See also: IRC log
<Ralph> ScribeNick: aliman_scribe
<Ralph> Scribe: Alistair
<Ralph> previous meeting 2005-06-16
guus: proposed to accept minutes
above ...
... any corrections?
Elisa: second
guus: resolved.
<Ralph> ACTION: [DONE] Ralph post telecon date resolution to the list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/27-swbp-minutes.html#action01]
2.1 Proposed resolution httpRange-14
ralph: tag found a solution that
does not rely on uri string syntax at all, but relies on http
result codes ...
... solution on the books for severalyears ...
... heard more support recently ...
... allow 3xx code as response for x other than a document
...
... asked coord group if there will be formal finding
... do not expect to publish a formal finding
... roy fieldings email deemed to be sufficient
... don't expect to see any more
guus: do we need to take any action? explain consequences?
david: vmtf talked a bit about it, tom posted report ...
<Ralph> [VM] Report of 2005-06-21 telecon [Tom Baker 2005-06-27]
david: thinks tom doesn't go far
enough
... we should clean up after this decision
... go back to each tf, ask them to fold in best practices
comments around this issue
... VM started, others should do same
guus: discuss per tf, or as
general?
... hear preference for doing per tf
david: do it per tf *publication*
...
... as raised at last f2f
... cleaner for us to address piecemeal in docs, rather than as
a wg note in general
guus: ok, per tf
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to say that the TAG resolution still seems to leave the question of identification somewhat open
<Guus> qw?
dbooth: each tf makes its own
recommendation re best practices ...
... ?
tag resolution still leaves open the recommended way to identify things
scribe: bp should be clear about
this
... not clear to me as a wg what we are recommending
<Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to warn TomB of muting
ralph: does wg need to make a
recommendation at all re what uris to use for naming
... unless we disagree with tag
... concern about trailing slash and trailing hash ...
... tag says yes, either is fine given the right response
code
... so why legislate any more about identifiers?
... can point out reasons for doing it one way or another
... take davidbooths point that wg as a whole as to what each
tf is discussing
... may need some coordination, but at this stage don't
legislate
davidw: concern about not
addressing it in some doc, because TAG didn't address in some
document
... we don't have a canonical reference to point to
... needs to be clear to community what we're going to do about
this
... vm porting wordnet rdftm tfs impacted by this decision
<Ralph> [Ah, I understand DavidW's point -- that _some_ recommendation is needed. We should recommend a Best Practice for using 303 See Other]
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to follow up
davidw: we can review per tf publications prior to publication
dbooth: worthwile to indicate
pros & cons in a doc
... person feeling is, tag resolution not entirely
satisfactory
... doesn't apply equally well to RDF and non-RDF case
... so you're dependent on what document type you're dealing
with
<Zakim> aliman_scribe, you wanted to comment on uris & naming
<Ralph> Alistair: we should include in per-TF documentation as our role is to explain TAG resolution
phil: what are we commenting
on?
... tag should come up with mechanism for resolving this issue,
rahter than just saying hash or slash.
ralph: this WG should write up,
either endorse the use of 303 see also, or to disagree with
TAG
... and to explain how this isused in case of semweb
phil: is it best practise to bind
this mechanism to the concept of resource id
... singular mechanism for ???
... are there other circumstances that should be
investigated?
... or are we happy with singular soultion?
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to disagree with us not legislating more than the TAG. Our purpose is to provide Best Practices guidelines.
dbooth: uncomfortable with not
legislating more than what TAG said
... entirely appropriate to give more guidance than TAG
guus: up to level not inconsistent with TAG
ralph: meant to focus on use of
particular URI syntax
... no reason for this wg to partition uri space
... right we do need to explain how to apply tag view to
specific semweb case
phil: identified problem of good
or bad uris?
... feel that context is important.
ralph: phil's comments making
this a wider problem, lets focus on smaller first
... propose specific action, this wg should draft some sort of
message as part of a note,
... says 'here's how we interpret tag's solution, here's how we
intepret it for semweb'
... would like to see draft of such a doc, propose one of our
tfs do it
... perhaps VM?
guus: short note, couple of pages?
ralph: not formal note just yet,
but we should have some formal on the record statement
... happy to leave it to some tf
... tomb?
tom: who would do that? don't want to volunteer someone.
What about danbri?
ralph: maybe between danbri and me?
davidw: 3 week special tf just to do this?
guus: propose ralph, davidb, davidw to take on an action
tom: willing to participate
davidw: should get short message from each of impacted tf leads, regarding what their issue was?
ralph: tfs don't care too much about what the solution was, although there were deployment issues
guus: propose two davids and ralph take on the action, take on feedback from others
ralph: accept
david & david: me too
<scribe> ACTION: ralph davidw and davidb to an initial draft of TAG httpRange-14 resolution impact on semweb application developers [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/27-swbp-minutes.html#action02]
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
... need another reviewer (ralph is one)
... simpe part-whole note, we have concrete actions, ready in 1
week
... spoke to jerry hobbs re owl time
<Ralph> ACTION: Ralph review new n-ary relations editor's draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/27-swbp-minutes.html#action03]
chrisW: almost ready
guus: need second reviewer for
n-ary relations
... timescale?
chris: asap
guus: agree to review
<Ralph> ACTION: Guus review new n-ary relations editor's draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/27-swbp-minutes.html#action04]
guus: any use of owl restrictions note i wrote?
chris: haven't looked at it yet
guus: difference between rdfs range and owl restrictions
elisa: let's look into it
davidw: continue
<Ralph> XSCD status from SemWeb CG telecon
ralph: it was brought up at the
cg,
... last call still open, not a high priority
... we still have time to comment
<Ralph> [[
<Ralph> Ralph: SWBP wants to know the status of XML Schema Component Designators
<Ralph> Liam: unsure, as the WG is busy with XML Schema 1.1
<Ralph> ... URIs for datatypes is likely to be a separate document rather than added to SCD
<Ralph> ... has SWBPD communicated its issue to XML Schema WG?
<Ralph> ... if so, feel free to ping them if you haven't had a response
<Ralph> ]]
ralph: jeremy & jeff
concerned that our comments on uris for datatypes had not been
heard or fully made
... liam said feel free to ask again
... but not a pressing matter, so still open for comments
... tag also talked about schema component designators
guus: leave liason issue on the agenda
ACTION DavidW ask about the XML Schema Component
<scribe> DONE
elisa: made some additions after
feedback from hp
... re addition of RDF graph and document model to RDF
metamodel
... OMG decided to include changes, fo next revision
... everyone is agreed
... planning to submit one additional revision
... send out asap
... . some questions about business rules .
... agreed to ground logic in common logic
... work with pat hayes to make that happen, business rules
community aligning around common logic with some extesinos
possibly
... so no competition between ODM and business rules
... Terry halpin
<ekw> Terry Halpin
guus: will also comment on ODM
<scribe> ACTION: guus to comment on ODM [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/27-swbp-minutes.html#action05]
<Ralph> Elisa: Terry Halpin is working with Pat Hayes to ground Business Rules in Common Logic
<Ralph> Alistair: next SKOS review is scheduled for 17 July
<Ralph> ... would like two reviewers selected at the next WG telecon
<Ralph> ... w.r.t. httpRange-14 resolution, I tried to draft some text that could be included in SKOS Core Guide
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jun/0074.html
<Ralph> ... says what you can/may do if you want to use http: URIs to name resources of type SKOS:Concept
<Ralph> ... would like comments on the text in 0074.html
<Ralph> ... DanBri only concerned about the role of SPARQL
<Ralph> ... people working on US Government standards brought up an issue that they are only permitted to use W3C Recommendations in their work
<Ralph> ... thus possible reason to put SKOS Core on Recommendation track
<Ralph> ... have had multiple requests for another SKOS syntax
<Ralph> Ralph: are any of these requests archived somewhere?
<Ralph> Alistair: no, in private mail. requests for an XSD-constrained syntax
<DeborahM> hi - i joined late but am on the phone and irc - deborah mcguinness
<Ralph> Alistair: Phil suggested that an XML Schema-constrained syntax for SKOS would not be a good idea
<Ralph> Ralph: please ask for use cases accompanying any feature request, such as for a new syntax
<Ralph> Phil: I've talked with Alistair off-line about this, will probably put the discussion into the mail archive soon
guus: met with aldo in greece to
move forward the data model
... hope to see some action soon
<Ralph> ACTION: Aldo to propose an update the Wordnet TF description [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/27-swbp-minutes.html#action06]
guus: asked brian to review, hope he will
<scribe> ... no progress yet, suggest to postpone
ACTION Aldo to propose an update the Wordnet TF description
CONTINUE
<Ralph> Report of 2005-06-21 VM telecon
<Ralph> Alistair: we decided to retire DanBri's note "Some Things that Hashless URIs can Name"
<Ralph> ... and include in our basic principles note an explanation of how to implement the TAG's solution
<Ralph> ... we also took another action to contact people whose namespaces end in '/' to make sure they do redirects in the future
<Ralph> ... Tom has the ball to do the next round of editing
guus: textual version of jeremy's presentation at ... would be great basis for a note
<Ralph> Meeting record: 2005-06-21 RDF-in-XHTML TF telecon
guus: having jeremy's content as a note would be excellent
<Ralph> ACTION: Ralph suggest to XHTML TF that Jeremy's WWW2005 Talk be turned into a document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/27-swbp-minutes.html#action07]
Phil: jeff and I meeting
wednesayt to talk about updating tf description
... and discuss next note.
guus: reviewers are chris, benjamin
<scribe> ACTION: chris and benjamin to review SETF note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/27-swbp-minutes.html#action08]
ralph: discussion about f2f in
galway based on andreas suggesting derry might be willing to
host it
... need to confirm that, for the dates we selected
guus: already talked about both
options with andreas
... should not be a problem
<scribe> ACTION: guus to contact andreas re f2f venue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/27-swbp-minutes.html#action09]
guus: next telecon july 11 1700 UTC
Change Log:
$Log: 27-swbp-minutes.html,v $ Revision 1.3 2005/07/14 13:34:23 swick Remove extraneous characters in 4 otherwise blank lines. Revision 1.2 2005/07/14 13:31:32 swick Undo 'draft'iness; add Benjamin Nguyen to (irc) attendees per his request. These minutes were accepted at the 11-Jul WG telecon. http://www.w3.org/2005/07/11-swbp-minutes#item01