See also: IRC log
BenjaminN: I'm on irc only today
RESOLVED to accept the minutes of the 19 September telecon
ACTION: Ralph create a registration page for the November f2f [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-irc.html#T17-13-32] [DONE]
-> Registration for Third F2F meeting
<Raphael> this web page needs a password to be accessed, no ?
Ralph: yes, you need your Member Access password for this form
Ralph: are there others who may wish to attend by teleconf?
DBooth: possibly remote, will know soon
Jeremy: expect to know later in the week whether I can attend in person
ACTION: Ralph check on possibility of remote participation for f2f [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/03-swbp-minutes.html#action02]
<RalphS> Guus, any progress on finding a dinner sponsor?
<guus> MY ACTION: I can sponsor the dinner from my Knowledge Web budget
<RalphS> Guus, thank you!
ACTION: Jeremy to brief the WG on use of IRIs in SPARQL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action05] [DONE]
Jeremy: sent message "IRIs" earlier today. This issue, of W3C recs depending on earlier versions of IRI (before standard status), being not quite compatible with the IRI standard impacts many recs
ACTION: David Wood and Brian to review SPARQL Last Call document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action04] [DONE] [CONTINUES]
-> SPARQL Protocol Review and Comments [DWood 2005-09-20]
David's review done
DWood: my comments
led to a long discussion between the editors
... I didn't want to see a requirement in the SPARQL protocol for an illegal
use of WSDL 2.0
... editors were questioning ehther I was supportive or dismissive of WSDL 2
integration
... I support WSDL 2 bindings but want them to be legal
... the SPARQL language is still in Last Call; would the WG like my review of
that as well?
... I expect DAWG would like review from SWBPD for both the Language and the
Protocol
... I think Brian intended to review the Language
ACTION: David Wood draft SPARQL Language review on behalf of the WG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/03-swbp-minutes.html#action17]
<aliman> I skimmed David's review, seemed good but don't have nearly enough tech savvy (or time :) to do a proper review
DBooth: I thought DavidW's review was fine
... what coordination is taking place with the WSDL folk?
DWood: it's the DAWG's task to do that
coordination
... there's a not insubstantial amount of work needed to resolve the
technical issue
... I don't think this work can be done during Candidate Rec phase
Ralph: is there an alternative for DAWG to not be dependent on changes to WSDL 2?
DWood: DAWG would have to give up some features
in SPARQL Protocol
... I fear that the WSDL community is big enough that if SPARQL protocol is
non-conformant, it will lead to SPARQL not being implemented
DBooth: the WSDL work has been going on for a long time. I was part of it at one time. I would not expect the WG to be very receptive to making changes at this point.
Jeremy: WebOnt completed before RDF Core WG
finished
... we waited for a few months while RDF Core finished and this did not do
any harm
... it's not a bad thing for a WG to wait; didn't need to hold telecons
during that period
DBooth: I endorse David Wood's message that SPARQL should conform to WSDL 2
DBooth: I propose that SWBPD recommend to DAWG
that the SPARQL Protocol conform to WSDL 2.0
... speaking personally, not for HP
Evan: I second the proposal
DWood: DanC forwarded
my message to the public-rdf-dawg-comments list.
... there is continuing discussion under the thread "WSDL
happiness" in public-rdf-dawg
objections: (none)
in favor: Alistair, Jacco, DWood, Evan, Ralph (speaking individually),
abstain: Benjamin
RESOLVED that SWBPD recommend to DAWG that the SPARQL Protocol conform to WSDL 2.0
ACTION: Ralph report WSDL 2.0 resolution to DAWG (after 24 hours) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/03-swbp-minutes.html#action18]
<Zakim> aliman, you wanted to ask about postponed issues for sparql
Alistair: my requirement is to get the contents
of RDF Lists
... that's not in the current Language; I see the issue marked as Postponed
on DAWG issues list
... what does 'postponed' mean? how long?
Ralph: generally, I think 'postponed' means "until the next group is chartered"
ACTION: jjc review EARL requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/25-swbp-minutes.html#action05] [DONE]
-> Review of EARL requirements [Jeremy 2005-10-03]
Jeremy: shall I send this to PFWG as my personal comments on behalf of the WG?
Ralph: yes
ACTION: Alistair and Guus to help the WAI Protocol and Formats WG on their vocabulary [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action07] [CONTINUES]
<guus> sorry, no progress on 2.4
<aliman> guus how do you think we should approach liason with PFWG? I read their initial message but its not very specific.
(see discussion under Admin above)
MM TF Schedule for f2f meeting in Galway [Giorgos 2005-10-03]
[PORT,OEP] SKOS f2f and end-of-charter goals
Giorgos: see mail
from Jacco -- first draft of a deliverable has been produced
... would like to schedule 2 telecons; this Wed and 21 Oct
... would like to have 2 reviewers review a document 1 week before the f2f
... Mike Uschold has volunteered to be 1 reviewer
Jeremy: TF participants should read this draft before first telecon, is Wednesday too soon?
Jacco: the idea for the Wednesday telecon is to distribute the work
Ralph: refer to Teleconference How-To for telecon reservation instructions
Alistair: Ralph sent his review of SKOS Core proposals and we're following up on his suggestions
<aliman> [PORT] update on 2nd review
Alistair: see my mail for f2f planning
<Zakim> aliman, you wanted to ask ralph about language variants of SKOS Core spec
Alistair: when we publish a revised SKOS WD,
should we publish all the variants or can we publish just the English
version?
... it would be nice to publish all the translations as a set but I don't
speak all the languages
Ralph: publishing a WD is a great way to solicit those comments. The Task Force should advise readers of the spec which words to consider to be normative, however.
Jeremy: the practice in W3C is that the [US] English version is normative
<jjc> On translations - the Ruby recommendation, which is primarily targeted at Japanese, was published on 31st May 2001, and translation came out 3rd August 2001. Conclusion: even when Japanese would have been a well-motivated normative language, the rule of US English first was followed
<ChrisW> nothing to report
<ChrisW> all actions continued
<aliman> chrisw is the QCR note ready to review?
<ChrisW> yes
<aliman> where's the version I should review?
<ChrisW> oh, wait, I take that back - QCR note is NOT ready to review (sorry)
<aliman> ok, will wait on ChrisW to nudge me when QCR is ready
<ChrisW> ack
Natasha: we're working on Semantic Integration, may have something ready for f2f
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] [CONTINUES]
Natasha: waiting for Guus' comments on N-ary relations
ACTION: Alistair to review Qualified Cardinality note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action09] [PENDING]
ACTION: Guus to review OWL Time note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action10] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Jeremy to ask HP folks about reviewing Semantic Integration note, which will be ready for review near the F2F [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action11] [DONE]
Jeremy: I've asked for a reviewer, don't yet have a response
ACTION: Libby to review OWL Time note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action12] [CONTINUES]
<ChrisW> OWL TIme is ready for review
<ChrisW> definitely
<Jacco> i cannot find a url for owl time in the minutes...
<Jacco> can you put up one?
<ChrisW> go to the OEP web page
<ChrisW> all the notes & drafts are there
<Raphael> OWL Time
<Raphael> Time Zone
(no representatives)
Jeremy: we have a working draft that presents alternatives
Jeremy: we've had a response (from HP) that one of the alternatives is not a good choice
-> [XSCH] F2F thoughts [Jeremy 2005-10-03]
ACTION: JeffP to draft a response to dave reynolds [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/25-swbp-minutes.html#action09] [CONTINUES]
-> Tom's report on 27 Sep VMTF telecon
TomB: we reached consensus on a deliverable to
help people understand what to serve at a namespace URI
... we expect to be able to document a common solution between Dublin Core,
SKOS, and FOAF
... this would create a nice example that others can follow
<Zakim> aliman, you wanted to mention URI dereferencing stuff
<aliman> I sent a proposed URI dereferncing policy for SKOS Core (a 'hash' RDF namespace) ...
Alistair: I've shown how to implement content-dependent redirects in apache
<aliman> and described how to implement this policy using apache directives ... would very much appreciate comments (i.e. do this/don't do this) from WG
DBooth: is this using 303 redirect?
Alistair: yes
... redirect is based on the content-type requested
... would like feedback on whether this is or is not a good idea
TomB: DCMI has a problem with 303 redirects for historical reasons, as we depend on the purl.org service
-> meeting record: 2005-09-27 RDF-in-XHTML TF telecon
Ralph: the TF is discussing a proposal for a syntax that would permit expressing both URIs and QNames within an XML attribute
ACTION: Jeremy write a formal description of the CURI proposal for WG consideratoin [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/03-swbp-minutes.html#action12]
Jeremy: the proposal also addresses the blank node issue
ACTION: Gavin find out from his community and contacts if they have use cases for GRDDL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/03-swbp-minutes.html#action13] [WITHDRAWN]
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] [CONTINUES]
Ralph: we've decided that the machine break-in
at MIT was non-destructive and intend to put the blog back on the Net.
... so for the present, there is no need to move the content
(no representative)
ACTION: Guus to ping Benjamin and Jeff about the Tutorial Page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action08] [DONE]
<Benjamin> was this regarding an old action ?
<Benjamin> I made a post in july regarding jeff's ping
<Benjamin> status is the following
<Benjamin> page is up and I made all modifications received up till july
<Benjamin> I have received nothing more to add since then
(no representative)
next meeting Monday, October 17
[adjourned]
Change History
$Log: 03-swbp-minutes.html,v $ Revision 1.4 2005/10/04 02:51:11 swick Remove a gratuitous in-your-face URI Revision 1.3 2005/10/04 02:43:57 swick Clean out a bit more extraneous bits. Revision 1.2 2005/10/03 20:20:09 swick Cleanup for first publication