16:54:36 RRSAgent has joined #swbp 16:54:36 logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-irc 16:54:50 Ralph has changed the topic to: WG Telecon 19 May agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005May/0108.html 16:54:58 zakim, this will be swbp 16:54:58 ok, Ralph; I see SW_BPD()1:00PM scheduled to start in 6 minutes 16:55:12 Meeting: SemWeb BPD WG 16:55:21 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005May/0108.html 16:55:35 -> http://www.w3.org/2005/05/05-swbp-minutes previous 2005-05-05 16:55:53 rrsagent, please make logs world 16:58:21 DavidW has joined #swbp 16:58:58 SW_BPD()1:00PM has now started 16:59:05 +David_Wood 16:59:38 +??P1 16:59:41 +Alistair_Miles (was ??P1) 17:00:06 +??P2 17:00:18 +Ralph 17:00:21 zakim, ??P2 is dbooth 17:00:21 +dbooth; got it 17:01:31 +Libby_Miller 17:02:19 Regrets: Brickley, McGuinness, McBride, Nanni, Rector, Wallace, Govoni, Nguyen, Pepper, Garshol, Vitali, Presutti, Gessa, Gandon, Ng. Pan 17:02:57 [Guus said he'd be ~15 mins late] 17:03:17 Chair: DWood 17:03:38 +Elisa_Kendall 17:03:46 DWood: welcome to David Booth of HP, new WG participant 17:04:03 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose David_Wood 17:04:15 PROPOSED to accept http://www.w3.org/2005/05/05-swbp-minutes as the minutes of the 5 May telecon, per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005May/0045.html 17:04:15 PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 5 May telecon: 17:04:16 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005May/0045.html 17:05:17 zakim, who's on the call? 17:05:17 On the phone I see David_Wood, Alistair_Miles, dbooth, Ralph, Libby_Miller, Elisa_Kendall 17:05:33 RESOLVED to accept http://www.w3.org/2005/05/05-swbp-minutes as the minutes of the 5 May telecon, per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005May/0045.html 17:05:49 PROPOSED to accept http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-swbp-minutes as the minutes of the 21 April telecon, per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005May/0039.html 17:08:08 RESOLVED to accept http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-swbp-minutes as the minutes of the 21 April telecon, per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005May/0039.html 17:08:59 PROPOSED next telecon 17 June 1700 UTC 17:09:07 +??P6 17:09:11 Ralph: Guus asked for an agendum to change the times of the telecons 17:09:18 Natasha has joined #swbp 17:09:23 DWood: yes, but given light attendance we need to wait on time change 17:09:27 zakim, ??p6 is Natasha 17:09:27 +Natasha; got it 17:10:22 [Ralph notes that David Booth is the author of the script -- http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm -- that reformats irc logs to be presentable ] 17:10:29 RESOLVED next telecon 17 June 1700 UTC 17:12:30 http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35495/ftf2005/results 17:12:36 -> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35495/ftf2005/results f2f straw poll results 17:13:15 14 of 21 prefer Galway 17:13:26 ... everyone can live with Galway 17:14:04 Natasha: there's a workshop proposed for the days after ISWC, so f2f makes more sense before ISWC 17:15:14 Natasha: first ISWC workshops are 6 Nov 17:17:09 ACTION: Ralph start a poll on Thu/Fri 3-4 Nov vs. Fri/Sat 4-5 Nov vs. Fri/Sat 11-12 Nov. (noting the 11-12 dates conflict with OWL workshop) 17:18:29 +Gavin_McKenzie 17:18:32 Guus has joined #swbp 17:18:40 I don't mind re f2f dates 17:18:53 [don't mind which options, Alistair?] 17:19:09 any of the november dates are ok 17:19:09 +Guus_Schreiber 17:20:48 Topic: Alternative telecon times 17:20:59 s/Ralph start/Ralph to start/ 17:21:04 Guus: almost every other time of week is better for me than the current time 17:21:37 Natasha: any day of week is ok but 1700 UTC is best for me 17:21:44 DWood: 1700 UTC works best for me 17:21:51 Natasha: except Wed 17:22:03 Ralph: Wed 1700 UTC not good for me either 17:22:11 1700UTC is ok time for me, anyday except friday 17:22:15 +??P9 17:22:31 zakim, ??p9 is Mike_Uschold 17:22:31 +Mike_Uschold; got it 17:22:47 zakim, ??p9 is mikeU 17:22:47 I already had ??P9 as Mike_Uschold, Guus 17:22:50 DWood: Friday 1700Z not good for me 17:23:27 Ralph: I could only do 80 minutes on Tuesday at 1700 UTC 17:23:31 MIkeU has joined #swbp 17:23:41 ... I would prefer Monday 1700 UTC 17:24:05 MikeU: I could manage Mondays 17:24:15 DBooth: propose a straw poll for Mon/Tue/Wed 17:24:45 ACTION: Guus to start a straw poll on new meeting day; Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday -- all at 1700 UTC 17:24:53 Topic: Briefing of WWW2005 17:25:08 Guus: W3C track was well-attended 17:25:13 ... David talked about applications 17:25:27 ... Jeremy talked about RDF in XHTML, was very well done 17:25:42 ... Guus talked about Topic Maps 17:25:53 ... the RDF/A material gave rise to lots of comment 17:26:01 ... Dave Beckett talked about GRDDL afterwards 17:26:12 s/David/DavidW/ 17:26:37 ... some people commented that SemWeb was less visible but I found SemWeb in most every talk, so thought it was quite visible 17:26:49 DavidW: agree, SemWeb very visible 17:26:58 Guus: TimBL gave a new version of his SemWeb layer cake 17:27:12 ... some of the veterans present objected to the new formulation 17:27:31 ... the version with DLP and Rules next to OWL 17:27:40 TimBL's new layer cake: http://www.w3.org/2005/Talks/0511-keynote-tbl/ 17:28:03 DavidW: there was a paper in which OWL-lite plus something had been implemented with rules 17:28:13 http://www.w3.org/2005/Talks/0511-keynote-tbl/#[17] TimBL's new layer cake 17:28:21 Guus: Jeremy presented a good paper on signed graphs and provenance 17:28:31 ... and a paper from DERI on OWL-Flight 17:29:03 ... didn't really attend Dev Day 17:29:27 DavidW: big paper on Dev Day was KAON-2 rule-based OWL system 17:29:50 Guus: I gave a talk on the first workshop day 17:29:51 KAON2: http://kaon2.semanticweb.org/ 17:29:55 ... workshop day was poorly attended 17:30:02 ... my talk was to Japanese developers 17:30:12 ... there were many interesting workshop talks 17:30:22 ... I recommend looking at the workshop proceedings 17:30:25 devday: panel got some attention on japanese blogs apparantly (according to kanzaki-san) 17:30:31 ... ISO registry may be of interest to this WG 17:30:49 zakim, close agendum 1 17:30:49 agendum 1 closed 17:30:50 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 17:30:51 2. Liaison [from Ralph] 17:30:52 (sorry, not devday panel, david wood's panel) 17:30:56 zakim, is chris here? 17:30:56 Ralph, I do not see Chris anywhere 17:31:12 zakim, next agendum 17:31:12 agendum 2. "Liaison" taken up [from Ralph] 17:31:18 Topic: httpRange-14 17:31:27 ACTION Chairs to discuss the httpRange-14 issue at the coordination level 17:31:39 Guus: not much progress at Coordination Group 17:32:12 DavidW: TimBL and DanC seemed to be clear that as SWBPD WG was not presenting new technical content the issue was not likely to make progress 17:32:17 ... so now what? 17:32:37 Guus: one of our main points was that the TAG should move the issue as it was blocking us 17:33:33 Ralph: is my recollection of the March f2f discussion correct that there was a sense that any of the 4 options we identified were acceptable? 17:33:42 ... do we want to apply any ordering at all? 17:33:53 what were 4 options again? 17:33:59 Guus: that was my sense -- any of the 4 options were better than no decision 17:34:44 @@ lookup 4 options @@ 17:34:58 Alistair: I am afraid that the 4 options were simply how I partioned the solution space 17:35:14 ... and I might not have had enough knowledge of the problem to partition it adequately 17:35:54 ACTION: David to identify the 4 httpRange-14 options 17:36:01 s/David/DavidW 17:36:12 ACTION 3= DavidW to identify the 4 httpRange-14 options 17:36:31 Topic: 2.2 XML Schema Last Call 17:36:42 ACTION Jeff to review XML schema LC draft 17:36:44 -- continues 17:36:54 Topic: 2.2 OMG: ODM review 17:37:28 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Apr/0092.html Summary of feedback on the ODM Revised Submission (2005-01-10 version) [Elisa 2005-04-27] 17:37:35 Guus: do the two other proposals have a chance? 17:37:55 Elisa: unclear. the MMS guys with whom Guus met in Japan have proposed an OWL metamodel with a different syntax 17:38:08 ... though conforms closely to abstract syntax 17:38:30 ... we've taken a slightly different approach in the metamodels which do allow close relationship to RDF and OWL 17:38:44 ... Masada-san [sp?] proposal does not maintain closeness to RDF and OWL 17:38:51 ... there's been some discussion on this 17:39:04 ... so the graph model is not in the metamodel itself; it's in the profile section that I am working on 17:39:22 ... and we are trying to make changes to primary metamodel that Jeremy and others have suggested 17:39:30 ... some of these proposals have made it in and some not 17:39:38 ... I'm still working on it 17:39:47 ... we expect to publish a revision end of next week 17:40:04 ... would really appreciate Guus' and others' input on that revision 17:40:32 ... goal is for TC to present to OMG Design Taskforce meeting in June (~20 June) but not present for a vote at that time 17:40:46 ... take to OMG Architecture Board for vote in September 17:41:05 ... any feedback from SWBPD WG would be very much appreciate 17:41:34 ... doc is 300 pages; it has many metamodels, e.g. for Topic Maps, ... 17:41:40 ... focus on the sections that interest you 17:42:01 Guus: my personal interest is in keeping the OWL-Full model in and not going to OWL-DL 17:42:33 ... also regarding RDF/Topic Map link, get Steve Pepper involved 17:42:53 Elisa: I believe Lars Marius helped develop the Topic Maps metamodel in the first place 17:43:17 ... but the primary author of that part of the ODM submission is no longer with AT&T and I haven't heard much from him 17:43:52 Guus: we should ask Steve Pepper for his strategy; it would be awkward to have two documents with different models published 17:44:08 Elisa: the version in the spec to be published next week is unchanged from the previous version 17:44:22 Guus: another topic is the politics around Business Rules 17:44:47 Elisa: there has been some work in parallel with ODM by a "Business Rules Community 17:45:03 s/by a/by a group of folk calling themselves the/ 17:45:22 ... the business rules folk claim their language can be used for ontologies 17:45:40 ... OMG said there needed to be alignment between business rules and ODM 17:45:51 ... I asked the business rules people to ground their logic in ODM 17:46:06 ... that gives them a model-theoretic semantics 17:46:21 ... I got Pat Hayes to sit with the business rules logicians at the W3C Rules Workshop 17:46:29 ... they have agreed to ground their logic in Common Logic 17:46:41 ... there is work afoot to get them to agree to work with us and with Pat Hayes in particular 17:46:56 ... hopefully the result will be something close to a combination of OWL and Common Logic 17:47:09 ... we'll see what happens at the June meeting; I plan to attend their presentation 17:47:46 Guus: the business rules has been specified fairly informally 17:48:01 Elisa: yes, and we've said their logic needs to be grounded in something in order to achieve interoperability 17:48:15 Guus: very nice of Pat, but he's offering them something that they currently do not have 17:48:39 Elisa: yes, and it took some loud voices e.g. from NIST, to persuade them they were missing a large component that was useful to people 17:49:58 DavidW: every time I go to a conference I see a new proposal for an ontology language that uses part of OWL but with a different logic subset that is incompatible 17:50:23 ... is it your goal to try to get [the business rules] people to be clear about their logic in order to determine whether interoperabaility is even possible? 17:50:36 Elisa: yes, first goal is to be able to understand clearly what they are saying 17:50:43 ... then to see if it is compatible with ODM 17:51:17 Ralph: that -- knowing what people are saying -- is the fundamental goal of RDF itself 17:51:21 zakim, next agendum 17:51:21 agendum 3. "TF Updates" taken up [from Ralph] 17:51:28 Topic: 3.1 PORT 17:51:37 DavidW: congratulations to PORT TF on their 3 new WDs 17:51:50 http://www.w3.org/News/2005#item63 17:51:50 Alistair: yes, we did it! got the first 3 SKOS Working Drafts published 17:51:55 yay! 17:52:08 ... we had a slight hiccup with the Quick Guide and got a quick ammendment to it 17:52:15 http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-thesaurus-pubguide-20050517 17:52:23 ... the version linked from the news item is no longer the latest version 17:52:43 Ralph: though the version linked from the news item does have a correct 'latest version' link 17:52:55 Alistair: we had proposed that every 2 months we'd review these document 17:53:04 ... so OK to schedule a review for 17 July? 17:53:15 ... should we ask Tom and Mark van Assem to review again 17:53:26 Ralph: I think we should open the floor to other volunteers 17:53:44 DavidW: there is little to be gained from the same two people looking at it every two months 17:53:58 Guus: the main issue now is whether there will be comments from the public 17:54:08 ... you may want to solicit comments from groups who have special interest 17:54:21 Alistair: I may send email to lists with special interest 17:54:36 ... is there anything special I shoudl say in such announcements? 17:54:48 Mike: could point out what you can do with this 17:55:00 DavidW: there is no requirement and no template for such announcements 17:55:16 ... you're representing the WG and W3C, so review your language before you hit 'send 17:55:28 DavidW: it would be good to include a requested deadline for comments 17:55:59 Mike: I forwarded the publication announcement to our library people 17:56:11 ... I'd like to volunteer to review one of these documents; which would be the best to review? 17:56:20 Alistair: all 3 are linked 17:56:31 Guus: perhaps the SKOS Core Guide is the place to start 17:56:50 ... not much in the Quick Guide to review 17:57:11 ... the SKOS Core Specification is not as readable as the Guide 17:57:24 Alistair: the Guide introduces all of the features of SKOS Core itself 17:57:41 ... the Specification is intended to be a reference document 17:58:36 Alistair: I'll set 17 July provisionally as the next review date 17:58:58 ... and run announcement mail drafts past Guus, David, and Ralph 17:59:16 s/David/DavidW/ 17:59:38 DavidW: in 2 months I will have forgotten that this agendum was to come back up; please remind me at the time 17:59:44 s/me/the chairs/ 18:00:04 Alistair: Eric Miller asked us to think about machine-readable change policies 18:00:12 ACTION Alistair to think about machine-readable change policies 18:00:15 -- continues 18:00:26 Alistair: I'll have to talk with EricM about what he was expecting 18:00:45 ... I will put a seeAlso reference in the RDF to the spec 18:01:10 ... propose to drop the action 18:01:15 ... I don't know what we'd put in the RDF 18:02:06 Ralph: I don't think a seeAlso meets Eric's expectations 18:02:41 ... but I think it makes sense to find out what Eric was thinking of and consider whether the TF wants to tackle it. I suspect it's not a simple job 18:02:54 ack Ralph 18:05:13 Ralph: DanBri is a good author of general announcements to lists, suggest you use him to consult 18:05:29 ... also, the 'which document do I read first' is probably a FAQ 18:05:34 Topic: 3.2 OEP 18:05:41 Natasha: waiting for Mike to finish his comments 18:05:50 ... Specified Values to be published soon 18:06:22 ... not aware of discussion of Time Note 18:06:36 ... Jerry Hobbs may be turning some material he has into a draft 18:06:59 Guus: any idea of Jerry's time schedule? 18:07:27 ... new HP participant, David Booth; which task force were you thinking of joining? 18:07:40 DBooth: I'm still thinking about that, catching up on what the WG is doing 18:08:13 ACTION Ralph help Alistair with publication process for SKOS documents 18:08:15 -- done 18:08:21 TOpic: 3.3 WordNet 18:08:43 Guus: I'm worried that we still haven't published a data model 18:09:00 ... I will contact Aldo to see if we can find additional resources to work on this 18:09:15 +1 on important publication 18:09:17 ... it's an important publication and I'd like to finish it before the end of our charter 18:09:22 ACTION Aldo to propose an update the Wordnet TF description 18:09:26 -- continues 18:09:30 -Natasha 18:09:31 ACTION Alistair e-mail group about ISO contact 18:09:33 -- done 18:09:36 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005May/0081.html ISO TC37 information, contacts & links 18:10:18 Alistair: Aldo said my question about the data model will be answered when the document is published 18:10:30 Topic: 3.4 XML Schema datatypes 18:10:35 [skipped, no representative] 18:10:42 Topic: 3.5 Vocabulary Management 18:10:53 Alistair: TomB summarized our telecon well 18:11:03 Topic: 3.6 RDF-in-XHTML 18:11:33 Ralph: had a 2 person telecon (?) this week, not mailed about it yet, but brief 18:11:47 ...update from html wg is that they hope to publish a new WD next week 18:12:10 ...they were waiting fro an xml schema for xhtml2; they got one and should have discussed it yesterday 18:12:36 ...been some discussions on mail recently about rdf/a in or out of what xhtml wg publishes 18:12:54 ..one person has suggested it shoudl be dropped, but they are not on either wg 18:13:08 ...however the discussions have encouraged ralph 18:13:45 ...still a a bit concerned about whether the xhtml2 specification will explicily tie its semamtics to rdf 18:14:23 ...and whether the specificty in the draft (which one sorry, scribe missed) will be in the documents published by them...perhaps not 18:15:17 ...this wg shoudl watch carefully andmake sure that any conformance requirements in xhtml2 spec make clear that the xhtml2 syntax use binds you to the rdf semnatics...worried that it will be looser than that 18:15:25 RDF/A spec and XHTML2 spec 18:15:26 [sorry if I got that wrong ralph] 18:15:58 ...little we can do at themoment because the document is an editors draft, which we can read and comment on but the public can;t see 18:16:24 ...suggestion is to wait to comment until published as a working draft 18:16:52 ...to persuade them to publish and so the discussions can take place propely in a public forum 18:17:10 ...plus the editor's draft can change before publishing though this material is unlikely to do so 18:17:35 ...ralph's advice to this wg is to hold toght and wait for them to publish, thoug there are risks there 18:17:43 s/toght/tight 18:18:25 ...the question is whether the comments would make sense without the context of the specification 18:19:09 ...at the moment the interested communities can't see the proposed solution 18:19:55 ...doesn;t think there's any effective way this wg can say anything more to xhtml wg to get them to publish more quickly 18:20:10 ...stated holdup is awaiting xml schema for their working draft 18:21:14 ...could go through advisory reps because xhtml wg have not odne an update to their docs in 9 months, but probably little effect 18:21:59 ...had made a request to wg on behalf of the GRDDL editors looking for coeditors - Dave Beckett offered to discuss it with them, whioch is progress 18:22:09 ACTION DanBri help write an rdf schema for the additional xhtml2 namespace elements 18:22:14 ...the wg needs to consider how much effort to put in this direction 18:22:21 ACTION DanBri help write an rdf schema for the additional xhtml2 namespace elements 18:22:21 DONE 18:22:21 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005May/0126.html [DanBri 2005-05-19] 18:22:47 ACTION Gavin find out from his community and contacts if they have use cases 18:23:04 -- continues 18:23:23 Topic: 3.7 ADTF 18:23:28 Libby: nothing to report 18:23:33 Topic: 3.8 RDFTM 18:23:38 [no representatives present] 18:23:46 Topic: 3.9 Tutorial Page 18:24:07 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005May/0048.html FAQ draft published 18:25:06 Alistair: could we start an FAQ as a WiKi? 18:26:16 ... is the idea that all FAQ submissions would go through Benjamin? 18:26:35 ... if we put them in a WiKi then Benjamin's job could be to massage the WiKi into a snapshot 18:26:53 Ralph: I like Alistair's proposal and suggest that he go ahead and start it 18:27:01 Topic: 3.10 SETF 18:27:17 Ralph where should I put it? 18:27:20 Elisa: telecon minutes were posted 18:27:25 q? 18:27:46 Elisa: there are still missing sections, specifically automated software engineering, that we need help with 18:27:57 ... editor's draft has been revised a number of times 18:28:19 ... working toward Galway workshop on software engineering; on 6 Nov 18:28:34 ... we've gotten quite a bit of active response to that workshop 18:29:13 -Mike_Uschold 18:29:18 -Gavin_McKenzie 18:29:19 -Libby_Miller 18:29:21 -Elisa_Kendall 18:29:22 -Alistair_Miles 18:29:24 [Alistair, I propose something like http://esw.w3.org/topic/BestPraticesFAQ ] 18:29:24 -David_Wood 18:29:26 -dbooth 18:29:29 [adjourned] 18:29:35 -Ralph 18:29:53 Ok will start that ralph, following Benjamin's guidelines 18:30:00 cool 18:30:12 I suspect if you start it, Benjamin may find it useful 18:30:43 zakim, drop gusu 18:30:43 sorry, Ralph, I do not see a party named 'gusu' 18:30:46 zakim, drop guus 18:30:46 Guus_Schreiber is being disconnected 18:30:47 SW_BPD()1:00PM has ended 18:30:48 Attendees were David_Wood, Alistair_Miles, Ralph, dbooth, Libby_Miller, Elisa_Kendall, Natasha, Gavin_McKenzie, Guus_Schreiber, Mike_Uschold 18:31:53 zakim, bye 18:31:53 Zakim has left #swbp 18:32:08 rrsagent, please draft minutes 18:32:08 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes.html Ralph 18:32:36 rrsagent, thanks 18:32:36 I'm logging. I don't understand 'thanks', Ralph. Try /msg RRSAgent help 18:32:46 rrsagent, bye 18:32:46 I see 3 open action items: 18:32:46 ACTION: Ralph start a poll on Thu/Fri 3-4 Nov vs. Fri/Sat 4-5 Nov vs. Fri/Sat 11-12 Nov. (noting the 11-12 dates conflict with OWL workshop) [1] 18:32:46 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-irc#T17-17-09 18:32:46 ACTION: Guus to start a straw poll on new meeting day; Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday -- all at 1700 UTC [2] 18:32:46 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-irc#T17-24-45 18:32:46 ACTION: DavidW to identify the 4 httpRange-14 options [3] 18:32:46 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-irc#T17-35-54