17:01:36 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #swbp
17:01:36 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/05/12-swbp-irc
17:01:36 <tbaker__> yes, but I'm having trouble with it
17:01:44 <Ralph> Meeting: SWBPD Vocab Managment TF
17:02:02 <danbri> zakim, who is on the phone?
17:02:02 <Zakim> sorry, danbri, I don't know what conference this is
17:02:03 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, tbaker__, Zakim, aliman, danbri, Ralph
17:02:04 <Zakim> SW_BPD(VM)1:00PM has now started
17:02:10 <Zakim> +Ralph
17:02:10 <danbri> zakim, this will be SWBP
17:02:12 <Zakim> ok, danbri; I see SW_BPD(VM)1:00PM scheduled to start 2 minutes ago
17:02:13 <tbaker__> got Ralph's voice saying this is the W3C... etc  then it dropped...
17:03:00 <Ralph> zakim, who's on the call?
17:03:01 <Zakim> I notice SW_BPD(VM)1:00PM has restarted
17:03:02 <Zakim> On the phone I see Ralph, Tom_Baker, Danbri, Elisa_Kendall, ??P6
17:03:29 <Zakim> +Alistair_Miles (was ??P6)
17:05:14 <Zakim> -Elisa_Kendall
17:05:25 <tbaker__> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005May/0071.html
17:05:27 <danbri> elisa: coming soon, new ODM draft!
17:06:09 <Ralph> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005May/0070.html
17:07:13 <aliman> q+ to request an agenda amendment
17:07:39 <Ralph> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005May/0071.html Tom's talking points
17:08:06 <danbri> q+ to comment re rescoping
17:08:58 <Ralph> TomB: the narrower scope feels much more manageable
17:09:51 <danbri> ack danbri
17:09:51 <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to comment re rescoping
17:09:53 <aliman> q-
17:09:57 <Ralph> Alistair: there's an issue in Quick Guide to Publishing a Thesaurus on SemWeb that relates to VM
17:10:31 <Ralph> DanBri: the cut-down proposal focuses on RDF vocabularies.  good to have this crisp focus
17:11:34 <Ralph> ... lots of good text in the Wiki document that should not be lost
17:11:41 <aliman> q+
17:12:34 <tbaker__> Ralph: agrees on narrower scope.
17:12:46 <tbaker__> how do we get traction on drafting words that can become a document?
17:12:58 <tbaker__> applaud Alistair on starting
17:13:14 <tbaker__> was comfortable with most of wiki draft and would like to see some migrate to new one
17:13:34 <tbaker__> we noted that not everyone understands importance of maintaining stable URIs
17:13:44 <tbaker__> those kinds of concepts are important in initial draft
17:14:01 <tbaker__> my margin notes: technical issues we may or may not be able to get into
17:14:10 <tbaker__> how do we version namespaces? etc
17:14:31 <tbaker__> if it feels good to us to say that we're focusing on RDF vocabularies, then take subset from wiki - good next step
17:15:01 <tbaker__> Alistair: when I hacked note - try to look from potential user's point of view
17:15:13 <tbaker__> i want to know "what can I know from this"
17:15:21 <tbaker__> we say what we can say, and that's it
17:15:35 <tbaker__> say the things that we definitely can say - and that is our scope
17:15:38 <danbri> q?
17:15:42 <tbaker__> danbri: 
17:15:44 <aliman> q-
17:16:01 <tbaker__> users of w3c tech end up feeling stupid because they cannot figure out 
17:16:08 <tbaker__> e.g., xslt with rdf...
17:16:18 <tbaker__> so if there are tricky or unsolved problems
17:16:21 <tbaker__> q+
17:16:39 <Ralph> I agree that the WG should not invent "best practices"
17:16:47 <tbaker__> Ralph: we should document those things we consider BP
17:17:16 <tbaker__> strength: DC/FOAF/SKOS have faced these issues - extracting from that experience is really valuable
17:17:58 <Ralph> Tom: ok to scope on what we know, but would like to push a little beyond that
17:18:19 <Ralph> ... e.g. evolving issues section
17:18:31 <aliman> q+
17:18:49 <Ralph> ... broader scope than just what can be said with certainty
17:19:27 <Ralph> ... I'd like to salvage some of the Wiki issues, perhaps in shorter form
17:19:46 <Ralph> ... note design and policy decisions even when best practice is not fully baked
17:20:24 <tbaker__> Alistair: 99% of potential users
17:20:28 <Ralph> Alistair: I'd like the note to take a strong stance from the point of view of the users
17:20:35 <Ralph> ... users are not interested in unsolved issues
17:20:41 <Ralph> ... they want to know only what they need to know
17:21:01 <danbri> q+ to [dis?]agree with al
17:21:06 <Ralph> ... need to understand the user community
17:21:23 <Ralph> ... I'd like never ever again to refer to 'hash vs. slash'
17:21:43 <Ralph> ... this just draws them into a long historic debate
17:22:00 <danbri> ralph: i was going to ask about target readership...
17:22:21 <danbri> ...sympathise re not exposing students (?) to debates which only give them a sense of some deep topic which they'll not find an answer to
17:22:35 <danbri> ...at same time, people trying to use this stuff, often get perplexed by things for which there is no answer
17:22:47 <danbri> ...shouldn't be afraid to mention issues for which we've no answers
17:22:58 <danbri> "yes we know there's an issue, but we don't have an answer"
17:23:06 <aliman> sounds good ralph
17:23:23 <danbri> ...we perhaps don't need to give as much rationale for why something is best practice
17:23:29 <danbri> ...i sometimes go overboard on that
17:23:38 <aliman> most users say: tell me what to do?
17:23:42 <danbri> ...you suggest that the target readership may not care on that
17:24:24 <tbaker__> Danbri: agree with Ralph - while we shouldn't scare people with academic stuff
17:24:41 <tbaker__> there are often some practical questions - what mime type should I configure my server,
17:24:52 <tbaker__> can I put http doc there and content-negotiate, etc.
17:25:01 <aliman> +1 on both Ralph & danbri
17:25:23 <tbaker__> Ralph: we can recommend hash without even hinting at debate
17:25:25 <aliman> q+
17:25:35 <Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to comment on acknowledging issues
17:25:44 <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to [dis?]agree with al
17:26:29 <tbaker__> Danbri: what to put at URI - if reader clicks and can;t get something readable, etc
17:26:32 <Ralph> [use case for GRDDL -- publishing a text/html document at a namespace URI that contains the RDF Schema / OWL Ontology ]
17:26:48 <tbaker__> q+
17:27:19 <Ralph> Alistair: good to take a look at the issues from a very pratical perspective
17:27:31 <Ralph> ... e.g. what mime types should be used where
17:27:35 <danbri> """Where the resources that are the members of an RDF vocabulary are denoted by HTTP URIs, an HTTP GET request with the header field 'accept=application/rdf+xml' against that URI should return an RDF/XML serialisation of an RDF graph that includes a description of the denoted resource."""
17:28:17 <Ralph> ... can say your URIs should support application/rdf+xml without going into the hash vs. slash debate
17:28:31 <Ralph> Tom: see point 9 of my talking points
17:28:56 <Ralph> ... Andy Powell has a nice paper addressing point 9d
17:29:23 <Ralph> ... would be useful to summarize in 2-3 sentences and cite other documents like Andy's paper
17:29:52 <Ralph> ... don't think we want to address Vocabulary Ownership
17:30:13 <danbri> q?
17:30:16 <danbri> q+
17:30:26 <danbri> q-
17:30:43 <danbri> q+ to note that re SKOS, 'vocab ownership' proves complex to talk about, even for one organization (w3c)
17:40:09 <Ralph> Tom: propose VM telecons every other week
17:40:18 <Ralph> ... e.g. between WG weeks
17:41:31 <tbaker__> Tuesdays 1300 UTC
17:42:38 <tbaker__> June 7
17:44:32 <tbaker__> June 21
17:44:59 <danbri> q?
17:45:31 <Ralph> Alistair: the Publishing Thesaurus Quick Guide has different URIs from what was originally published
17:47:04 <Ralph> Ralph: yes, I changed those UKAT URIs because W3C PubRules does not permit citing URIs that are 404
17:47:30 <Ralph> Alistair: the community does not understand the issue
17:47:45 <Ralph> ... getting them to use URIs at all is a big achievement
17:48:21 <Ralph> ... there is a downloadable RDF version of UKAT and GEMAT (sp?) that use URIs that do not dereference
17:49:19 <Ralph> Ralph: oops, I may have acted too hastily then in changing the Quick Guide
17:53:34 <danbri> Server: Apache/1.3.27 (Unix) PHP/4.3.10
17:54:38 <danbri> q+ to propose a best practice
17:55:29 <danbri> http://httpd.apache.org/security/vulnerabilities_13.html "Fixed in Apache httpd 1.3.33"
17:55:43 <danbri> q-
17:56:00 <danbri> q+ to ask whether keeping server software up to date is SW Best Practice
17:56:37 <Ralph> DanBri: I found a web server at example.org and example.com
17:57:12 <Ralph> ... I am worried that there is an insecure Web server that could be logging accesses to example.{com,org}
17:57:29 <Ralph> ... this could scare people away from using http:
17:58:16 <tbaker__> danbri, sounds like a good footnote
17:58:24 <Ralph> ... e.g. URN crowd has taken advantage of concerns over http
17:58:47 <Ralph> ... need to inform people of social policies around namespace documents
17:58:57 <Ralph> ... e.g. changing your schema changes the interpretation of existing documents
18:00:18 <Ralph> next meeting: 7 June, 1300 UTC
18:00:47 <Zakim> -Tom_Baker
18:00:47 <Ralph> ACTION: Alistair post a starting draft in the VM area on www.w3.org
18:00:49 <Zakim> -Alistair_Miles
18:00:53 <Zakim> -Ralph
18:00:55 <Zakim> -Danbri
18:00:56 <Zakim> SW_BPD(VM)1:00PM has ended
18:00:57 <Zakim> Attendees were Ralph, Danbri, Tom_Baker, Elisa_Kendall, Alistair_Miles
18:01:04 <tbaker__> i will post a brief report tomorrow
18:01:20 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/ the VM TF area
18:01:41 <Ralph> zakim, bye
18:01:41 <Zakim> Zakim has left #swbp
18:55:40 <ChrisW> ChrisW has joined #swbp
18:56:06 <ChrisW> zakim, list telecons
18:56:29 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #swbp
18:56:35 <ChrisW> zakim, list telecons
18:56:35 <Zakim> I don't understand 'list telecons', ChrisW
18:56:40 <ChrisW> zakim, list
18:56:40 <Zakim> I see XML_QueryWG(ttf)3:00PM active
18:56:41 <Zakim> also scheduled at this time are WAI_UAWG()2:00PM, SW_BPD(oed)3:00PM
18:56:54 <ChrisW> zakim, this will be SW_BPD
18:56:54 <Zakim> ok, ChrisW; I see SW_BPD(oed)3:00PM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
18:58:35 <ChrisW> rrsagent, leave
18:58:35 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item:
18:58:35 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Alistair post a starting draft in the VM area on www.w3.org [1]
18:58:35 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/12-swbp-irc#T18-00-47-1
18:59:00 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #swbp
18:59:00 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/05/12-swbp-irc
18:59:49 <Zakim> SW_BPD(oed)3:00PM has now started
18:59:55 <Zakim> +[IBM]
19:00:03 <ChrisW> zakim, [ibm] is temporarily me
19:00:03 <Zakim> +ChrisW; got it
19:02:12 <Zakim> + +1.310.822.aaaa
19:02:15 <Zakim> -ChrisW
19:02:17 <Zakim> +ChrisW
19:02:33 <ChrisW> zakim, aaaa is JerryH
19:02:33 <Zakim> +JerryH; got it
19:02:58 <Zakim> +??P5
19:04:25 <Natasha> Natasha has joined #swbp
19:04:34 <Natasha> Natasha has left #swbp
19:04:52 <ChrisW> zakim, ??p5 is natasha
19:04:52 <Zakim> +natasha; got it
19:05:45 <Zakim> +Deb_McGuinness
19:05:51 <Zakim> +??P8
19:05:53 <Zakim> +Mike_Uschold (was ??P8)
19:05:55 <Zakim> +PatH
19:05:58 <DeborahM> DeborahM has joined #swbp
19:06:01 <DeborahM> hi
19:07:00 <patH> patH has joined #swbp
19:07:03 <Natasha> Natasha has joined #swbp
19:08:02 <Zakim> +Elisa_Kendall
19:09:53 <ChrisW> agenda item 1: N-ary note
19:10:18 <ChrisW> issue of the first two patterns being different or not
19:10:25 <ChrisW> is this worth putting in a note
19:12:49 <ChrisW> http://smi-web.stanford.edu/people/noy/nAryRelations/n-aryRelations-2nd-WD.html
19:12:58 <ChrisW> latest editors draft
19:20:27 <Ralph> Ralph has left #swbp
19:37:08 <Zakim> -Mike_Uschold
19:48:06 <Zakim> -natasha
20:00:36 <Zakim> -JerryH
20:00:36 <Zakim> -Deb_McGuinness
20:00:37 <Zakim> -ChrisW
20:00:38 <Zakim> -PatH
20:00:39 <Zakim> -Elisa_Kendall
20:00:40 <Zakim> SW_BPD(oed)3:00PM has ended
20:00:41 <Zakim> Attendees were ChrisW, +1.310.822.aaaa, JerryH, natasha, Deb_McGuinness, Mike_Uschold, PatH, Elisa_Kendall
20:02:02 <ChrisW> Mike, Pat & Chris of the opinion that "pattern1" and "pattern2" are not different patterns, just different use cases
20:02:25 <ChrisW> Chris: called them different use cases removes the need to discuss why they are different so extensively,
20:02:34 <ChrisW> ... as the note seems to have gotten too long.
20:02:57 <ChrisW> ...suggest calling it one pattern, and removing some of the discussion as to why they are different
20:03:33 <ChrisW> MikeU: suggest talking about the naming conventions used after each pattern
20:03:57 <ChrisW> Natasha will talk to Alan about steps forward
20:04:15 <ChrisW> ACTION Chris: send around n-ary vocabulary in OWL Full
20:04:46 <ChrisW> Chris: WG is very positive about the idea of publishing actual ontologies in w3c URI space
20:05:14 <ChrisW> ...many requests to have a "standard" way to annotate "Classes representing n-ary relations" in order to support interoperability
20:05:45 <ChrisW> Agenda item 2: simple part whole
20:06:17 <ChrisW> Discussion of whether the RDFS pattern is really needed. All it says is that partOf is a property.
20:06:52 <ChrisW> This doesn't appear to be very useful to have in note, the RDFS primer tells people how to declare properties in RDF
20:07:26 <ChrisW> Natasha: lots of experience from Protege users, they expect OWL to have "partOf" built in, and we
20:07:33 <ChrisW> ...get a lot of questions on how to model it
20:08:10 <ChrisW> ...saying that "it's just a relation" is actually a useful thing to say.
20:08:36 <ChrisW> ...for some reason a lot of people think it's different, so this can help
20:08:56 <ChrisW> Chris will work with new individual pattern and merge into the note.
20:09:18 <ChrisW> Agenda Item 3: OWL-Time
20:09:35 <ChrisW> Group welcome Jerry Hobbs to OEP at long last
20:09:47 <ChrisW> looking forward to having OWL-TIme a W3C note
20:10:13 <ChrisW> Chris: I have found - for purely aesthetic reasons - that having an "event" class in OWL-Time is impure
20:10:40 <ChrisW> Jerry: Does no harm, simply allows for events as well as time points to be order according to Allen relations
20:11:22 <ChrisW> Chris: Agreed is does no harm - this is purely aesthetic.  Suggest separating "core" OWL time from this layer using imports
20:11:35 <ChrisW> ACTION Chris: send around a version that has been split this way.
20:12:12 <ChrisW> Jerry: publishing OWL-Time in the W3C space a desireable thing.  Looking at June before work can begin on this
20:12:27 <ChrisW> Agenda Item 4: Units & Measures
20:12:46 <ChrisW> Elisa: still making slow progress on evaluation criteria for all the ontologies out there
20:13:04 <ChrisW> ...ODM still a big obstacle, finished in two weeks and then this will start moving
20:13:20 <ChrisW> ...being able to publish this in W3C space a big motivation
20:14:09 <ChrisW> rrsagent, set logs world-visible
20:14:31 <ChrisW> rrsagent, format minutes
20:14:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/05/12-swbp-minutes.html ChrisW
20:14:54 <ChrisW> rrsagent, bye
20:14:54 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items:
20:14:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Chris to send around n-ary vocabulary in OWL Full [1]
20:14:54 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/12-swbp-irc#T20-04-15
20:14:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Chris to send around a version that has been split this way. [2]
20:14:54 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/12-swbp-irc#T20-11-35