Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment WG -- 5 Sep 2005

<guus> david, i'm at home and do not seem to get connected

<dwood> guus, ok

<guus> i will keep trying, but i will be on irc, at least

<dwood> guus: No problem. I can chair.

<ChrisW> can't make telecon sorry

1. ADMIN

<dwood> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 22 August telecon:

<dwood> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Aug/0069.html

<guus> second

DBooth seconds also.

RESOLUTION: Minutes of 22 Aug accepted.

<danbri> http://www.w3.org/2005/08/22-swbp-minutes.html

<dwood> PROPOSED next meeting 19 September

DBooth seconds.

<danbri> danbri likely regrets for next meeting

RESOLUTION: next meeting 19 September

<dwood> ACTION: Guus remind WG about participation expectations [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/08/22-swbp-minutes.html#action05] [DONE]

DWood: Face-to-face preparations: TF have been asked to prepare by determining how they will complete their requirements and suggest what will need continuing after the WG ends.

<dwood> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0002.html

<guus> if at all

DWood: Need this done soon to plan the agenda.

2. LIAISON

<guus> propose TF responses on the list by Sep 19

DWood: Also there was some significant info on the Web about the F2F by the host: http://sw.deri.org/2005/07/swbpd/

<dwood> 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] [CONTINUED]

Ralph: Would like to continue that. Several conversations in which this is discussed.

(DWood, Ralph and DBooth to discuss immediately after this meeting)

<dwood> ACTION: jjc to review XML Schema last call [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/25-swbp-minutes.html#action02] [CONTINUED]

<inserted> 2.3 OMG: ODM review

<dwood> ACTION: ChrisW post mail to the WG about the ODM question of triples, Statements, and Resources [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/08/22-swbp-minutes.html#action03] [DONE]

2.4 Protocol and Formats WG request

<dwood> ACTION: jjc review EARL requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/25-swbp-minutes.html#action05] [CONTINUED]

<ChrisW> fyi, my action message: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Aug/0068.html

<dwood> ChrisW: Thanks

<ChrisW> continued

2.5 Other: Using URIs to identify non-information resources

DBooth: see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jul/0045.html
... 'How about using an http site such as thing-described-by.org to do 303 redirects?'
... a little dissatisfied w/ tag guidance, which is to use 303 or # [within context of http: URIs]
... proposed a redirction service
... much discussion
... main criticism was that it was too centralised
... made a followup proposal to decentralise, via a concept of a '303 redirector service'
... write urls in that style, and write metadata saying 'i'm using such-n-so service, which redirects on this prefix'
... trying to make an easier way to mint uris that match tag guidelines, and are efficient to process

dwood: how much discussion?

dbooth: 6-10 msgs

<dwood> The chair is concerned whether the SWBP is the right forum for this discussion, but will discuss for a short while

dbooth: some discussion was criticism of tag decision

<dbooth> DWood: Concern that it outsteps the bounds of this WG.

dbooth: why does this seem out of scope?

<ChrisW> i agree this discussion is out of scope

dwood: we're chartered ... arch issue of how 303s are dealt with, or non-info resources, ... transcends the Semantic Web
... not sw specific
... if we have sw-specific comments on concerns re tag response
... if we have general arch comments on the www, that's out of scope

<danbri> [I also agree its out of scope]

<ChrisW> If anything move this discussion to the end of the call

<ChrisW> focus priority of WG on the TF work

dbooth: seems related to meaning
... if people think its out of scope, i could accept that.

<ChrisW> we have run out of time dicussing TFs on previous calls

dwood: can you link it to a problem w/ the sw?

dbooth: practical issues around minting uris and efficiency of doing 303 redirects.

<RalphS> [for me DBooth's proposal has too much the feel of a hack and encourages centralization rather than let people mint their own URIs]

dbooth: if you use 303 redirection, 2 practical issues... set up servers that way...
... and doesn't scale well to do the extra network access required for 303-redirection.

<Zakim> bwm, you wanted to ask if there is a writeup of the issues for semweb

bwm: are the motivations written down somewhere?

dbooth: i can dig them out
... was in one of my early postings

<dbooth> DBooth: Regular 303-redirection doesn't scale well because of extra network access required for the redirection.

<RalphS> DanBri: I sent some initial comments in the mail thread

<RalphS> ... in the centralized form it goes against Web architecture and I don't think it will really work

<RalphS> ... could discuss this in the Semantic Web Interest Group

ralph: was going to make a similar comment re centralisation

<dbooth> DanBri: Suggest trying to get momentum in the IG

ralph: we could fit it in scope, as we could do best practices re naming
... so we could treat it as in-scope, but i think the particular proposal is flawed
... wg could discuss if it chose to

dbooth: newer proposal does address the centralisation concerns, i think entirely

<dbooth> Here is the newer version: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Aug/0057.html

dwood: suggestion re interest group is a good one
... i'll have to look at the newer version

<RalphS> Ralph: discussion of DBooth's proposal could be in scope as we are concerned about best practices for naming things

3. FTF preparation and future of WG

<dwood> SWBP after SWBP: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0003.html

DWood: Need to discuss what should happen after WG ends 1-Feb-2006.
... Want to close down some TFs during the FTF. If your TF is close to completion or nearing death, plan to close it.

<Jacco> sorry for the noise - i'm without a head set too

DWood: Ones to continue would be those who have both value and momentum to continue.

<RalphS> Previous: 2005-08-22 http://www.w3.org/2005/08/22-swbp-minutes.html

DWood: Anything that should continue must consider whether it should be rec track or other, and if so what forum. E.g., strong support for SKOS being rec track, but not necessarily with SWBP WG.
... Comments? (none)

4. TF UPDATES - 4.0 MM TF Proposal

<dwood> Revised version of MM TF proposal

<dwood> PROPOSED to accept this TF as a new SWBP TF.

Jacco: It makes communication with non-WG members much easier if the TF is accepted.

<Zakim> RalphS, you wanted to ask about participation

Ralph: In Giogos's draft of July 27, he lists 7 potential participants, and 5 of them are WG members. (Jacco is the only one currently present.)

<guus> i'm here :-)

Giogos: Vasilis is also here, and Jeff and ___, and Guus.

<dwood> RESOLVED to accept the MM TF

RESOLUTION: Accept the MM TF as a new SWPB TF.

<Jacco> thanks

<guus> thx to Giorgos and Jacco for the prep work

DWood: Please use the FTF to make as much progress as possible.

4.1 PORT (Alistair)

<aliman> http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/translations

<RalphS> [I apologize for falling behind on SKOS review, am working on it now]

Alistair: Second review of SKOS core. Submissions of translations of comments. Web page links to them.
... Hoping to ask OEP TF to review and hoping to resolve tricky issues of mapping from SKOS concepts to individuals, and should SKOS Core itself be an OWL DL ontology. Also want "how to extend SKOS Core" document.

<RalphS> [excellent idea to use f2f time to get OEP folk involved in SKOS dicussions]

<ChrisW> agree

Alistair: After that, don't know what to say. Able to say more after Dublin Core conference in Madrid next week.

Ralph: Re future of SKOS, have not spoken with Eric since Friday's coordination mtg. Guus suggests in the overall F2F agenda that this WG will be looked at for suggestions for followon work.

<ChrisW> for oep: Guus, can you take an action to check new "simple part" editor's draft

<ChrisW> it is ready to go to WD

<guus> yes, action ok

Ralph: We should expect to be asked our opinion on that, so we should prepare an answer.

DWood: Would be adequate to say that SKOS has hit a nerve -- significant utility. Issue is more the mechanism to make a rec happen, right Ralph?

Ralph: Don't disagree, but not what I was saying. Of all the work SWBP WG has been doing, SKOS has been getting a lot of attention.

DWood: Alistair, please be prepared to discuss at the F2F.

DanBri: Dublin Core conf will be an excellent way to see people's interest.

4.2 OEP

<dwood> RDF(S) triples, statements, and resource [ChrisW 2005-08-22]

<dwood> ChrisW: Other comments re recent work?

DWood: "Is a triple an RDF resource?"

<ChrisW> "triple a resource" is ODM not OEP

<ChrisW> OEP work continues

<ChrisW> check out TF page

<dwood> ChrisW, Right, thanks

<dwood> ChrisW, Comments re OEP?

<danbri> [imho, triples, like all things... are resources...]

<ChrisW> made my comments above

<ChrisW> to guus - simple part note ready to go to WD

<ChrisW> give guus the action to approve it

<dwood> ChrisW, "give Guus" or "gave Guus"?

<ChrisW> someone record it

<ChrisW> ACTION: GUUS to approve new version of simple part note going to first WD [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/05-swbp-minutes.html#action06]

<dwood> ChrisW, who were the reviewers for the simple part note?

<ChrisW> guus and bill mcdaniel

<dwood> thx

4.3 WordNet (Aldo)

DanBri: I think I was on it, but it's been quiet.

DWood: More activity seems to have happened recently, Guus indicated.

Alistair: Mark van Assem has been doing work on it.

<danbri> [I should probably resign from the TF]

<guus> Mark can work on it with comments Brian

<dwood> Guus: May Mark join the telecons at some point to discuss?

<guus> i would like to have version by FTF with Princeton in the loop

<scribe> ACTION: Aldo to propose an update the Wordnet TF description [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/07-swbp-minutes.html#action04] [PENDING]

<guus> sure, i will make him a formal participant

<dwood> guus, thanks

4.4 XML Schema datatypes (Jeremy)

<scribe> ACTION: JeffP to draft a response to dave reynolds [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/25-swbp-minutes.html#action09] [PENDING]

4.5 Vocabulary management (TomB)

Ralph: Tom hopes to make progress on this soon.

<danbri> (tom, al, and danbri will be at dc-2005 next week in madrid)

4.6 RDF-in-HTML (Ben)

Ralph: We have not met since the last telecon. No progress to report.

<RalphS> ["We" == "HTML TF"]

DanBri: I got this draft note that I think is ready to roll (except for a prettier image). Should we solicit 2 reviewers? What's the process?

Ralph: Has the TF signed off on putting it to WG review?

DanBri: Don't remember.

DWood: Once that TF has agreed, then just get reviewers.

DanBri: Don't think the TF has made a formal decision to put it to the WG. Anyone is welcome to have a look though. It's a small RDF vocab to give semantics to link types.

<RalphS> [Most recent meeting of the HTML TF was 16 Aug, per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Aug/0010.html ]

<scribe> ACTION: DanBri to ask TF for sign-off on putting the draft xhtml vocab to the WG for review. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/05-swbp-minutes.html#action09]

<guus> i will take a look

Ralph: For F2F, I'd like to see a schedule for RDFA. It's possible XHTML2 will officially be in Last Call by our F2F.

DanBri: It's difficult for this F2F because it's a joint TF with the HTML folks.

DWood: It sounds to me like there's progress on HTML links, and GRDDL, but RDFA is still the outstanding issue that needs addressing.

Ralph: Yes, there are outstanding technical issues with RDFA. Mark Birbeck continues to take the major architect lead on that. It's unclear how he's being given sufficient input in order to make progress.

DWood: We will discuss at the F2F, because it relates to a charter item.

Ralph: Re transcending the length of the charter, the SWBP WG discharge its obligation once there's an XHTML2 that we're happy with. There will be enough machinery in place to respond to LC comments. But if there isn't a LC draft in place in time, then we will not have made our charter.

DWood: How can we help address the issue?
... What needs to happen?

Ralph: The problem is not politics or process. It's just a matter of limited availability of individuals that we're depending on. There are probably others who could continue if it were high enough priority for them. We keep hearing that there are people who care, but we haven't seen anyone new join the TF.

DWood: Can you identify open issues that need WG review?

<RalphS> RDF-in-XHTML issues list

<Zakim> danbri, you wanted to note DC-2005 conf a good way to gather evidence re skos and to ask ralph who can join the TF

Ralph: If anyone can help address these, we could use it.

DanBri: WHo can join the TF? Can we invite Dublin Core people? Or must they be invited experts?

Ralph: The public mailing list allows the public to participate. Inviting them to meetings is a different question though.

DanBri: I'll ask for help from Dublin Core folks.

Ralph: Issue: People tend to use SKOS: property names, rather than http URIs.

<aliman> I was just wondering the same while starting to write a 'how to do SKOS Core in XHTML2' wiki page ... !

Ralph: One proposal is to accept two sets of attributes, with a bit a whining about why XML didn't already deal with this syntactic issue.
... Some constituencies feel that long URLs throughout a document is unusable.

DWood: Do you plan to publish anything else between now and when the TF closes?

Ralph: We need to, but don't have a schedule that shows us publishing anything else.

DWood: How will you address that gap?

Ralph: There is an event early in Oct that affects Mark Birbeck, and that may be a forcing function to help participants prioritize the work.

DWood: Please address these issues head on, even if the result is acknowledging that more cannot be done.

4.7 ADTF (Libby)

Libby: Not a huge amount done. Slow but steady stream of files, gradually putting them in our list.

DWood: There was discussion of the value of ADTF and not wanting it to go away, and potentially moving it to the IG forum.

<Zakim> RalphS, you wanted to ask about a self-sustaining model for ADTF

<aliman> ... oh, another SKOS thing ... I did a SKOS Core tutorial for DC2005, get it from http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/cvs-public/skos/press/dc2005/tutorial.ppt

Libby: I'd be in favor. Could be done nicely as collaborative project within the IG.

<danbri> [nice to see all the DOAP in http://esw.w3.org/mt/esw/archives/cat_applications_and_demos.html]

<aliman> (most extensive presentation yet on SKOS Core)

Ralph: Would be good to get advice from the TF for how to make it an ongoing, sustained thing.

DWood: What mechanisms are available to make this happen?

<danbri> http://www.w3.org/2003/12/swa/swig-charter.html

Ralph: Read the IG charter to see how it creates tasks -- in practice individuals interested in doing it suggest to the IG that it be the home, and then it happens.

4.8 RDFTM (Steve)

(Skipped; nobody present)

4.9 Tutorial Page

(Skipped; nobody present)

4.10 SE TF

<danbri> re new IG fora, [["The Interest Group home page provides the authoritative list of W3C email lists sponsored by the Group." http://www.w3.org/2003/12/swa/swig-charter.html ]]

Phil: We now have comments from Ben's first note. Now have proposal for primer for OO programmers on the use of SemWeb tech. Some momentum. For F2F, would be nice to get our first note to be official document. Also need debate on the future of the TF. Seemed an unnatural fit with the SWBP WG. Potenially move to another WG? Don't know which -- potentiall the IG.

DWood: please shop around for a forum prior to the F2F

<Zakim> bwm, you wanted to ask Phil what specific task would be done in the new WG

Brian: What do you think would be the most important task that the TF would accomplish?

Phil: Get out a broad definition of how SW tech could be used. High level primer. We've achieved that. Having a presence to glue together the two communities is of value.

Brian: IG is a good place.

Phil: That feels right to me at the moment.

<Zakim> danbri, you wanted to suggest danbri clarify TF transfer possibilities w/ SWCG re SWIG new mailing lists etc

DanBri: There have been a couple of suggestions of work to move into the IG. We didn't say enough in the IG charter of how sub-fora should be created. In the past we'd set up mailing lists for calendering, e.g..
... This crops up also with geography and mapping. It isn't clear what mechanism to use, and that results in some paralysis.

<scribe> ACTION: DanBri to clarify rules for IG to propose new mailing lists for its TFs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/05-swbp-minutes.html#action10]

<aliman> Fyi, relating to XHTML2 discussion, I just tried to write some SKOS Core in XHTML2, see http://esw.w3.org/topic/SkosDev/SkosCoreInXhtml2 ...

<aliman> also danbri has suggested using XHTML2 markup in examples in SKOS Core Guide.

[Brief off-record discussion]

<RalphS> [thanks, Alistair -- that sort of example development is very helpful]

<RalphS> [discussion of RDF/A examples]

<RalphS> [unfortunately, the (non-W3C) Wiki on which those examples live has had hardware trouble]

Phil: There's an underlying theme that needs a home somewhere in the W3C. There already is the SW IG with a deliberately broad charter.

ADJOURNED

<aliman> thanks everyone

<RalphS> next meeting: 19 September

Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment WG

5 Sep 2005

Attendees

Contents