IRC log of swbp on 2005-05-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

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