16:58:05 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #swbp
16:58:05 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/27-swbp-irc
16:58:15 <Ralph> Meeting: SemWeb BPD WG
16:58:27 <Ralph> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jun/0075.html
16:59:13 <Zakim> SW_BPD()1:00PM has now started
16:59:21 <Zakim> +Guus_Schreiber
16:59:23 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace
16:59:24 <Ralph> Chair: Guus
16:59:28 <Ralph> Regrets: (none noted)
16:59:48 <Zakim> +Ralph
17:00:29 <Zakim> +[IBM]
17:00:39 <ChrisW> zakim, [ibm] is temporarily me
17:00:39 <Zakim> +ChrisW; got it
17:01:21 <ekw> ekw has joined #swbp
17:01:28 <aliman> aliman has joined #swbp
17:01:47 <Zakim> +Phil_Tetlow
17:02:06 <Zakim> +Alistair_Miles (was Guest P11 7927)
17:02:07 <Zakim> +Alistair_Miles
17:02:12 <Guus> Guus has joined #swbp
17:03:46 <Natasha> Natasha has joined #swbp
17:04:24 <Zakim> + +49.551.39.aaaa
17:04:34 <Ralph> zakim, aaaa is Tom_Baker
17:04:34 <Zakim> +Tom_Baker; got it
17:04:47 <Zakim> +Elisa_Kendall
17:05:20 <Zakim> +David_Wood
17:05:37 <Ralph> Topic: Admin
17:05:42 <Ralph> zakim, who's on the call?
17:05:42 <Zakim> On the phone I see Guus_Schreiber, Evan_Wallace, Ralph, ChrisW, Phil_Tetlow, Alistair_Miles, Tom_Baker, Elisa_Kendall, David_Wood
17:06:22 <Ralph> ScribeNick: aliman_scribe
17:06:24 <Ralph> Scribe: Alistair
17:06:30 <aliman_scribe> zakim, mute Alistair
17:06:30 <Zakim> Alistair_Miles should now be muted
17:06:37 <Zakim> +DBooth
17:07:11 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-swbp-minutes previous meeting 2005-06-16
17:07:21 <aliman_scribe> guus: proposed to accept minutes above ...
17:08:09 <aliman_scribe> ... any corrections?
17:08:27 <aliman_scribe> Elisa: second
17:08:39 <aliman_scribe> guus: resolved.
17:08:40 <dbooth> dbooth has joined #swbp
17:08:46 <Ralph> [DONE] ACTION: Ralph post telecon date resolution to the list
17:09:03 <aliman_scribe> zakim, unmute alistair
17:09:03 <Zakim> Alistair_Miles should no longer be muted
17:09:16 <Ralph> Topic: Liaison
17:09:48 <aliman_scribe> 2.1 Proposed resolution httpRange-14
17:10:15 <aliman_scribe> ralph: tag found a solution that does not rely on uri string syntax at all, but relies on http result codes ...
17:10:49 <aliman_scribe> ...solution on the books for severalyears ...
17:10:49 <aliman_scribe> ...heard more support recently ...
17:11:00 <aliman_scribe> ...allow 3xx code as response for x other than a document ...
17:11:17 <aliman_scribe> ...asked coord group if there will be formal finding
17:11:32 <aliman_scribe> ...do not expect to publish a formal finding
17:11:42 <aliman_scribe> ... roy fieldings email deemed to be sufficient
17:11:48 <aliman_scribe> ...don't expect to see any more
17:12:01 <dbooth> q+ to say that the TAG resolution still seems to leave the question of identification somewhat open
17:12:12 <ChrisW> ChrisW has joined #swbp
17:12:29 <aliman_scribe> guus: do we need to take any action? explain consequences?
17:12:48 <aliman_scribe> david: vmtf talked a bit about it, tom posted report ...
17:12:54 <Ralph> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jun/0079.html [VM] Report of 2005-06-21 telecon [Tom Baker 2005-06-27]
17:12:59 <aliman_scribe> ... thinks tom doesn't go far enough 
17:13:11 <aliman_scribe> ... we should clean up after this decision
17:13:28 <aliman_scribe> ... go back to each tf, ask them to fold in best practices comments around this issue 
17:13:52 <aliman_scribe> ... VM started, others should do same
17:14:00 <aliman_scribe> guus: discuss per tf, or as general?
17:14:09 <aliman_scribe> ... hear preference for doing per tf
17:14:20 <aliman_scribe> david: do it per tf *publication* ...
17:14:32 <aliman_scribe> ... as raised at last f2f
17:14:47 <aliman_scribe> ... cleaner for us to address piecemeal in docs, rather than as a wg note in general
17:14:58 <aliman_scribe> guus: ok, per tf
17:15:05 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to say that the TAG resolution still seems to leave the question of identification somewhat open
17:15:14 <Guus> qw?
17:15:20 <Guus> q?
17:15:32 <aliman_scribe> dbooth: each tf makes its own recommendation re best practices ...
17:15:36 <aliman_scribe> ... ?
17:15:50 <aliman_scribe> tag resolution still leaves open the recommended way to identify things 
17:15:57 <aliman_scribe> ...bp should be clear about this
17:16:11 <aliman_scribe> ...not clear to me as a wg what we are recommending
17:16:19 <Guus> ack Ralph
17:16:19 <Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to warn TomB of muting
17:17:03 <aliman_scribe> ralph: does wg need to make a recommendation at all re what uris to use for naming
17:17:09 <aliman_scribe> ...unless we disagree with tag
17:17:22 <aliman_scribe> q+ to comment on uris & naming
17:17:41 <aliman_scribe> ralph: concern about trailing slash and trailing hash ...
17:17:55 <aliman_scribe> ...tag says yes, either is fine given the right response code
17:18:07 <aliman_scribe> ...so why legislate any more about identifiers?
17:18:19 <aliman_scribe> ....can point out reasons for doing it one way or another
17:18:47 <aliman_scribe> ...take davidbooths point that wg as a whole as to what each tf is discussing
17:18:58 <dbooth> q+ to follow up
17:19:00 <aliman_scribe> ...may need some coordination, but at this stage don't legislate
17:19:35 <aliman_scribe> davidw: concern about not addressing it in some doc, because TAG didn't address in some document
17:19:44 <aliman_scribe> ... we don't have a canonical reference to point to
17:19:58 <aliman_scribe> ... needs to be clear to community what we're going to do about this
17:20:17 <aliman_scribe> ... vm porting wordnet rdftm tfs impacted by this decision
17:20:18 <Ralph> [Ah, I understand DavidW's point -- that _some_ recommendation is needed.  We should recommend a Best Practice for using 303 See Other]
17:20:24 <Zakim> +??P1
17:20:34 <Natasha> Zakim, ??P1 is Natasha
17:20:35 <Zakim> +Natasha; got it
17:20:47 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to follow up
17:20:48 <aliman_scribe> ... we can review per tf publications prior to publication
17:21:05 <aliman_scribe> dbooth: worthwile to indicate pros & cons in a doc 
17:21:17 <aliman_scribe> ...person feeling is, tag resolution not entirely satisfactory
17:21:29 <aliman_scribe> ...doesn't apply equally well to RDF and non-RDF case
17:21:45 <aliman_scribe> ...so you're dependent on what document type you're dealing with
17:21:48 <Zakim> aliman_scribe, you wanted to comment on uris & naming
17:22:09 <Ralph> Alistair: we should include in per-TF documentation as our role is to explain TAG resolution
17:22:38 <aliman_scribe> phil: what are we commenting on?
17:23:00 <aliman_scribe> ... tag should come up with mechanism for resolving this issue, rahter than just saying hash or slash.
17:23:02 <Guus> q?
17:23:46 <aliman_scribe> ralph: this WG should write up, either endorse the use of 303 see also, or to disagree with TAG
17:23:52 <dbooth> q+ to disagree with us not legislating more than the TAG.  Our purpose is to provide Best Practices guidelines.
17:23:54 <aliman_scribe> ... and to explain how this isused in case of semweb
17:24:16 <aliman_scribe> phil: is it best practise to bind this mechanism to the concept of resource id
17:24:22 <Guus> q?
17:24:25 <aliman_scribe> .... singular mechanism for ???
17:24:49 <aliman_scribe> ... are there other circumstances that should be investigated?
17:24:58 <aliman_scribe> ... or are we happy with singular soultion?
17:25:05 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to disagree with us not legislating more than the TAG.  Our purpose is to provide Best Practices guidelines.
17:25:19 <aliman_scribe> dbooth: uncomfortable with not legislating more than what TAG said
17:25:28 <aliman_scribe> ...entirely appropriate to give more guidance than TAG
17:25:40 <aliman_scribe> guus: up to level not inconsistent with TAG
17:25:54 <aliman_scribe> ralph: meant to focus on use of particular URI syntax
17:26:07 <aliman_scribe> ... no reason for this wg to partition uri space
17:26:11 <Guus> q?
17:26:28 <aliman_scribe> ... right we do need to explain how to apply tag view to specific semweb case
17:26:41 <aliman_scribe> phil: identified problem of good or bad uris?
17:26:52 <aliman_scribe> ... feel that context is important.
17:27:09 <aliman_scribe> ralph: phil's comments making this a wider problem, lets focus on smaller first
17:27:30 <aliman_scribe> ... propose specific action, this wg should draft some sort of message as part of a note, 
17:27:53 <aliman_scribe> ... says 'here's how we interpret tag's solution, here's how we intepret it for semweb'
17:28:07 <aliman_scribe> ... would like to see draft of such a doc, propose one of our tfs do it
17:28:14 <aliman_scribe> ... perhaps VM?
17:28:20 <aliman_scribe> guus: short note, couple of pages?
17:28:35 <aliman_scribe> ralph: not formal note just yet, but we should have some formal on the record statement
17:28:49 <aliman_scribe> ... happy to leave it to some tf
17:28:56 <aliman_scribe> ...tomb?
17:29:26 <aliman_scribe> tom: who would do that? don't want to volunteer someone.
17:29:43 <aliman_scribe> What about danbri?
17:29:57 <aliman_scribe> ralph: maybe between danbri and me?
17:30:11 <aliman_scribe> davidw: 3 week special tf just to do this?
17:30:45 <aliman_scribe> guus: propose ralph, davidb, davidw to take on an action
17:31:07 <aliman_scribe> tom: willing to participate
17:31:52 <aliman_scribe> davidw: should get short message from each of impacted tf leads, regarding what their issue was?
17:32:12 <aliman_scribe> ralph: tfs don't care too much about what the solution was, although there were deployment issues
17:32:33 <aliman_scribe> guus: propose two davids and ralph take on the action, take on feedback from others
17:32:36 <aliman_scribe> ralph: accept
17:32:42 <aliman_scribe> david & david: me too
17:33:55 <aliman_scribe> ACTION: ralph davidw and davidb to an initial draft of TAG httpRange-14 resolution impact on semweb application developers
17:34:26 <Ralph> Topic: 3.2 OEP
17:34:27 <aliman_scribe> Topic:  OEP
17:34:44 <Ralph> zakim, please mute tom
17:34:44 <Zakim> Tom_Baker should now be muted
17:35:01 <aliman_scribe> chrisW: natasha alan and i had a telecon, resolved all issues for n-ary relations note and part-whole note, n-ary relations gone to review 
17:35:09 <aliman_scribe> ... need another reviewer (ralph is one)
17:35:51 <aliman_scribe> ... simpe part-whole note, we have concrete actions, ready in 1 week
17:36:03 <aliman_scribe> ... spoke to jerry hobbs re owl time
17:36:07 <Ralph> ACTION: Ralph review new n-ary relations editor's draft
17:36:12 <aliman_scribe> ... almost ready 
17:36:24 <aliman_scribe> guus: need second reviewer for n-ary relations
17:37:03 <aliman_scribe> ... timescale?
17:37:08 <aliman_scribe> chris: asap
17:37:21 <aliman_scribe> guus: agree to review
17:37:41 <Ralph> ACTION: Guus review new n-ary relations editor's draft
17:37:47 <aliman_scribe> ... any use of owl restrictions note i wrote?
17:37:57 <aliman_scribe> chris: haven't looked at it yet
17:38:15 <aliman_scribe> guus: difference between rdfs range and owl restrictions
17:38:26 <aliman_scribe> elisa: let's look into it
17:38:47 <aliman_scribe> Topic: 2.2 XML Schema Compound Descriptors
17:38:55 <Ralph> s/Compound/Component/
17:39:11 <aliman_scribe> davidw: continue
17:39:14 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2005/06/17-swcg-minutes#item04 XSCD status from SemWeb CG telecon
17:39:29 <aliman_scribe> ralph: it was brought up at the cg, 
17:40:02 <aliman_scribe> ... last call still open, not a high priority
17:40:12 <aliman_scribe> ... we still have time to comment
17:40:43 <Ralph> [[
17:40:43 <Ralph> Ralph: SWBP wants to know the status of XML Schema Component Designators
17:40:44 <Ralph> Liam: unsure, as the WG is busy with XML Schema 1.1
17:40:44 <Ralph> ... URIs for datatypes is likely to be a separate document rather than added to SCD
17:40:44 <Ralph> ... has SWBPD communicated its issue to XML Schema WG?
17:40:44 <Ralph> ... if so, feel free to ping them if you haven't had a response
17:40:46 <Ralph> ]]
17:41:18 <aliman_scribe> ralph: jeremy & jeff concerned that our comments on uris for datatypes had not been heard or fully made
17:41:30 <aliman_scribe> ... liam said feel free to ask again
17:41:50 <aliman_scribe> ... but not a pressing matter, so still open for comments
17:42:05 <aliman_scribe> ... tag also talked about schema component designators
17:42:21 <aliman_scribe> guus: leave liason issue on the agenda
17:42:33 <aliman_scribe> ACTION DavidW ask about the XML Schema Component
17:42:34 <aliman_scribe> DONE
17:42:45 <aliman_scribe> Topic: 2.2 OMG: ODM review
17:43:19 <aliman_scribe> elisa: made some additions after feedback from hp
17:43:32 <aliman_scribe> ... re addition of RDF graph and document model to RDF metamodel
17:43:44 <aliman_scribe> ... OMG decided to include changes, fo next revision
17:44:09 <Zakim> -Tom_Baker
17:44:10 <aliman_scribe> ... everyone is agreed
17:44:28 <aliman_scribe> ... planning to submit one additional revision 
17:44:35 <aliman_scribe> ... send out asap
17:44:59 <aliman_scribe> ... . some questions about business rules .
17:45:10 <aliman_scribe> ... agreed to ground logic in common logic
17:45:34 <aliman_scribe> ... work with pat hayes to make that happen, business rules community aligning around common logic with some extesinos possibly
17:45:47 <aliman_scribe> ... so no competition between ODM and business rules
17:46:00 <aliman_scribe> ... harry halpin
17:46:06 <Ralph> s/harry/Terry/
17:46:13 <ekw> Terry Halpin
17:46:22 <aliman_scribe> guus: will also comment on ODM
17:46:30 <aliman_scribe> ACTION: guus to comment on ODM
17:46:39 <Ralph> Elisa: Terry Halpin is working with Pat Hayes to ground Business Rules in Common Logic
17:46:52 <Zakim> -Natasha
17:46:53 <Ralph> Topic: PORT
17:47:02 <Ralph> Alistair: next SKOS review is scheduled for 17 July
17:47:14 <Ralph> ... would like two reviewers selected at the next WG telecon
17:47:36 <Ralph> ... w.r.t. httpRange-14 resolution, I tried to draft some text that could be included in SKOS Core Guide
17:47:46 <aliman_scribe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jun/0074.html
17:47:55 <Ralph> ... says what you can/may do if you want to use http: URIs to name resources of type SKOS:Concept
17:48:05 <Ralph> ... would like comments on the text in 0074.html
17:48:18 <Ralph> ... DanBri only concerned about the role of SPARQL
17:48:23 <Zakim> +Deb_McGuinness
17:48:33 <Guus> q?
17:48:55 <Ralph> ... people working on US Government standards brought up an issue that they are only permitted to use W3C Recommendations in their work
17:49:13 <Ralph> ... thus possible reason to put SKOS Core on Recommendation track
17:49:31 <Ralph> ... have had multiple requests for another SKOS syntax
17:50:13 <Ralph> Ralph: are any of these requests archived somewhere?
17:50:29 <Ralph> Alistair: no, in private mail.  requests for an XSD-constrained syntax
17:50:31 <DeborahM> DeborahM has joined #swbp
17:51:12 <DeborahM> hi - i joined late but am on the phone and irc - deborah mcguinness
17:51:47 <Ralph> Alistair: Phil suggested that an XML Schema-constrained syntax for SKOS would not be a good idea
17:53:03 <Ralph> Ralph: please ask for use cases accompanying any feature request, such as for a new syntax
17:54:09 <Ralph> Phil: I've talked with Alistair off-line about this, will probably put the discussion into the mail archive soon
17:54:55 <aliman_scribe> zakim, mute alistair
17:54:55 <Zakim> Alistair_Miles should now be muted
17:55:06 <aliman_scribe> Topic: 3.3 WordNet
17:55:17 <aliman_scribe> guus: met with aldo in greece to move forward the data model
17:55:23 <aliman_scribe> ... hope to see some action soon 
17:55:27 <Ralph> ACTION: Aldo to propose an update the Wordnet TF description
17:55:33 <aliman_scribe> ... asked brian to review, hope he will
17:55:48 <aliman_scribe> ... no progress yet, suggest to postpone
17:56:05 <aliman_scribe> ACTION Aldo to propose an update the Wordnet TF description
17:56:09 <aliman_scribe> CONTINUE
17:56:24 <aliman_scribe> Topic: 3.5 Vocabulary management 
17:56:31 <aliman_scribe> zakim, unmute alistair
17:56:31 <Zakim> Alistair_Miles should no longer be muted
17:57:14 <Ralph> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jun/0079.html Report of 2005-06-21 VM telecon
17:57:51 <Ralph> Alistair: we decided to retire DanBri's note "Some Things that Hashless URIs can Name"
17:58:09 <Ralph> ... and include in our basic principles note an explanation of how to implement the TAG's solution
17:58:53 <Ralph> ... we also took another action to contact people whose namespaces end in '/' to make sure they do redirects in the future
17:59:16 <Ralph> ... Tom has the ball to do the next round of editing
18:00:33 <aliman_scribe> Topic: 3.6 RDF-in-HTML
18:01:26 <aliman_scribe> guus: textual version of jeremy's presentation at ... would be great basis for a note
18:01:42 <Ralph> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Jun/0031.html Meeting record: 2005-06-21 RDF-in-XHTML TF telecon
18:02:14 <aliman_scribe> guus: having jeremy's content as a note would be excellent
18:02:19 <Ralph> ACTION: Ralph suggest to XHTML TF that Jeremy's WWW2005 Talk be turned into a document
18:02:35 <aliman_scribe> Topic: 3.10 SE TF
18:02:58 <aliman_scribe> Phil: jeff and I meeting wednesayt to talk about updating tf description
18:03:09 <aliman_scribe> ... and discuss next note.
18:03:35 <aliman_scribe> guus: reviewers are chris, benjamin
18:03:48 <aliman_scribe> ACTION: chris and benjamin to review SETF note
18:04:09 <aliman_scribe> TOPIC: 4, AOB
18:04:21 <BenjaminNguyen> q+
18:04:31 <aliman_scribe> ralph: discussion about f2f in galway based on andreas suggesting derry might be willing to host it
18:04:41 <aliman_scribe> ... need to confirm that, for the dates we selected
18:04:55 <aliman_scribe> guus: already talked about both options with andreas
18:05:01 <aliman_scribe> ... should not be a problem
18:05:09 <aliman_scribe> ACTION: guus to contact andreas re f2f venue
18:05:55 <aliman_scribe> guus: next telecon july 11 1700 UTC
18:05:57 <Zakim> -Phil_Tetlow
18:05:59 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace
18:06:01 <Zakim> -Alistair_Miles
18:06:02 <Zakim> -DBooth
18:06:02 <Zakim> -David_Wood
18:06:03 <Zakim> -Elisa_Kendall
18:06:03 <Zakim> -Deb_McGuinness
18:06:04 <Zakim> -ChrisW
18:06:09 <Zakim> -Guus_Schreiber
18:06:17 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/Guide/hosting.htm Host Guidelines for W3C Face to Face Meetings
18:06:22 <Zakim> -Ralph
18:06:38 <Zakim> SW_BPD()1:00PM has ended
18:06:39 <Zakim> Attendees were Guus_Schreiber, Evan_Wallace, Ralph, ChrisW, Phil_Tetlow, Alistair_Miles, +49.551.39.aaaa, Tom_Baker, Elisa_Kendall, David_Wood, DBooth, Natasha, Deb_McGuinness
18:07:31 <aliman_scribe> RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:07:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/06/27-swbp-minutes.html aliman_scribe
18:07:53 <Ralph> rrsagent, please make logs world-visible
18:25:00 <Ralph> zakim, bye
18:25:00 <Zakim> Zakim has left #swbp
18:25:02 <Ralph> rrsagent, bye
18:25:02 <RRSAgent> I see 8 open action items:
18:25:02 <RRSAgent> ACTION: ralph davidw and davidb to an initial draft of TAG httpRange-14 resolution impact on semweb application developers [1]
18:25:02 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/27-swbp-irc#T17-33-55
18:25:02 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Ralph review new n-ary relations editor's draft [2]
18:25:02 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/27-swbp-irc#T17-36-07
18:25:02 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Guus review new n-ary relations editor's draft [3]
18:25:02 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/27-swbp-irc#T17-37-41
18:25:02 <RRSAgent> ACTION: guus to comment on ODM [4]
18:25:02 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/27-swbp-irc#T17-46-30
18:25:02 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Aldo to propose an update the Wordnet TF description [5]
18:25:02 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/27-swbp-irc#T17-55-27
18:25:02 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Ralph suggest to XHTML TF that Jeremy's WWW2005 Talk be turned into a document [6]
18:25:02 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/27-swbp-irc#T18-02-19
18:25:02 <RRSAgent> ACTION: chris and benjamin to review SETF note [7]
18:25:02 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/27-swbp-irc#T18-03-48
18:25:02 <RRSAgent> ACTION: guus to contact andreas re f2f venue [8]
18:25:02 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/27-swbp-irc#T18-05-09