See also: IRC log
<Ralphs> Previous: 2005-10-03 http://www.w3.org/2005/10/03-swbp-minutes.html
<Ralphs> RESOLVED: to accept the minutes of the 3 October telecon: http://www.w3.org/2005/10/03-swbp-minutes.html
RESOLUTION: Next meeting 31 Oct (USA Halloween)
DWood: Guus wants to discuss pub of SKOS docs as WG notes. Other agenda amendments?
<Guus> proposal to publish SKOS docs as 2nd WDs
<scribe> ACTION: Brian to review SPARQL Last Call document recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action04 [CONTINUED]
<scribe> 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]
See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0014.html
<Ralphs> IRIs [Jeremy 2005-10-03]
<scribe> 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 [DONE]
<Ralphs> [All] SPARQL Query Language Review [David 2005-10-14]
<scribe> ACTION: jjc review EARL requirements recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/25-swbp-minutes.html#action05 [DONE]
See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0020.html
<Ralphs> Review of EARL requirements [Jeremy 2005-10-03]
<scribe> 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 [CONTINUED]
Alistair: Their original request was too vague. I think we should ask them what help they need. Guus?
<Zakim> jjc, you wanted to mention latest WD
Jeremy: Their latest WD has an extensive RDF schema, which I noticed and don't want to review. :)
<Guus> yes, I will send email to Al asking for further explanation
<aliman> Guus how do you think we should proceed re PFWG?
<inserted> Alistair: Please refine our action to say we'll arrange a telecon
<jjc> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-EARL10-Schema-20050909/
<Guus> I suggest a telecon between PTWG and Alistair and me
DWood: 40 WG members have not yet responded to questionnaire. Please respond!
<jjc> Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 Schema
<jjc> W3C Working Draft 09 September 2005
<Ralphs> F2F3 registration results
<Ralphs> "19 answers have been received"
<aliman> Guus that sounds fine to me, can you arrange it?
<Guus> please give me action
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph check on possibility of remote participation for f2f recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/03-swbp-minutes.html#action02 [DONE]
Ralph: Yes, there will be conf room phone capability, so I will arrange a bridge.
<aliman> guus you mean action on you to arrange a telecon?
<Guus> yes
Please answer the questionnaire.
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35495/ftf-3/
DWood: Dinner at pub on Quay street? Seems sufficient interest.
<aliman> ACTION: Guus to arrange telecon between himself, Alistair and PFWG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/17-swbp-minutes.html#action07]
DWood: The f2f agenda goes through the task forces.
... On Saturday afternoon we have only 1 hour at the end to discuss the
future of the WG.
... Comments?
(none)
<Ralphs> draft f2f agenda [Guus 2005-10-17]
ChrisW: TF met monday, discussed outstanding issues. Came
to agreement on n-ary relations doc. Changing 2nd example to not use
lists.
... Part-whole note is almost ready for review. Have reviews of OWL
Time note coming in.
... Semantic integration note is coming along nicely. Chris Menzel
(Boeing) is coordinating on that.
ChrisMenzel: It's coming along well.
... lots of input from Deb. Good telecon with Pat Hayes.
... Lots to work on with these 4 small ontologies that we built. Lots
of good examples.
... Built by me, Michael Sholt, Deb McGuiness, ___, based on a tutorial
for Spain. (Toy ontologies.)
... Should expect question on applying them to real world cases.
ChrisW: natasha is the only one who has not approved the Part-Whole document.
<scribe> ACTION: GUUS to approve new version of simple part note going to first WD http://www.w3.org/2005/09/05-swbp-minutes.html#action06 [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/17-swbp-minutes.html#action08]
<scribe> ACTION: Alistair to review Qualified Cardinality note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action09 ] [PENDING]
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to review OWL Time note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action10 ] [PENDING]
<scribe> ACTION: Libby to review OWL Time note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action12 ] [DONE]
<Giorgos> please unmute
Giogos: Had 2 telecons since previous WG mtg. Sent the 1st deliverable to reviewers.
<scribe> (Postponed discussion due to phone problems)
<aliman> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0121.html
Alistair: Want to move SKOS Core 2005-10-06 ed draft of core guide and vocab spec to second pub WD.
ChrisW: Second the motion.
<Giorgos> try to send you some information though the IRC, difficult to find another phone, I am home
<Giorgos> sorry
<Giorgos> Jacco are you on the phone?
DWood: Objections? (none)
RESOLUTION: Move SKOS Core 2005-10-06 ed draft of core guide and vocab spec to second pub WD
DWood: Thoughts on discussing publishing them as WG notes?
<Ralphs> (there's no explicit "second pub WD" state; after the first we're simply updating the WD)
Alistair: Obvious that we're not finished with this work yet. Hoping to pub 3rd WD, though not sure if there is enough time.
<Jacco> giorgos, please checkout the private chat i'm trying to open with you!
DWood: Can WG notes be picked up for rec track?
<dwood> Libby: We can get to your TF in just a minute
Ralph: Certainly. No need to prematurely stop this work before the end of the WG charter. Not sure why Guus wants the work to stop. To free participant resources for other tasks in the WG?
DWood: yes, i want to discuss with Guus to understand his motivation.
Ralph: But certainly best for this WG to publish it as a note before the WG ends.
DWood: Library community wants something stable published, that they can count on.
<dwood> Libby: So noted ;)
Alistair: My experience is that community doesn't
understand the diff between a WG note and a rec.
... Confusing if the status says that work on it has ended.
Ralph: it should stay as a WD if this WG intends to do more on it.
ChrisW: Always more work to be done on it.
... Only 2 months between f2f and end of WG anyway. Good base for WG
proposal to kick off after the WG ends.
Alistair: Happy to discuss at the F2F.
ChrisW: It will be more motivating to see how much has accomplished. If it's a good product that we want to push out and relatively stable people can start working on it.
Alistair: it was designed to allow bits of SKOS to be more stable now so that people can use it, while other parts evolve.
DWood: Have you talked to Dublin Core about how they handle version control?
Alistair: Tom Baker worked with us on setting it up.
ChrisW: SKOS looks pretty good! Nice work Alistair!
Guus: If you have particular discussion items for F2F
[tell me].
... Is Saturday okay? Natasha will not be able to join remotely.
ChrisW: Fine for me.
[ChrisW drops off]
<jjc> (note: rebooting PC - back soon I hope)
Alistair: I'll prepare a list of SKOS issues to discuss at F2F.
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph to prepare the SKOS public WD for publication [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/17-swbp-minutes.html#action12]
<dlm> hi - i am on both flakey wireless and intermittent cell but connected partially
(Giorgos not audible)
Jacco: Still need a second reviewer for documents.
... Do we need reviews 2 wks before F2F also?
... Guidelines for image annotation on SemWeb -- overview of the
problem.
... See Task Force home page list of deliverables for link to document.
<libby> I can review
<Jacco> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/MM/image_annotation.html
<Ralphs> Image annotation on the Semantic Web Editors' Draft $Date: 2005/10/17 18:57:30 $ $Revision: 1.5 $
Guus: I could ask Mark.
<scribe> ACTION: Libby to review Image annotation editor's draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/17-swbp-minutes.html#action13]
Jacco: Would rather focus on getting the doc in shape than on on getting reviews.
DWood: Reviews can occur during the F2F.
<libby> is that http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/MM/image_annotation.html ?
Guus: Be sure that reviewers have time during F2F week.
... Reviews by oct 24 is fine.
... Very good result, given your TF is only in existence 6 weeks!
<Ralphs> [WN] editor's draft WordNet datamodel [Guus 2005-10-17]
Guus: Also have some questions for vincent. Otherwise reasonably complete.
<scribe> ACTION: Aldo to propose an update the Wordnet TF description [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/07-swbp-minutes.html#action04 ] [WITHDRAWN]
Guus: To discuss at F2F: Is the current WD really a step
forward? How to finish it before the end of the charter?
... I think continued work would be more appropriate for SWIG rather
than SWBP.
... (Speaking of second kind of conversions.)
Jeremy: Personally, I would be unhappy with the Wordnet
work continuing, because progress has been so slow, but I need to
consult with Brian before expressing HP opinion.
... I.e., I think I agree.
... If a WG were convened, I would not support a Wordnet TF within it.
Ralph: In the same spirit as for SKOS, does it make sense to consider with the first draft of this representation published, should that be the first and only thing this WG does?
Guus: That would be my position, though I don't think Aldo would disagree.
Ralph: So publishing as a note would be a good idea.
DWood: I agree.
Ralph: Not likely to get more done on this in the remaining month of this WG, so let's publish it as note.
Guus: Not sure if I agree. Decide at F2F?
Ralph: I suggest the decision at the F2F should be to publish a document.
Guus: Doc should be ready within a week. If DanBri and Brian are ok with it, then the current version can be reviewed now. Would like to solicit reviewers now.
Ralph: If you think you will have resources to do a second draft after we publish it, then we could discuss a proposal to republish.
Guus: Ok
Jeremy: If we do go for note, that does not preclude publishing an updated version later.
Guus: Ok. Good strategy.
<Ralphs> yes, we can still update a Note if we wish to do so
Jeremy: Had hardward difficulties, so I'm behind. I sent some idea of what i think we should do. Might make sense for me and Jeff to work on final version for a note, excluding decision about which version of semantics is useful.
<Ralphs> [XSCH] F2F thoughts [Jeremy 2005-10-03]
Jeremy: In current draft published, we say that semantics
of when two data types are the same are given by XPath, based on my and
Jeff's personal opinion. There are other opinions, including some from
Jena team, saying that doesn't work (too hard to implement).
... Jena team preferred a simpler scheme for equality. (Message from
Dave Reynolds)
... Thats' the roadblock to publishing as a WG Note.
<Ralphs> Re: XML Schema Datatypes in RDF and OWL [Jeff 2005-10-17]
JeffP: I replied to Jena's comments this afternoon. Very reasonable. Equality approach could cause performance problem. Map to relations can be decided by implementations. Don't need everything in the schema. We might change our opinion.
Jeremy: We could prepare a draft with all three options and F2F could discuss and choose.
JeffP: Good idea.
Guus: Is the current agenda slot enough time? 45 minutes?
<Ralphs> Jeff's message was in reply to Re: XML Schema Datatypes in RDF and OWL [Dave Reynolds 2005-07-18]
Jeremy: If on Saturday, that would be fine, because we could have TF discussion outside the mtg.
<scribe> ACTION: JeffP to draft a response to dave reynolds[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/25-swbp-minutes.html#action09] [DONE]
<scribe> ACTION: Jeremy to prepare a new draft of XML Schema datatype prior to F2F [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/17-swbp-minutes.html#action16]
Ralph: We continued to make some slow progress on our
issues list. hoped to have a doc draft describing RDF/A today. Mark
Birbeck as action to send it out (not sure of status). Hoping WG can
see document before F2F and discuss. We have solutions to our issues,
though there are questions about acceptability of them.
... Still hope to have it ready before F2F.
Guus: Ben said he'd make every effort to have doc ready by Oct 27, as input for F2F.
Ralph: HTML WG continues to slip deadline as far as I know. The only doc we're targeting is revised spec for RDF/A -- whitepaper we reviewed a year ago.
DWood: What's their new schedule?
Ralph: Don't know.
... They're still in LC. It's been >3 months since last pub, so that
will raise eyebrows. Chair told me they expect to go to another LC.
... I don't think we're the roadblock.
... HTML WG has not said when they expect to publish next LC document.
Don't know when to expect it.
... others on this WG might want to look at the issues list and weigh
in on proposals. One of the most important questions: QNames vs. URIs.
At least one customer has gotten a lot of our attention, is interested
in minimize doc length.
... Want to find a solution that allows compact representation for
attributes.
... (They also want to look as much as possible like current HTML.)
<aliman> Just to note that I came upon the same problem (lack of datatype to cover QName or URI) when trying to write some RDF/A examples using existing well-known RDF vocabs.
Ralph: At some point we'll list alternatives and ask for preference votes.
Jeremy: Should produce full spec of RDF-A and ask for review: what changes would be needed to be acceptable?
Ralph: There are decisions the TF has not yet made. If others help, it might spur things along.
<Ralphs> RDF in XHTML current issues list
DWood: WG has been waiting a while for the TF to produce
something. Looking forward to seeing something.
... Not sure this is the most productive manner to provide input on
this.
Ralph: I agree. The TF hasn't improved the rate of progress as I had hoped.
<scribe> ACTION: Jeremy write a formal description of the CURI proposal for WG consideration [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/03-swbp-minutes.html#action12 ] [PENDING]
<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] [PENDING]
Jeff: (scribe missed)
<Ralphs> [SE] The second note [Jeff 2005-10-17]
Jeff: Sent a link of note that we believe is ready for review.
<dwood> (no review of Tutorial Page - moved on to SE TF)
Jeff: Everything going well in prep for Gallway.
Ralph: Ask on list for reviewers.
... I see one person listed as editor on that note who has not been
appointed to the WG (Holger). Please look into that.
Guus: Holger has been active on the list.
<scribe> ACTION: JeffPan to check on getting Holger to join the WG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/17-swbp-minutes.html#action19]
<aliman> thanks all, bye
ADJOURNED
<dlm> i never announced my joining the telecon so as not to interrupt - deborah