeetingRoom has Jeremy, Guus, DavidW, TomB, Libby, Fabien, BillM, Evan, Phil, Mike, Chris, Andreas, Ralph, Michael_SperbergMcQueen, Patrick_Stickler, David_Provost, Alistair, 16:01:25 ... DanBri, Yoshio_Fukushige, TimBL 16:02:41 zakim, swbpd_meetingroom also has Valentina_Presutti 16:02:41 +Valentina_Presutti; got it 16:02:58 (Valentina is a new member of the WG) 16:04:11 timbl has joined #swbp 16:05:03 scribe? 16:05:08 Steve: estimated size of audience for the survey is 50 people 16:06:22 ...size of audience for guidelines will be > 50K 16:06:59 ...test cases not complete nor intended to be 16:07:55 ...overview of previous proposals for RDF TM interop 16:09:36 ...overview of evaluation criteria 16:09:44 ...fidelity considered important 16:10:31 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Mar/0047.html snapshot of Steve & Valentina's slides for RDFTM discussion 16:10:45 (hi-fi vs low-fi slide is useful; low-fi is a lowercase-r-reification of Tm structures, rather than RDF that carries the sense of the original TM) 16:11:32 ...conclusion semantic mapping more important 16:12:39 ...survey vs. tutorial focus 16:12:43 mikeU: have a few statements and references 16:12:48 Steve: OK 16:13:37 ...Coverage of OWL? 16:14:05 ...used as it can help with translation 16:14:28 steveW: was OWL considered in any of the other work? 16:14:38 SteveP: no OWL in surveyed work 16:14:55 steveW: Then not covering OWL is OK 16:15:18 q+ to note that introducing OWL concepts/facilities to TM community (and v-versa) would be a useful contribution 16:15:19 ...if OWL can address open issues then say that 16:15:27 q- 16:15:40 ack ChrisW 16:16:21 SteveW: want to ensure that "constraint languages" (Topic Maps) interoperate with OWL 16:16:22 ack danbri 16:16:22 danbri, you wanted to note that introducing OWL concepts/facilities to TM community (and v-versa) would be a useful contribution 16:16:36 Steve: Topic Maps Constraint Language is a current work item in ISO 16:17:14 ...feel that "Introducing OWL to TM" would be out of scope 16:17:39 s/SteveW/DavidW/g 16:17:48 ...for guidelines that is useful, but not the survey 16:17:57 ack RalphS 16:17:57 RalphS, you wanted to say this isn't a tutorial 16:18:32 Ralph: note that OWL might have helped somewhere, (as said above) 16:18:48 SteveP: OK to mention commercial implementations? 16:19:00 put a sentence in the appropriate places for each approach where it could have been improved by using something from OWL 16:20:10 q+ to comment re implementations 16:20:12 RalphS: matter of degree. OK to say at least once that there are implementation and cite them, 16:20:20 ...but repeated reference may be overboard 16:21:46 DavidW: for commercial implementations "see this reference" as opposed to mentioning it inline, 16:21:54 danbri2 has changed the topic to: SWBP F2F, agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Mar/0024.q?html 16:22:01 ...esp. given editor is from the company mentioned 16:22:18 danbri2 has changed the topic to: SWBP F2F, agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Mar/0024.html 16:22:21 q? 16:22:32 scribe realizes he was using SteveW instead of DavidW above 16:23:01 ah - thanks David, sorry about that 16:23:23 np 16:23:28 discussion of objectivity given mentioning of commerical implementations 16:23:30 zakim, BenA just arrived in swbpd_meetingroom 16:23:30 +BenA; got it 16:24:12 guus: shoudl be very clear that its an opinion section, separate from "objective" section 16:24:38 steve: will look at specific sections that seemed subjective and discuss 16:24:48 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Mar/0020.html Natasha'smail 16:25:01 tbaker has joined #swbp 16:25:58 steve: will ask Natasha for specific sections 16:26:06 q? 16:26:10 dan: important to be fair, 16:26:11 ack 16:26:19 danbri, you wanted to comment re implementations 16:26:22 wdmcdaniel has joined #swbp 16:27:10 DanBri: the document could explicitly solicit pointers to other implementations via the mailing list, which would increase openness 16:27:13 steve: would like to consider input that has been published 16:27:22 Steve: I think we know about everything that's out there 16:27:40 ...anyone not convinced for semantic mapping (one conclusion) 16:28:15 davidW: i buy the argument, but unclear on editors position after survey 16:28:27 ...how far could semantic mapping go in addressing problems 16:28:42 q+ to distinguish 2 kinds of semantic mapping 16:28:46 steve: semantic mapping is the only way to go, but don't know if 100% complete 16:28:53 ...not sure a top priority 16:29:19