08:01:12 RRSAgent has joined #swbp 08:01:12 logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/11/04-swbp-irc 08:01:18 Zakim has joined #swbp 08:01:32 Meeting: SWBPD WG Face-to-Face 08:01:45 zakim, this will be sw_bp 08:01:45 ok, RalphS; I see SW_BPD(F2F)4:00AM scheduled to start in 59 minutes 09:22:09 SW_BPD(F2F)4:00AM has now started 09:22:09 SW_BPD(F2F)4:00AM has ended 09:22:10 Attendees were 09:22:20 SW_BPD(F2F)4:00AM has now started 09:22:27 +??P0 09:23:06 +Ralph 09:23:43 Raphael has joined #swbp 09:23:54 hi RalphS :-) 09:25:44 Jacco has joined #swbp 09:27:16 +Ralph 09:27:17 Jacco has joined #swbp 09:27:33 -Ralph 09:28:11 +Ralph 09:28:20 -Ralph 09:29:17 zakim, ??p0 is MeetingRoom 09:29:17 +MeetingRoom; got it 09:29:42 zakim, please make this record public 09:29:42 I don't understand 'please make this record public', RalphS 09:29:47 rrsagent, please make this record public 09:30:15 aharth has joined #swbp 09:30:28 hi, morning! 09:31:34 dwood has joined #swbp 09:37:25 +David_Wood 09:39:51 Elisa has joined #swbp 09:41:39 -David_Wood 09:42:35 +David_Wood 09:46:43 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0018.html 09:47:37 yes 09:47:40 yes 09:47:57 ChrisW has joined #swbp 09:48:54 we can hear you 09:49:15 Guus: 11 people now in the room 09:49:37 would someone write here the names of all who are present, please? 09:50:07 zakim, meetingroom has Guus, Brian, Jeremy, ChrisW 09:50:07 +Guus, Brian, Jeremy, ChrisW; got it 09:50:54 FabGandon has joined #swbp 09:51:08 Guus has joined #swbp 09:52:40 Guus: My apologies for not being there! 09:52:49 s/:/,/ 09:52:55 Agendum: Waitinf for latecomers to wander in 09:53:03 I wish I could be there too 09:54:07 small groups greeting and mumbling with each other 09:54:08 Scribe: ChrisW 09:54:17 ScribeNick: ChrisW-scribe 09:54:43 Chris, could you write here the names of all who are present, please? 09:55:42 bwm has joined #swbp 09:55:53 danbri has joined #swbp 09:56:00 Guus thanks Andreas & DERI 09:56:04 +1 09:56:59 Alistair Miles 09:57:02 Dan Brickley 09:57:14 Brian McBride 09:57:16 Present: AListair, Danbri, BrianMcBride 09:57:25 libby has joined #swbp 09:57:46 ...Andreas, Libby, 09:57:56 ...BenNguyen 09:58:13 Fabien 09:58:29 ...Jacov, Rafael 09:58:48 zakim, meetingroom has Alistair, DanBri, Brian, Andreas, Libby, Ben, Fabien, Jacco, Raphael 09:58:48 Brian was already listed in MeetingRoom, RalphS 09:58:49 +Alistair, DanBri, Andreas, Libby, Ben, Fabien, Jacco, Raphael; got it 09:58:53 Giorgos 09:58:58 giorgios, 09:58:59 Vassilis 09:59:00 s/jacov/jacco 09:59:07 George 09:59:20 s/Rafael/Raphael 10:00:00 two giorgos 10:00:07 jeremy 10:00:10 evan, elisa 10:00:14 chrisw 10:00:16 mikeU 10:01:12 zakim, meetingroom also has Giorgos_Stamou, Giorgos_Stoilos, Vassilis, Jeremy, Evan, Elisa, ChrisW, MikeU, Guus 10:01:12 +Giorgos_Stamou, Giorgos_Stoilos, Vassilis, Jeremy, Evan, Elisa, ChrisW, MikeU, Guus; got it 10:01:31 zakim, who's in meetingroom? 10:01:31 MeetingRoom has Alistair, DanBri, Andreas, Libby, Ben, Fabien, Jacco, Raphael, Giorgos_Stamou, Giorgos_Stoilos, Vassilis, Jeremy, Evan, Elisa, ChrisW, MikeU, Guus 10:02:10 zakim, meetingroom also has Brian 10:02:10 +Brian; got it 10:02:21 Jeff Pan and Aldo Gangemi arrived 10:02:24 MikeU has joined #swbp 10:02:36 jeremy has joined #swbp 10:02:39 zakime, meetingroom also has Aldo, JeffP 10:02:45 zakim, meetingroom also has Aldo, JeffP 10:02:45 +Aldo, JeffP; got it 10:04:46 jjc: should we establish criteria for moving notes forward now 10:04:53 [oh, huh... i didn't show up as registered; am sure I did, but I guess must be mistaken] 10:04:53 ...a lot of documents 10:05:23 guus: can we have a concrete proposal? 10:06:01 ralph: what are you suggesting? To change the practice or repeat it? 10:06:37 jjc: concerned about running out of time and publishing unfinished notes as a result 10:07:10 ...make sure to apply process properly, regardless of time 10:07:15 dwood: i'll ask the technician again... 10:07:22 yes, concern about rushing things through as we get close to the end of January is certainly justified 10:07:33 s/dwood:/dwood,/ 10:08:47 guus: clear goal of meeting is to get to the notes within the contrants 10:08:52 [ for remote participants --- http://www.flickr.com/photos/danbri/59645352/ ] 10:09:31 ...have a proposal by end of meeting for coord. group regarding future of WG 10:09:37 not cantankerous, Jeremy -- you raised a good point 10:09:44 Agendum: PORT TF 10:09:52 Topic: PORT TF 10:10:55 SKOS Core Guide 10:10:55 http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/guide/2005-10-06/ 10:12:02 zakim, DBooth just arrived in MeetingRoom 10:12:02 +DBooth; got it 10:12:03 zakim, meetingroom also has DavidBooth, GavinMacKenzie 10:12:04 +DavidBooth, GavinMacKenzie; got it 10:12:41 Discussing: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0195.html 10:14:53 Alistair basically summarizing above note 10:18:15 ITEM 1: 'Extending' SKOS Core 10:19:15 JeffP has joined #swbp 10:19:29 Discussing: http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/cvs-public/~checkout~/skos/drafts/appextensions.html 10:21:44 this seems to be a good primer on how to use RDF for vocabulary definition, applied to a specific case 10:21:48 and as such is quite useful 10:22:37 DWood: is there a the difference between "extending the SKOS Core" and "extending SKOS"? 10:22:46 alistair: skos == skos core 10:25:02 danbri: concerned that its much easier said than done 10:25:32 ...does not seem to be tool support for it - this would set back adoption 10:25:37 "its" == "RDFS inferencing" (Alistair's term) 10:26:03 jjc: we (W3C) made the decision a while ago to make RDFS inferences cheap enough that web tools will support them 10:26:15 ...there is some support in Jena for this 10:26:28 ...the hard bit is figuring out which schema to dereference 10:27:33 brian: what scale of inference 10:28:05 alistair: things like Mesh, dewey-decimal, etc. woudl publish their own extensions 10:28:41 guus: agree w/ jeremy that we shouldn't back off from inference 10:29:13 ...AListair was too optomistic about the number of triples (underestimated) 10:29:36 ...real scalability issues but that shouldn't stop us 10:30:14 I agree with Guus -- let's use RDFS and encourage the tools to support subPropertyOf and subClassOf efficiently 10:30:16 jacco: don't see that there's a problem if you warn users to use subproperty reasoning when you need it 10:30:58 Jeff has joined #swbp 10:31:28 danbri: at least three parties, publishers, extender, and data sets, and users 10:31:40 ...yes, that's four 10:32:10 brain: not convinced we shoudl recommend something that is currently impractical 10:32:18 ^brain^brian^ 10:32:36 [I didn't understand which bits Brian thinks may be impractical] 10:33:06 jjc: wants to spank Brian 10:33:22 guus: have to be aware of scalability problems 10:34:35 danbri: non-rdf experts will be downloading rdf tools, its a different thing to publish things for which there is no tool support 10:34:57 I don't think we have to limit ourselves to available tools, as long as our recommended solutions are implementable. I am *always* worried about scalability. 10:35:21 ...this community (thesauri?) are not SW experts. if we encourage them to extend skos there is a risk they will reinvent owl 10:35:24 ...badly 10:35:49 [I appreciate DanBri's partial photo of the meeting room http://www.flickr.com/photos/35468151816@N01/59645352/ -- Thanks, DanBri] 10:35:58 jjc: a wider issue: there are statements in SKOS that have a wider semantic ... meaning 10:36:14 giorgos has joined #swbp 10:36:44 ...that is, formal semantic constraints 10:36:51 ...e.g. constraint on language tag 10:37:38 ...basically, that SKOS is already moving into the territory danbri was worried about? 10:38:27 alistair: there are other constraints, like no two concepts shoudl have the same preferred label 10:38:36 ...but some concept schemes where you may want to break that 10:40:23 danbri: how far skos is extended to become a modeling framework is a concern 10:41:06 alistair: we promote the extension of owl core until it begins to tread on owl 10:41:21 q+ to ask whether there is existing practice of this form of extension 10:41:27 ^owl core^skos core^ 10:41:44 bwm, you wanted to ask whether there is existing practice of this form of extension 10:42:15 alistair: there is some experience: gemet thesaurus 10:42:31 ...not enough pracitcal use but a lot of interest 10:42:43 gavin_mckenzie has joined #swbp 10:43:26 Is it reasonable to explicitly state that SKOS should not be extended in any manner which is already defined in OWL? 10:43:32 jjc: it just describes a simpl e use of RDF the way it was intended 10:43:41 +1 to Jeremy's statement 10:44:01 Brian: (previously) questioned whether the experience was enough to make a "best practice" 10:44:08 this is showing poeople how to use RDFS 10:44:09 Guus agrees with Jjc 10:45:39 alistair: hybrid ontologies, ranges. Class of things called enviromnental organiztions, they have project type, class of concepts, simple taxonomy. Please share thoughts abou this. 10:45:40 [I'll ask via mail later (after looking further myself) whether there is prose to explain the use of skos:definition vs. rdfs:description] 10:46:17 ITEM 2: Importing SKOS Core into OWL (DL) Ontologies 10:46:23 Alistair: one schema for SKOS 10:46:39 some of the bits are not compatible w/ OWL-DL 10:47:29 proposal: have an rdfs version, and owl-dl version, and a merged version in owl full 10:47:55 This raises an interesting point in general: Is there any reason that legitimate uses of RDF or RDFS should be prohibited from conflicting with OWL? I think that it be best practice NOT to, but shouldn't necessarily be prohibited. 10:48:58 some of the owl-dl problems: 10:49:05 some subprops of rdfs:label 10:49:18 most properties are just rdf:Property 10:50:44 ...lots of annotation properties so can't be "extended" (subprop'd) in OWL DL 10:52:49 [I understand the speakerphone challenge now, seeing the size of the room in http://swordfish.rdfweb.org/photos/2005/11/04/2005-11-04-Pages/Image20.html ] 10:55:47 fabian: concerned that there is some redundancy so that in the merged (owl full) version you have two things 10:55:55 [I hoped we could use lang properties to permit inclusion of multiple rdfs:label properties in a single schema information resource] 10:56:50 alistair: yes, also a problem for maintenance 10:57:21 ...but ok because it makes it simpler 10:58:48 guus: is there a need for OWL-DL in the thesaurus world, do we need to worry about it? 10:59:45 jjc: see some semantic constraints that are outside owl-dl 11:00:04 ...so agree w/ guus that may not need to worry about it 11:00:23 q? 11:00:40 danbri: owl-dl tool referencing skos data would be polluted if there isn't an OWL-DL version of skos 11:02:10 brian: seems like a common problem - how to describe different versions in different languages 11:02:14 Brian raises a good point -- this is suggesting a "best practice" for dealing with RDFS + OWL-DL would be useful in the community 11:02:15 ...do we need a best practice 11:02:48 ITEM 3: Problem with SKOS Collections 11:03:04 I vote for favoring RDFS :) 11:03:45 discussing: http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/cvs-public/~checkout~/skos/drafts/collections-5.html 11:05:23 dbooth has joined #swbp 11:05:59 discussion to clarify the thesaurus terminology 11:06:44 basic issue: the "narrower term" is a collection which is not supposed to be a skos:concept 11:07:39 ...but range of narrower term property is skos:concept 11:09:01 aldo: this is not a collection, this is just an "unnamed" concept 11:09:46 I am concerned, but not surprised, that SKOS (as a major new use of RDF) has so quickly run into issues surrounding OWL-DL. The concept of an "OWL-DL version of SKOS" sounds nasty and brutish. +1 to work regarding guidance. 11:09:51 guus: the problem is that "chairs by function" is a meta-class 11:10:14 "concerned, but not surprised" -- yep :( 11:10:35 jjc: no examples of this - would be good to have some 11:12:52 alistair: some times these "collections" are ordered and the order means something 11:13:56 mikeU: could use annotation properties indicating metaclass membership for OWL DL version 11:14:11 But a "collection" does not say what the ordering means. 11:14:46 alistair: problem is that a concept can appear in two places so an annotation property won't tell you which place is the one being faceted 11:15:39 yeah, I'd like to see if there's a different relationship (than owl:disjoint) between skos:Concept and skos:Collection 11:16:06 jjc: agree w/ aldo that collection and concept are the same 11:16:42 hmm. perhaps not the same but there's a connection 11:16:42 jjc: Things like union create unnamed classes. Perhaps this is what's happening. 11:16:44 guus: the problem is that skos:concept is used for anything that can be used in annotation 11:17:35 discussing solution seciton of http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/cvs-public/~checkout~/skos/drafts/collections-5.html 11:17:46 [I'm understanding now, participating in this 'remote' mode, why it's so tempting to type thoughts in irc rather than interrupt the f2f conversation.] 11:20:45 jjc: is the problem just that skos:concept is misnamed 11:20:58 ...should it be named skos:namedConcept ? 11:21:54 alistair: there are coordinated (combined?) concepts also 11:23:20 guus: there are two kinds of concepts: indexing and those for organizing the indexing concepts 11:24:39 ...separate naming issues from organizing issues 11:24:52 jjc: or a compelling example of why that won't work 11:25:30 guus: clearly presented - propose we hav ea breakout session to resolve the issues 11:26:38 guus: for planning - it has been suggested that SKOS be one of the primary outcomes of SWBP 11:26:50 ...taken very seriously in library community 11:27:01 ...perhaps should be taken into a rec track 11:27:21 [Isn't this question of "what's the future path" part of tomorrow's agenda?] 11:27:28 ...would beg the question as to what we need to finish in swbp, and what to leave for new wg? 11:27:52 alistair: defer judgement on whether it shoudl be rec 11:28:12 ...in this wg would like to resolve these three issues + possibly one or two recent ones 11:28:25 [I heard Alistair say "defer judgement on rec to [??]", didn't hear to whom he thought it should be defered] 11:29:07 [to people who know about "that kind of thing"] 11:29:32 guus: would rather finish the basic uses of skos in swbp and save the rest for next wg 11:29:43 hmm. would "the people who know" be the users of SKOS or someone else? 11:30:30 danbri: only meaty problem is the final one (collectsion/concepts) so I think it could be moved to new wg 11:30:37 q+ to suggest that extensions be the primary SWBPD goal 11:30:51 [guus is going around the room] 11:31:42 dbooth: not speaking for HP - but seems like an application of SW technology and not really in W3C domain 11:31:53 ...but may not happen if it isn't 11:32:10 q- 11:32:58 ralph: would like alistair to give a better sense of where the community is 11:33:29 ...much more "horizontal" an effort than some things W3C has considered 11:33:46 ...don't think WG has time to finish all three issues raised today 11:34:33 ...makes an excellent note on how to use RDF 11:34:35 On one hand, SKOS is an application of RDF, and thus might be done outside W3C. On the other hand, it's clear that the outside community is not ready yet to be able to do this work correctly. Thus it may make sense for W3C to do it correctly, and it will give a lot of visibility of Sem Web technology to the larger community. 11:35:39 q+ so Guus doesn't forget me :) 11:35:56 zakim, unmute me 11:35:56 sorry, dwood, I do not see a party named 'dwood' 11:35:58 specifically, item 1 makes an excellent example of how to use RDFS and I'd like to see that item be the principal milestone for end of january 11:35:58 ack dwood 11:36:14 zakim, nidk dwood is David_Wood 11:36:14 I don't understand 'nidk dwood is David_Wood', RalphS 11:36:18 zakim, nick dwood is David_Wood 11:36:18 ok, RalphS, I now associate dwood with David_Wood 11:36:36 can't hear you 11:37:38 +1 to seeing SKOS work continue in W3C 11:38:02 zakim, mute me 11:38:02 David_Wood should now be muted 11:38:25 dwood: would like to see skos continue beyond swbp and rec track 11:38:54 [oops; network disconnect between MIT & Galway?] 11:38:56 jeremy has joined #swbp 11:38:57 jjc: who would participate in a wg? 11:39:05 FabGandon has joined #swbp 11:39:15 Raphael has joined #swbp 11:39:21 gavin_mckenzie has joined #swbp 11:39:35 dbooth has joined #swbp 11:39:55 different library community people 11:39:59 shoudl be involved 11:40:04 not typical W3C people 11:40:21 so, consider whether they are likely to join WG 11:40:43 [I'd like to know how those folk have been participating in the SKOS design up to this point] 11:40:56 spoken to Michael Wilson who is UK w3c person 11:41:00 lots of interest 11:41:25 Elisa has joined #swbp 11:41:31 [they've been participating on the mailing list] 11:41:41 Ralph, you wanted to suggest that extensions be the primary SWBPD goal 11:42:22 danbri: 23 posters on mailing list + a lot of observers 11:42:28 DanBri: there were 23 distinct individuals posting on the [SKOS] mailing list last month 11:43:09 break 11:43:15 [I guess that's the public-esw-thes@w3.org mailing list] 11:43:34 zakim, meeting_room also holds DebM 11:43:34 sorry, ChrisW-scribe, I do not recognize a party named 'meeting_room' 11:43:35 zakim, meetingroom also has Deb 11:43:35 +Deb; got it 11:44:28 [Gavin] 11:44:52 zakim, who's here? 11:44:52 On the phone I see MeetingRoom, Ralph (muted), David_Wood (muted) 11:44:53 MeetingRoom has Alistair, DanBri, Andreas, Libby, Ben, Fabien, Jacco, Raphael, Giorgos_Stamou, Giorgos_Stoilos, Vassilis, Jeremy, Evan, Elisa, ChrisW, MikeU, Guus, Brian, Aldo, 11:44:57 ... JeffP, DBooth, DavidBooth, GavinMacKenzie, Deb 11:44:58 On IRC I see Elisa, dbooth, gavin_mckenzie, Raphael, FabGandon, jeremy, giorgos, MikeU, libby, Guus, ChrisW-scribe, dwood, Jacco, Zakim, RRSAgent, RalphS 11:53:06 dbooth2 has joined #swbp 11:53:59 jjc has joined #swbp 11:59:52 aharth has joined #swbp 12:02:34 bwm has joined #swbp 12:05:24 Raphael has joined #swbp 12:06:24 q? 12:06:43 bwm has joined #swbp 12:07:47 Scribe: dbooth 12:08:40 Topic: WordNet 12:09:03 Temporary chair for this session: ChrisW 12:09:24 ChrisW has joined #swbp 12:10:27 Aldo: TF was about bringing WordNet (large english lexicon). Work: 1. Create data model for WordNet. 2. Create ontology, relying on existing project but not within W3C TF. 12:10:55 q+ 12:11:06 ... Data model has been created by Guus and finalized by me. Covers the WordNet schema from the prolog source 12:11:55 ... One document distributed by Mark. Some general issues on the work of the TF, some raised by Jeremy. 12:11:56 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0173.html Jeremy's comments on WN 12:12:12 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0232.html Aldo's response to Jeremy 12:12:43 ... Also want to apply WordNet model to Lexical Markuup Framework. 12:13:15 ack guus 12:13:46 q 12:13:52 zakim, who is on the queue? 12:13:52 I see no one on the speaker queue 12:13:52 q? 12:14:35 Elisa has joined #swbp 12:15:22 Viewing http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark/wn/wn-conversion.html on screen 12:16:29 Jacco has joined #swbp 12:16:36 Guus: Resolved RDF/OWL in a different way than SKOS. Didn't have RDF separate file issue. Everything that is an object has an owl propoerty statement. 12:16:49 ... Can read the same file and ignore the extensions. 12:18:22 ... Issue was: What elements of WordNet should get URIs? DanBri made the point that URIs should have a human-readable format, and we've done that. AFAIK this current version could lead to consensus. More importantly, we have thhe transformation program, which is important to Princeton people. 12:18:46 aliman_scribe has joined #swbp 12:19:11 ... Main difference from current: relations are partial. 12:19:34 ... Use 2.0 because 2.1 does not have the prolog yet. 12:20:00 ... What's in the prolog source will be in the RDF source. 12:20:27 Aldo: Wordnet source uses something that is not completely finished. 12:20:52 Guus: This comes under the category: What should be the maintenance strategy? I suggest start from Jeremy's email suggestion. 12:21:17 ... First point: define a mapping from WordNet to OWL. 12:21:36 Brian: What are the TF's plans? 12:22:21 Aldo: Most of the port is done. Should be published/used. Issues on how to use it. Translation 100MB. 12:22:49 What is Princeton's position on maintenance? 12:23:48 ... One option: small files. Depends on tech you want to use. possibility: submitted a paper to OWL REC conference in Genoa. Proposed a panel for discussing WordNet, lexical resources and SemWeb and they're willing to do it, so it's low hanging fruit. 12:24:43 Jacco has joined #swbp 12:24:55 ... Princeton people are busy: new things to do with WordNet. Best we can do is to provide them with somethign we can use. (First step of plan) 12:25:03 ... Second: Involve linguistic assoc. 12:25:33 ... Third: harmonize the various wordnet efforts, such as neufchatel and others, to avoid doing the same thing multiple times. 12:25:48 Jeremy: Timescale? 12:26:09 Brian: That third one is more an objective than a plan. 12:26:29 Aldo: Can propose to them to join the effort. 12:26:53 ... Re timescale: can provide stuff to Princeton in the next few weeks. 12:27:13 ... On second one, the conference is in May, so it would have to be after that. 12:27:53 ... On the third one, I'm already in communication with LMF ISO committee. 12:28:21 dlm has joined #swbp 12:28:39 DanBri: It's fantastic to reach out to these communities, but the traditional W3C way to do that is through publishing working drafts. Gets muchh wider readership, gives greater transparency. 12:28:50 Aldo: We have a draft of a WD. 12:29:29 Guus: my take on timing: If we appoint internal reviewers, within 6 wks we can get a WD out. 12:29:53 ... Including WG decision. 12:30:05 ChrisW: WD as item 0 in Aldo's plan? 12:30:27 Guus: Yes, suitable for princeton and language community. 12:30:48 dlm has joined #swbp 12:30:49 q+ to ask the WN TF how far from a first WD they think the current Editor's Draft is 12:31:02 ... If we take the normal process of gettign their input, it would push us past Feb. 12:31:17 ChrisW: But the WD seems like a vehicle to reach out to others. 12:31:36 [boo on asking Princeton to comment formally on Editor's Draft] 12:31:43 Guus: Yes. Princeton has already looked at it. 12:31:44 ["boo" == -1] 12:32:06 q? 12:32:20 Brian: WD would be based on the doc linked from the agenda? 12:32:22 Guus: Yes. 12:33:23 Brian: When I read it, the doc seemed more about the internal process for doing the translation. I would have thought we would want to publish a description of WordNet in RDF: here's the structure and how to use it, rather than a tech note on the rational for the decisions we made. Good doc, but not the doc we want to publish. 12:33:23 q+ 12:33:25 Jacco has joined #swbp 12:33:42 aliman has joined #swbp 12:33:55 ack ralph 12:33:56 Ralph, you wanted to ask the WN TF how far from a first WD they think the current Editor's Draft is 12:34:07 Guus: This is not for the user's of wordnet, but the process we discussed. For getting consensus on this version, that's what this doc addresses. I agreee you'd need a different doc for users. 12:34:09 bwm has joined #swbp 12:34:57 +1 on a public WD first 12:35:15 Ralph: +1 to danbri's comment on publishing a WD to include the community. Concerned about princeton being asked to comment on the ed draft. There's a balance between getting input from interested people and having public visibility. I encourage getting this published as WD for public comment. 12:35:34 ... How much more time needed (editorial) before asking for WG review? 12:36:34 ack jjc 12:36:37 Guus: Current WD could be reviewed now. It's in pretty good shape for the purpose that we've discussed. Though I agree with Brian that we'd need a different doc for users later. 12:38:18 Jeremy: Brian asked who the doc is for. But TF charter gives various objectives, and took 18 months to reach. I have no confidence that it can now be done in 6 weeks. 12:39:09 Guus: I now have a student working on this. 12:39:23 Jeremy: Prereq for second doc are political issues. 12:39:36 Guus: Not for writing it. Getting consensus yes. 12:39:43 ack ralph 12:41:03 Ralph: We can put whatever level of caveats we want in the status of the doc, but I agree that consensus takes a long time, and the first step is to put a draft out, as rough as necessary, and let the community comment. Then we can start getting feedback to address Brian's concerns. I'd like to have a draft out in public and all comments recorded in the list archives. 12:41:42 Guus: Current draft is adequate for pub in my opinion. 12:42:07 Jeremy: My main concern is what do we say about future expectations for it. 12:42:31 Guus: Future work is separate discussion. 12:42:39 We can note that the WG charter expires in January and we make no promises about what will happen to this WD post-January 12:43:10 s/note/note in the SOTD/ 12:43:14 ChrisW: Guus is saying something significant in the TF has changed, and more work is happening now (in the past month) so you cannot judge the rate of progress by looking at the whole past year. 12:43:41 danbri: It would be great if the work were finished, but nothing wrong with publishing as far as we got. 12:43:52 +1 to DanBri's "publish what we've got to save the world having to reinvent this" 12:44:19 yep, get it out to the world 12:44:23 ... Also tech discussion relates to planning and roadmap. I've always liked mapping synsets on to classes. Has a popular idiom. 12:45:01 q+ to make two review comments on current draft 12:45:04 ... Issue: Same URI can be used for the class and lexical representation? And what does URI dereference to? 12:45:49 Benjamin has joined #swbp 12:49:00 jeremy has joined #swbp 12:49:04 aliman has joined #swbp 12:49:05 THE_CHAIR has joined #swbp 12:49:11 ack jjc 12:49:11 jjc, you wanted to make two review comments on current draft 12:49:21 aharth has joined #swbp 12:49:40 bwm has joined #swbp 12:50:03 dbooth has joined #swbp 12:50:29 Ben has joined #swbp 12:51:17 danbri has joined #swbp 12:52:48 Guus: I think the WordNet work could continue within the Semantic Web Interest Group 12:53:57 dbooth has joined #swbp 12:54:43 ping 12:55:22 Elisa has joined #swbp 12:56:11 [the last line I see from scribe is ":45] ... Issue: Same URI can be used for the class and lexical representation? And what does URI dereference to?" 12:56:22 connection problems here with the wireless 12:57:00 david will send email of what's been missed 12:57:02 dbooth will send back scribe 12:57:10 12:57:16 12:57:16 :) 12:57:27 danbri : thinking about the relationship between skos and WN 12:57:36 ... a lot of worj to be done in skos needs owl people 12:57:50 Danbri: Re relationship between SKOs and Wordnet. Lots of SKOS work needs OWL people's brains. 12:57:58 ... people approve of the skos approach, they also want to talk about terms 12:58:26 Danbri: Faceted stuff scares me, because it is reinventing OWL. 12:59:47 ... Strawman work item might be taking terms in wordnet and using them with SKOS. SKOS-only WG would be unhealthy -- only thesaurus people. 13:00:38 Alistair: __ have terminology markup, and they know a lot about multilinguality, and they've started looking at SKOS. 13:01:10 bwm has joined #swbp 13:01:37 Guus: Happy to have these options on the table. 13:02:20 q? 13:02:23 Aldo: Community of Wordnet community are dynamically holding. We're providing something to support the mainstream. 13:02:33 ^holding^evolving^ 13:02:41 ... Might want to suggest practices to transform. 13:03:28 [would the TF like to solicit reviewers now?] 13:03:39 [ah, Guus already on it] 13:04:03 s/holding/evolving/ 13:04:03 ChrisW: No decisions made. 13:04:06 Guus: I propose we assign WG reviewers to ed draft. Volunteers? 13:04:12 jeremy has joined #swbp 13:04:31 Volunteers: Alistair, Brian, Ben, Jacco, Jeremy 13:04:55 ... plus DanBri, though also a TF member. 13:05:50 ACTION: Ralph to copy the WordNet to CVS space and post URL 13:06:14 Review deadline: 25-Nov-2005 13:06:32 DanBri: mailing list for SKOS worked well for us. 13:06:53 ADJOURNED FOR LUNCH -- continuing at 2:00pm local 13:07:03 [54 minute lunch break] 13:08:39 -David_Wood 13:27:05 Mark's WordNet conversion document is now copied to http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wn-conversion.html 13:28:16 -Ralph 13:28:23 ?! 13:29:47 +Ralph 13:31:50 -MeetingRoom 13:32:00 oh well 13:39:41 bwm has joined #swbp 13:46:51 gavin_mckenzie has joined #swbp 13:54:07 bwm_ has joined #swbp 13:56:47 FabGandon has joined #swbp 13:58:21 +David_Wood 13:59:43 dbooth has joined #swbp 14:01:15 bwm_ has joined #swbp 14:01:37 Raphael has joined #swbp 14:02:08 +??P12 14:02:19 zakim, ??p12 is MeetingRoom 14:02:19 +MeetingRoom; got it 14:02:59 Guus has joined #swbp 14:04:41 zakim, mute me 14:04:41 sorry, dwood, I do not see a party named 'dwood' 14:04:45 Ben has joined #swbp 14:04:48 zakim, Stefan_Decker has arrived in meetingroom 14:04:48 +Stefan_Decker; got it 14:04:55 zakim, nick dwood is David_Wood 14:04:56 ok, RalphS, I now associate dwood with David_Wood 14:04:56 zakim, nick dwood is David_Wood 14:04:56 ok, dwood, I now associate you with David_Wood 14:05:04 zakim, mute me 14:05:04 David_Wood should now be muted 14:05:50 libby has joined #swbp 14:05:57 aharth has joined #swbp 14:06:35 WG thanks Stefan for hosting! 14:07:10 jacco : brief overview of what MM has been doing in the last weeks 14:07:19 ... things don't look ready yet 14:07:24 3 issues 14:07:35 1 first deliverable 14:07:47 2 possible structure on 2nd deliverable 14:08:18 stefan has left... 14:08:23 3 future work (vocabularies image annotation, and if recharter extend to video annotation) 14:08:31 zakim, Stefan_Decker has left meetingroom 14:08:31 -Stefan_Decker; got it 14:08:34 1- image annotation on the semantic web 14:08:56 contrbutors : giorgos, raphael and JAcco, many other contributors 14:09:19 goal : provide a survey and overview of the vocabularies and tools for people who want to do image annotation on the semantic web 14:09:28 discuss them in the context of use cases 14:09:36 gavin_mckenzie has joined #swbp 14:09:48 main challenges : you run a risk of mentionning some projects and missing others 14:09:50 THE_CHAIR has joined #swbp 14:10:05 lost of work and lost of progress in the area : problem of keeping up to date. 14:10:32 ... problem ensuring documents outside the w3c namespace remain stable. This has been moved out of the main draft 14:10:52 if the main draft is ready, this can be published as a wg note 14:11:11 4 use cases with example solutions 14:11:12 [I propose using the W3C Wiki for the 'living' resources material] 14:11:29 to do list : 14:11:37 1- lot of clean up 14:11:43 2- draft suffered from time pressure 14:11:48 3- better integration of sections 14:12:21 4- important use cases missing: news related images, scientific images, solution of media productions services use case (still working on this) 14:12:26 q+ to request referring to deliverables by name not number 14:12:49 Issues, the use case examples are seperate documents. Should this be integrated into the main document. 14:13:01 Problem : these solutions might get outdated. especially the vocab. 14:13:24 However the main principles remain valid, so long as people know they should use updated version of the vocab 14:13:39 jeremy has raised the problem of patent problems 14:13:55 jjc : action : verify or not if there is a patent issue and if there is clarify distinction 14:14:17 jjc : general rule not to discuss patent issues on the public mailing list 14:15:03 Jacco : scoping. there is a broad range of images to be annotated. there is a problem about scoping the document. For the moment it is manageable in size. 14:15:21 ... most drafts assume that SW technologies are a good idea and want to know how to use it in a best way 14:15:54 ... this document is different : public for this document are not yet convinced by using SW technology in order to annotate image documents (but they already use meta data) 14:16:09 ... the question is : what communities to target ? 14:16:44 ... EWIMT workshop in london soon, also SWAMM workshop in may at WWW conference 14:17:17 ... can mike and libby comment on this ? Mike has submitted a long email that I have not had time to read yet. 14:17:42 Chris : this is a big WG, I have trouble remembering the references of deliverables 14:17:43 I still owes a written review 14:17:45 q\q? 14:17:47 ChrisW, you wanted to request referring to deliverables by name not number 14:18:00 Elisa has joined #swbp 14:18:05 jacco : 1- overview of the vocab and tools out there for SW annotations for images 14:18:17 2- interoperability between SW and non SW approaches 14:18:30 Chris : call 1 overview and 2 interoperability 14:18:54 dlm has joined #swbp 14:18:55 vassilis has joined #swbp 14:18:55 Mike : general remarks : a lot of good content in the document. 14:19:03 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0020.html MM] Review of Image Annotation Document [Mike Uschold 2005-11-03] 14:19:08 ... discussion on images not relevant for the target audience 14:19:18 jacco : we dont want to give people false expectations. 14:19:29 .. the SW in itself wont solve all the issues with image annotation 14:19:44 Mike : lots of use cases, general positive view on the note 14:20:04 .. there is much to do still. Areas of concern : the objectives need to be more clear. The stated objectives are weak. 14:20:13 .. include : SW is a benefit to this area 14:20:23 Discussing Mike's review: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0020.html 14:20:29 .. more emphasis on motivating the use of SW technologies. 14:20:46 .. the description of the use cases were inconsistent in style and format 14:21:10 ... need a list of all the use cases 14:21:46 ... looked at a few use cases. Not acceptable to dump the reader an rdf ontology. The user should have a text description or graphical representation. 14:21:55 Raphael : this will be done (?) 14:22:11 Mike : the document does not have a coherence, a lot of cut and paste. 14:22:35 ... a lot of specific comments I will not go through. 14:22:48 Jacco : thanks, comments were helpful 14:23:09 One of the main goals to have a structure to show were the document was going to. Is direction ok ? 14:23:10 Mike : yes 14:23:33 jeremy has joined #swbp 14:23:37 q+ 14:24:09 Mike : I volunteered to be internal reviewer 14:24:32 Guus : decision to publish as WD under the condition comments get addressed ? 14:24:35 q+ to object to publishing in current state 14:24:46 ... would you recommend publishing as WD ? 14:24:59 Mike : I think so but there is a lot of work to be done 14:25:06 Jacco : I'd like a second review 14:25:15 jjc : its a long review 14:25:44 guus : lots of detail. Is there anything essential to be changed before you are happy with the document as a whole ? [to Mike] 14:26:00 mike: more coherent stories + summary of the use cases into the document. 14:26:14 Guus : is it juste editorial process ? 14:27:44 14:27:47 q+ to ask about source of use cases 14:28:10 dbooth has joined #swbp 14:28:39 q+ 14:28:45 Ben has joined #swbp 14:28:53 q" 14:28:56 q? 14:29:02 guus: nothing prevents the current doc to move to working draft 14:29:10 jjc : I'd prefer a style where the document is interesting and not trying to sell the document 14:29:20 Mike: I agree 14:29:26 jjc : I thought this was an interesting document 14:30:01 mike : most of the other notes assume that the semantic web is useful. It felt like this document has target readers in the MM domain 14:30:17 Vale has joined #swbp 14:30:21 .. in order to feel they should bother reading the document, it should help to motivate them to show the potential the SW has to show in this area 14:30:35 jjc: the document needs to discuss that 14:30:40 Ralph, you wanted to object to publishing in current state 14:30:53 Ralph : i agree with mike 14:31:03 it shouldn't be a drawback from publishing 14:31:11 ... would not obejct to pulish in this form 14:31:25 ... would leave to othe editors to do the editorial work before it goes public 14:31:52 s/jjc :/jjc:/g 14:31:59 danbri has joined #swbp 14:32:28 Ralph: jane needs to go through the administrative process of joining the WG before the document may be published 14:32:45 Guus: I have mailled her about this 14:33:12 ... it is an action she needs to fullfill 14:33:22 ... jacco to take an action about reminding her 14:34:22 I also have sent mail to Jane to point her to the Invited Expert application 14:35:27 jjc has joined #swbp 14:35:32 FabGandon_ has joined #swbp 14:35:34 ChrisW has joined #swbp 14:35:44 scribe: FabGandon_ 14:35:49 ibby: to review after revision 14:35:50 bwm_ has joined #swbp 14:36:12 s/mike :/mike:/g 14:36:12 s/ :/:/g 14:36:16 q? 14:36:22 q- 14:36:25 libby: document touching too much different problems 14:36:26 s/ibby/Libby/ 14:36:34 Raphael has joined #swbp 14:36:41 [btw, the Invited Expert administrative process is not just administrivia -- it's getting explicit agreement to certain IPR terms from the individual, and that's really what's important here] 14:38:00 FabGandon__ has joined #swbp 14:38:29 yes? 14:38:44 OK 14:38:49 danbri_ has joined #swbp 14:39:07 Does anyone have a switch and some cable? 14:39:14 zakim, unmute me 14:39:14 David_Wood should no longer be muted 14:39:31 FabGandon has joined #swbp 14:40:06 [meeting room scribes going off-line due to network issues at DERI] 14:40:07 zakim, mute me 14:40:07 David_Wood should now be muted 14:40:19 bwm__ has joined #swbp 14:40:28 maybe folk who are connected could duplicate some of real scribing, for ralph + david 14:40:28 eg. "david - i reviewed it too, tho i didn't have some of the links. i liked it. and desc of use cases... 14:40:29 ...2 things came to mind 14:40:35 ...wasn't clear to me where the work is going 14:40:40 ...could that be made clearer? 14:40:49 ... was left w/ feeling "ok interesting - but what next?" 14:41:00 j: see the 'what next' docs 14:41:10 david: title seems broader than the actual paper 14:41:17 ...suggest narrowing the title 14:41:21 dbooth has joined #swbp 14:41:24 j: i'll have to think about that 14:41:37 d: what i read was a good description of use the cases 14:41:46 j = jacco 14:41:53 j: goal is not to only do use cases. but also to do tools + vocabs. use the use cases to organise this discussion 14:41:57 d = dbooth 14:42:02 ...prob is that the meet re tools + vocabs is in the other vocabs 14:42:12 dbooth: since i didn't see the other docs, i can't comment 14:42:19 jacco: may be we can scope title better 14:42:32 raphael: [missed point re a proposal from ralph] 14:42:44 jacco: i like suggestion from ralph to do it in a wiki context 14:42:47 raphael: ok 14:42:58 Ben-scribe has joined #swbp 14:43:01 jacco: 1 more request for libby -- -re targetting communities for public feedback 14:43:03 libby: certainly 14:43:18 Guus: online scribing is off. We try to fix asap. Even wire has a problem. 14:43:23 guus: i'm going to propose to this wg to publish an edited version, at editor's discretion 14:43:38 I object to publishing this until Jane Hunter's status is corrected 14:43:40 ben-scribe --- is my psueo-scribing ok here? 14:43:51 q+ to note ralph objection 14:43:58 (missed point vfrom brian) 14:44:22 jjc: [missed] 14:44:28 brian: can I take that for each use case, one of the contributers to the document has specific knowledge of that use case? 14:44:33 jacco: yes 14:44:58 guus: publish 2 conditions. (1) IP issue resolved to ralph's satisfaction (2) jane hunter ack / status is resolved 14:45:07 yes, once Jane Hunter has Invited Expert status I am OK with publishing 14:45:09 ... under those conditions i propose to publish this as a wd of swbpd wg 14:45:14 ...with editorial discretion 14:45:35 ralph: what does editorial discretion mean? 14:45:44 guus: take on board comments from wg 14:46:03 ralph: i'd feel more comfortable with specifics, eg. 'take on mikes xyz comments' not a general open door to changes 14:46:12 guus: mike, jeremy, libby, david's comments 14:46:26 fine to that list of specific comments 14:46:57 !-2^david^dbooth^ 14:46:58 danbri: relays jjc's concern to ralph 14:46:59 ralph: ack'd 14:47:16 s/david/dbooth/ 14:47:20 guus: accepted by consensus. thanks editors! 14:47:25 (no objections etc) 14:47:49 action on taskforce coordinations to prepare a version for publication 14:48:23 jacco: existing standards won't go away 14:49:00 val has joined #swbp 14:49:17 ...existing standards interop w/ rdf etc [missed detail] 14:52:05 raphael: there's currently 3 or 4 versions of mpeg 7 [ in rdf/owl?? -danbri] 14:52:09 ...don't model things in same way 14:52:23 ...semantic vs syntactic interop 14:52:32 guus: are you saying the standard is ambiguous? 14:52:43 jacco: problem of lack of formal semantics... 14:53:21 chris: re wordnet, skos ... similar role --- formalising things that haven't been yet 14:53:30 [tm also, i think] 14:53:54 mike: one way to get around the 'is it semantic or syntactic' q is to just avoid that way of coching the question 14:54:08 [valentina arrived just after lunch] 14:54:09 s/coching/couching/ 14:54:12 zakim, Valentina has arrived in meeetingroom 14:54:12 sorry, RalphS, I do not recognize a party named 'meeetingroom' 14:54:17 zakim, Valentina has arrived in meetingroom 14:54:17 +Valentina; got it 14:54:32 zakim, philT has arrived in meetingroom 14:54:32 +philT; got it 14:54:40 [missed] 14:54:49 zakim, who is here? 14:54:49 On the phone I see Ralph (muted), David_Wood (muted), MeetingRoom 14:54:50 MeetingRoom has Valentina, philT 14:54:51 On IRC I see val, Ben-scribe, dbooth, bwm__, danbri, Raphael, ChrisW, jjc, vassilis, libby, Guus, dwood, Zakim, RRSAgent, RalphS 14:55:41 Elisa has joined #swbp 14:55:43 oh, when the connection was lost zakim erased his memory 14:56:54 [...] 14:57:03 mike: this is great, ... but scope seems enormous 14:57:08 ..."boy that's a lot of work!" 14:57:13 jacco: i think impossible before feb 14:57:20 mike: perhaps a cursory treatment of each? 14:57:25 q? 14:57:26 zakim, meetingroom also has guus, jacco, alistair, danbri, dbooth, brianmcb, debm 14:57:26 +guus, jacco, alistair, danbri, dbooth, brianmcb, debm; got it 14:57:28 mike: can't poss do a good set of recommendations on that schedule 14:57:29 q- 14:57:38 ...10-12 pages, several parags for each 14:57:45 q? 14:58:05 FabGandon has joined #swbp 14:58:08 zakim, MeetingRoom also has Alistair, DanBri, Andreas, Libby, Ben, Fabien, Jacco, Raphael, Giorgos_Stamou, Giorgos_Stoilos, Vassilis, Jeremy, Evan, Elisa, ChrisW, MikeU, Guus, Brian, Aldo, JeffP, DBooth, GavinMacKenzie, Deb 14:58:08 alistair was already listed in MeetingRoom, RalphS 14:58:09 danbri was already listed in MeetingRoom, RalphS 14:58:10 jacco was already listed in MeetingRoom, RalphS 14:58:11 guus was already listed in MeetingRoom, RalphS 14:58:13 dbooth was already listed in MeetingRoom, RalphS 14:58:14 +Andreas, Libby, Ben, Fabien, Raphael, Giorgos_Stamou, Giorgos_Stoilos, Vassilis, Jeremy, Evan, Elisa, ChrisW, MikeU, Brian, Aldo, JeffP, GavinMacKenzie, Deb; got it 14:58:26 oops 14:58:28 sorry, Chris 14:58:31 ok 14:58:37 zakim, who is here? 14:58:37 On the phone I see Ralph (muted), David_Wood (muted), MeetingRoom 14:58:38 MeetingRoom has Valentina, philT, guus, jacco, alistair, danbri, dbooth, brianmcb, debm, Andreas, Libby, Ben, Fabien, Raphael, Giorgos_Stamou, Giorgos_Stoilos, Vassilis, Jeremy, 14:58:42 ... Evan, Elisa, ChrisW, MikeU, Brian, Aldo, JeffP, GavinMacKenzie, Deb 14:58:43 On IRC I see FabGandon, Elisa, val, Ben-scribe, dbooth, bwm__, danbri, Raphael, ChrisW, jjc, vassilis, libby, Guus, dwood, Zakim, RRSAgent, RalphS 14:59:58 danbri: re doing MM stuff in SWIG ... my main worry is patent policy stuff, given that relfecting other orgs work into w3c specs has IPR issues 15:00:03 guus: [summarises for ralph] 15:00:10 ralph: i agree w/ danbri's concerns 15:00:16 ...maybe other options 15:00:22 ...eg. to work on specific vocabs 15:00:34 ...that seems to me that it might be a candidate for a 'w3c incubator group 15:00:40 [ a new mechanism within w3c] 15:00:57 ...an incubator [aka "XG"] 15:01:03 jacco: pls post a pointer 15:01:05 Incubator Group is an option for working on vocabularies 15:01:05 q? 15:01:11 jjc: on dan's point re intellectual policy 15:01:18 ...w3c patent policy only applies to rec-track 15:01:23 JeffP has joined #swbp 15:01:31 ...so if there is concern re IP, then that could be an arg for patent policy 15:01:49 ...even in a wg context, targetting a wg note, patent policy is largely silent 15:02:04 ...so, in as much as there are patent in this 15:02:16 ... a rec-track might be needed 15:02:27 aharth has joined #swbp 15:03:41 [...] 15:03:56 jacco: if the wg is to be rechartered, when might we know this? 15:04:02 ralph: you'll know that, when there's a proposal to the ac, to recharter groups 15:04:14 ...its not likely to happen much before end of january 15:04:20 jjc: historically, many groups have over-run 15:04:32 ralph: [missed] 15:04:47 phil t: what are we talking about exactly re new charters? 15:04:48 yes, true that groups have over-run their charter but that's not recommended 15:04:56 guus: could be a simple exstension, or it could be new wgs etc 15:05:04 phil: seems significant work and potentially part of a new charter 15:05:22 guus: in our 1st meeting in Cannes, was rightly recognised that link to MM was important; yet difficult and hard to progress. 15:05:29 ...we've seen precisely that happen. 15:05:45 q+ to say that we should work within our charter but the work we do suggests where to go in the future 15:05:47 ...i think, over course of the 2 days, we're getting a sense of what each tf needs 15:06:05 ...summarise in afternoon 15:06:20 phil t: i agree w/ jjc's point re ipr 15:06:31 ...originally at time group started, different aspirations around semweb 15:06:44 Ralph, you wanted to say that we should work within our charter but the work we do suggests where to go in the future 15:06:48 ...does it need to change? maturity? areas of interest? 15:06:52 ralph: [as above] 15:07:02 ...i strongly recommend that this wg work within its charter scope 15:07:06 ...both timelines and otherwise 15:07:16 ...thats not to say that we shouldn't continue working up until very last moment 15:07:35 ...the MM TF helps us all understand this area 15:07:52 ...all these questions (what happens where, etc) ... are informed by what goes on in the TF now 15:08:15 ...but please don't assume you can continue on past end of january unaffected 15:08:29 ...q of what happens after Feb ... we'll keep talking about that between now and then 15:08:46 guus: as we discuss each TF, ... will make a list w/ status of each TF, get a sense of scenarios... 15:09:22 [...] 15:09:31 guus: to contiue this, need to make it part of a new charter 15:09:44 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2005AprJun/0043.html Incubator Activity Approved, Call for XG Charters [Member-only link] 15:09:56 ...within 6 months we might have a better stab at 1st note but not a great deal more 15:10:18 mike: there is an overlap betwene this [?] note and an [?] OEP one 15:10:48 guus: multimedia perspective... refelcts a different standards community 15:10:48 mike: agreed 15:10:52 ...what would be done, ...eg take EXIF thing for pixel, ... and show owl:sameAs pixelsize or whatever 15:11:11 ...the things you use to declare mappings, will be the mechnisms we talk about in OEP 15:11:26 jacco: re incubator, i think ralph was suggestiong that mainly for vocab work 15:11:36 guus: we won't make a decision now; this is input for final discussions 15:11:50 g: what was decision re structure? 15:11:57 j: not deciding now 15:12:04 g: we're plannign to end this deliverable on time? 15:12:16 j: will re-visit at end of this f2f 15:12:20 g: and discuss then the structure? 15:12:29 j: do that offline, well, on the mailing list 15:12:38 g=georges(?sorry) 15:12:42 guus: ..[missed] 15:12:52 ...depends on outcome of futures discussion tommrorow 15:13:12 guus: woudl be useful to put a stake inthe ground re: interop note 15:13:15 raphael: ...is there already an XG? 15:13:22 danbri: none that i know of 15:14:00 [example: there is some offlist discussion amongst rdf/mapping/geo folk, http://esw.w3.org/topic/GeoRDF and nearby has some related text... but not yet an XG proposal i think] 15:14:10 gs has joined #swbp 15:14:15 jacco: [...] VRA Core 15:14:24 ...specific things for images. A bias towards cultural heritage. 15:14:35 ...Mark V has been working hard on a schema rdfs/owl for VRA 15:14:49 (mark van assem) 15:15:00 ...if we could have a vra schema w/ similar acceptance to Dublin Core's 15:15:12 jacco: so q to the wg... is this an actviity suited to this wg? 15:15:23 q+ 15:15:38 q+ to say that XG is definitely appropriate for the VRA vocabulary work 15:15:50 can we get the URL? 15:15:59 is this document on line? 15:16:00 Elisa has joined #swbp 15:16:16 q+ to remind us about "best practice" 15:16:20 Ralph, you wanted to say that XG is definitely appropriate for the VRA vocabulary work and to remind us about "best practice" 15:16:21 ...how do we move it forward? 15:16:24 [...] 15:16:37 ralph: VRA vocab... that kind of work is exactly what an incubator group is appropriate to do 15:16:40 This one Chris ? http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/MM/vra-conversion.html 15:16:53 ...where you have some idedas you want to work out with a smaller group of peers, before proposing w3c recommendation track work 15:17:14 ...if you're already at the stage where you think there's community consensnsu developing, and think you're ready ... then a separate wg should be proposed 15:17:24 q+ 15:17:25 ...neither to me seem to match original expectations for this wg 15:17:42 ...more about nominiating some current practices as best practices 15:17:53 ..premature to consider that work as a best practice 15:18:03 ...maybe for an XG, possibily for a WG 15:18:12 guus: i have a number of doubts 15:18:15 ...maybe other suggestions 15:18:35 ...i wrote the first vra schema, as a test... was approached by Linda C by vra 15:18:54 ...unsure about how it is being maintained 15:19:00 ...not sure this is a problem 15:19:16 ...in terms of content, it is exellently done. a nicely used 'dumb down' principle (from dublin core) 15:19:20 ...but needs to be a community behind it 15:19:28 ...also: this is very skos related 15:19:43 ...has many of the issues... 15:19:43 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0218.html [MM/ALL] Proposed f2f agenda addendum [Jacco 2005-10-28] 15:19:47 ...closer to skos 15:20:13 jacco: tools + vocab doc uses the schema 15:20:28 chris: using vra is similar to skos?! 15:20:40 guus: many issues that are in the same .... from same community 15:20:52 vra = visual resource association 15:21:00 ... vra core categories, v 3.0 15:21:14 ...is owl Full 15:21:19 ...specialises DC 15:21:39 aldo: it's not a thesaurus... 15:21:43 jacco: more like dublin core 15:22:29 al: dublin core and skos are natural partners 15:22:34 guus: yes, natural partners 15:22:44 chris: [not same, just related ok] 15:23:05 al: imporant for dc and skos to grow together 15:23:15 ...to have them related sociallly is important 15:24:41 Danbri: we talked earlier about bringing some work into the IG. The more patents they have, the more scared I am. This is comes from DC, so seems OK. I don’t car if its incubator, TF, IG, or even the DC group, so long as it’s discussed in public. Maybe DC would be a good choice. 15:25:07 al: dcmi usage board moving towards endorsing external refinements 15:25:15 [rather than trying to do everything monolithically] 15:25:44 mike: those [dc] extensions... any concern about rubberstamping incompatible extensions? 15:26:09 guus: built into dc, the dumb down rules, ... fact of life that people need the extensions 15:26:44 Danbri: lots of discussions in the DC world. This should allow cleaner extensions. 15:27:57 bwm_ has joined #swbp 15:27:59 FabGandon_ has joined #swbp 15:28:08 libby_ has joined #swbp 15:28:24 danbri_ has joined #swbp 15:28:31 dbooth2 has joined #swbp 15:28:33 vasilis has joined #swbp 15:28:34 [oof, network vanished briefly] 15:28:48 rtroncy has joined #swbp 15:28:53 15:15-16:30 15:28:53 RDFTM TF 15:29:09 Topic: RDFTM TF 15:29:11 guus: welcome valentina 15:29:27 [coffee until quarter-two] 15:30:27 jeremy has joined #swbp 15:32:25 Benjamin has joined #swbp 15:44:17 ChrisW has joined #swbp 15:47:41 ChrisW-scribe has joined #swbp 15:47:49 aharth has joined #swbp 15:49:19 jjc: meeting for the xml datatypes after end of this meeting 15:50:03 ChrisW has joined #swbp 15:50:44 Jacco is scribing off-line ... 15:51:11 jjc makes an announcement for a small working group before the dinner tonight on XML Schema datatypes 15:51:46 zakim, unmute me 15:51:46 David_Wood should no longer be muted 15:52:44 zakim, mute me 15:52:44 David_Wood should now be muted 15:53:58 vassilis has joined #swbp 15:53:59 Jeremy: XML Schema datatypes break out session 45 minutes after the end of this meeting 15:54:20 valentina: the document contains a survey of existing proposals 15:54:21 Andreas: Dinner starts at 20:00 15:54:27 Guus: tomorrow we start at 9:00, on SE and Schema datatypes, coffee break, moved OEP discussion to after lunch 15:54:42 Now: A+D, tutorial, vocab. management task force. SKOS-break out directly after coofee break, after lunch OEP 15:54:48 Now: A+D, tutorial, vocab. management task force. SKOS-break out directly after coofee break, after lunch OEP 15:54:50 ... we have studied those proposals to identify the mapping issues to address, to define guidelines for rdf topic maps interoperability 15:54:55 Ralph: possible for me to participate in the SKOS-break out? 15:55:02 Ralph: possible for me to participate in the SKOS-break out? 15:55:10 Dan: no, is in parallel with SPARQL 15:55:40 val: would like comments on structure of document 15:55:41 Topic: RDF/TM 15:55:51 s/Ralph:/DWood:/ 15:56:03 s/Ralph: poss/DWood: poss/ 15:56:07 Valentina presenting slides, sorry I missed that 15:57:24 valentina is posting url of her slides... 15:57:43 Slides: http://tesi.fabio.web.cs.unibo.it/RDFTM/TDFTMMappingGuidelines 15:57:52 (if I typed the URL correctly) 15:58:40 same here ... 15:58:44 Jacco has joined #swbp 15:58:57 Valentina: (in response to question about auth challenge on the page) strange. 16:00:03 correc URL is : http://tesi.fabio.web.cs.unibo.it/RDFTM/RDFTMMappingGuidelines 16:00:09 intro with glossery of terms so both communties agree on this 16:00:29 2nd section of draft is about requirements 16:00:54 today I will show you the informal description section 16:01:25 s|Slides: http://tesi.fabio.web.cs.unibo.it/RDFTM/TDFTMMappingGuidelines|| 16:01:44 proposed solution on the data level of RDF/TM interoperability 16:01:49 s/(if I typed the URL correctly)// 16:01:59 s/same here ...// 16:02:10 - how to author RDF or TM documents with max operability 16:02:11 s/correc /Slide / 16:02:57 discuss goals and non goals, see slides 16:03:16 non goal: provide unified model 16:03:41 approach: define vocabulary for the mapping 16:03:56 + guidance 16:04:35 we have no addressed issues on guided translations 16:05:02 it possible to obtain a better translations if you have guidance 16:05:22 slide explaining LTM syntax 16:05:59 1st block represents TM assertion, a is a topic with name "name" 16:06:18 in TM we have 2 types of IDs 16:06:26 in RDF you id by URI 16:07:06 in TM the URI can be a subject id, when the topic defines a information resource descring a subject 16:07:50 or it IDs an abstract concept 16:08:51 Benjamin has joined #swbp 16:11:11 correction to the above: URI is either a subject locator or a subject identifier 16:11:37 topic also have variant names 16:11:55 within a certain scope s 16:12:23 last block is a binary association, p is the name of the association 16:12:31 Informally, a "Subject locator" is for identifying a document directly; "Subject indicator" identifyies a document that describes a concept, and thus indirectly idenfies that concept. 16:14:17 valentina discusses examples of typical mappings 16:15:04 s/Subject indicator/Subject identifier/ 16:17:42 ScribeNick: aliman_scribe 16:17:46 Scribe: Alistair 16:18:18 danbri: pat hayes had comments on this point ... formalisation should happen soon ... 16:18:36 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0216.html Pat Hayes' comments 16:18:51 see pat hayes email ... 16:19:13 Pat Hayes email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0216.html 16:19:18 val: if a resource is explicitly defined as type information resource, then we knoe the URI must become a subject locator ... 16:19:49 [the point i think: the lack of a claim that something is an InfoResource doesn't allow us to assume it is a mamber of the class of non-INfoResources ] 16:19:50 pat said 'how can you distinguish between a resource that is not an information resource, and a resource that is not asserted to be not an information resource ... 16:20:18 ... val: but this is guided translation, and you should be explicit about what is and is not an information resource ... 16:20:28 and without guidance, assume not. 16:20:55 jjc: not negation, because talking about human input, so ok to make a closed world assumption re human input to guidance for translation 16:21:26 val: yes. If you don't have this particular guidance, you fall into the unguided translation ... 16:21:45 we don't deal with identity in the unguided translation, so this coudl change in the unguided translation ... 16:22:13 Elisa has joined #swbp 16:22:39 this point for unguiged transaltion is undecided as yet. 16:24:22 I see in the slides (http://tesi.fabio.web.cs.unibo.it/twiki/pub/RDFTM/RDFTMMappingGuidelines/RDFTMGuidelines.pdf on Slide 5) that mapping between RDF and TM Models has been dropped. It was originally one of Steve's goals. Could someone please ask Valentina (when appropriate) why the requirement was dropped and what the issues are? Is this mapping theoretically possible? Do they intend to address it in later work? 16:24:52 al notes that angle brackets are missing for the long URLs in notation3 example 16:25:49 val: we define that iso:topic-name is a NamingProperty ... 16:26:33 q+ to ask Valentina about the mapping of RDF to TM Models 16:26:35 if we had no subject locator, we would use one subject identifier chosen at random as the URI of the resource ... 16:26:49 danbri: what do you do with the others? 16:27:12 val: if you have more than one subject locator, one is URI, others are owl:sameAs 16:28:46 val: when you have more than one subject identifier in the topic, one becomes URI for the resource .. 16:28:56 others become subject identifier properties. 16:29:03 Al; this is wrong 16:29:30 subjectIdentifiers are indirect, so it would be in appropriate to say that two subjectIdentifers are owl:sameAs -- rather the semantics are that the (identified) subject is owl:sameAs 16:29:52 val: in topic maps you are not pointing to the abstract subject, you have a resource that represents the document describing the subject ... 16:29:56 ChrisW-scribe has joined #swbp 16:30:12 e.g. [ rfdtm:subjectIdentifier :a ] owl:sameAs [ rdftm:subjectIdentifier :b ] 16:30:41 danbri: sameas is ok ... you have the property subjectIdentifier turn one into URI ... ? 16:30:47 ^ implied by some relationship between :a and :b 16:31:02 val: talk about it later ... 16:31:26 jjc: in terms of document this is wrong, because it contradicts MUSTs, becomes non-deterministic 16:32:02 I think it's incorrect (re: slide 11) to say that a subjectIdentifier URI becomes the URI of the topic resource 16:32:08 val: identity is the most complex issue 16:32:22 ... a subjectIdentifier appears always to be an information resource that is (intended to be) interpreted by a human 16:32:23 jjc: if you choose the first, you get round tripping, if you choose at random, you don't 16:32:35 [..ooOO ("could you get different graphs, but the same inferences out via the sameAs claims?") ] 16:32:46 jacco: is the order of the subject identifiers relevant? 16:33:09 [I can't follow the voices enough to know whether I should interject that comment or not] 16:34:00 val: we would like to discuss this, lars marius has the idea presented, i see all the points made here ... 16:34:03 yeah, there are details of these mappings that need further discussion but the f2f time probably can't get down to that level of detail 16:34:17 still an issue, would like to discuss further on the list and work out a solution. 16:34:24 perhaps f2f time is best used in discussing approach 16:34:34 guus: what is status of the task force? 16:34:52 [jeremy ... do you think there's a precise definition possible for "deterministic" mapping? --- thinking of yr graph comparision stuff, and trickyness of comparing graphs w/ bnodes in them] 16:35:04 q? 16:35:42 Ralph, "If the topic has only subject identifiers, one of them becomes the URI of the corresponding resource" implies that this is a convenience for an implementation, not a theoretical decision. 16:35:51 benadida has joined #swbp 16:36:03 zakim, unmute me 16:36:03 David_Wood should no longer be muted 16:36:15 David_Wood, you wanted to ask Valentina about the mapping of RDF to TM Models 16:36:48 zakim, call me 16:36:48 Sorry, benadida; you need to be more specific about your location 16:37:49 +Ben_Adida 16:38:22 zakim, mute me 16:38:22 David_Wood should now be muted 16:38:42 zakim, mute me 16:38:42 Ben_Adida should now be muted 16:40:50 ChrisW has joined #swbp 16:40:59 jeremy has joined #swbp 16:41:24 raphael has joined #swbp 16:41:37 libby_ has joined #swbp 16:41:53 bwm_ has joined #swbp 16:42:01 Al is still scribing but offline ... (connexion lost again!) 16:42:35 valentina: idea was to finish in December 16:42:39 ... but this was not possible 16:42:47 dbooth has joined #swbp 16:42:56 guus: this is a draft 16:43:04 ... we could have an editors draft 16:43:18 ... and it will take time to get wg consensus on publishing a working draft 16:43:31 ... my guess is this is a 3-4 month process to get to wd status 16:43:43 ... and not sure this is realistic 16:43:54 jjc: would it be better to take current wd to a note 16:44:00 guus: its not in a final state 16:44:19 ... we would like editors to say they think they are done having processed all comments 16:44:31 ... maybe all we should do is publish this survey 16:44:55 ... maybe that would not be all we wanted, but it is something 16:45:17 valentina: we have already addressed reviews on wd 16:45:27 jjc: so it would be acheivable to produce a note 16:45:36 Are you discussing not attempting to publish http://tesi.fabio.web.cs.unibo.it/RDFTM/RDFTMInteroperabilityGuidelinesSteveDraft ? 16:45:43 ... the current doc is unlikely to be finishable in the time frame 16:45:47 or a different document? 16:45:50 ... better to aim at something achievable 16:46:02 danbri_ has joined #swbp 16:46:02 guus: my suggestion is 16:46:14 ... take current wd and bring it to note by end of charter of wg 16:46:36 ... have internal dicsussion with task force about what could be done beyond the charter 16:46:44 ... then we could look at options 16:46:57 ... the earlier you do this, the more time we have to discuss options 16:47:15 ... that would be a consensus of the tf as a whole 16:47:26 ... if the wg gets rechartered we are committed to ... 16:47:34 q+ to ask if the "current wd" under discussion is the Guidelines for RDF/TM Interoperability at http://tesi.fabio.web.cs.unibo.it/RDFTM/RDFTMInteroperabilityGuidelinesSteveDraft 16:47:46 valentina: I will schedule a tf telecon to discuss this and post results to the list 16:47:52 guus: I'm looking for possible ways to continue 16:48:01 ... and as a minimal thing complete the note 16:48:09 I believe the "current draft" is http://tesi.fabio.web.cs.unibo.it/RDFTM/RDFTMInteroperabilityGuidelines as per the Agenda 16:48:10 ... and don't underestimate the time it will take to do that 16:48:18 ... first it has to be reviewed by the WG 16:48:28 (and per Valentina's msg of 27 Oct http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0215.html ) 16:48:31 zakim, unmute me 16:48:31 David_Wood should no longer be muted 16:48:31 jjc: its realistic to do that in the time frame but its not trivial 16:48:36 guus: any more comments 16:48:45 jjc: I will send email on the doc we had to review 16:49:09 davidW: what are turning into a note? 16:49:13 David_Wood, you wanted to ask if the "current wd" under discussion is the Guidelines for RDF/TM Interoperability at 16:49:13 guus: the survey 16:49:15 ... http://tesi.fabio.web.cs.unibo.it/RDFTM/RDFTMInteroperabilityGuidelinesSteveDraft 16:49:27 ... because that's all we have time for 16:49:32 aliman_scribe has joined #swbp 16:49:39 davidW: thats fine 16:49:43 guus: any more comments 16:49:52 q? 16:49:54 zakim, mute me 16:49:54 David_Wood should now be muted 16:50:02 FabGandon has joined #swbp 16:50:14 danbri: I wanted to ask about reification but that takes too long 16:50:19 [scribing posting offline notes] ... 16:50:35 davidw: because too hard? 16:50:35 (Guus clarifies; the Survey WD is the document targetted at Note) 16:50:37 note: bwm's scribing is unofficial 16:50:39 val: there we many discussions re mapping at the level of the models ... 16:50:44 personally i think it's not possible ... 16:50:48 we haven't discussed in TF 16:50:50 zakim, unmute me 16:50:50 Ben_Adida should no longer be muted 16:50:53 val: next steps too address n-ary relations issues, and reification ... 16:50:58 n-ary relations mandatory to collaborate on a vocabulary (???) ... 16:51:03 we need to identify the best formalism for defining mapping rules ... 16:51:04 [thanks, Brian, informality acknowledged and very much appreciated] 16:51:08 writing down of the rule formally 16:51:11 and resolve the identity issue 16:51:16 guus: what is timeline? 16:51:24 val: no official timeline, discussing with tf members, also depends on the WG future 16:51:28 guus: not completed by 1st feb 16:51:34 ... so what is required to finish this work? ... can then look for organisational strucutre to do this ... 16:51:38 val: idea was to finish december, but not possible ... 16:51:46 -Ben_Adida 16:51:47 think we can have a draft for 1st feb ... 16:52:37 guus: this is an editor's draft, will take some time to get consensus in WG to get to official WD status ... 16:53:11 guus: this is an editor's draft, will take some time to get consensus in WG to get to official WD status ... 16:53:15 maybe several months ... not realistic 16:53:20 ChrisW-scribe has joined #swbp 16:53:20 jjc: time better spent bringin current WD to working group note? 16:53:25 jjc: publishing a final version of this document is solid achievement realistic in time 16:53:29 ... current sketch of doc will take a lot of time to finish ... 16:53:34 better to aim at acheivable goal. 16:53:37 guus: suggest take the current WD to Note. Have a discussion within TF to work out possible work to do beyond current charter ... 16:53:42 then if we have specific proposal, then we can look at options to satisfy ... 16:53:58 earlier you do this, earlier we can adapt WG planning ... 16:54:03 but this needs consensus of TF as a whole, to say that we are committed to continuing this work. 16:54:08 val: will schedule next telecon and decide these things, then post to list. 16:54:12 guus: expect proposal for how to continue, and as minimal thing to produce this Note ... 16:54:16 jjc: realistic to do within timeframe, but not trivial! 16:54:21 davidw: is uni bologna wiki draft the thing we're going to make into a note? 16:54:27 guus: no only the survey. 16:55:15 http://tesi.fabio.web.cs.unibo.it/twiki/pub/RDFTM/RDFTMMappingGuidelines/RDFTMGuidelines.pdf <- accessible now 17:00:55 +Ben_Adida 17:03:06 zakim, mute me 17:03:06 Ben_Adida should now be muted 17:03:12 and now, Ralph? :) 17:03:20 ralph: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicecupoftea/59738682/ 17:03:37 (not very exciting) 17:03:50 zakim, unmute me 17:03:50 Ben_Adida should no longer be muted 17:04:52 http://swordfish.rdfweb.org/photos/2005/11/04/ <- photos from earlier 17:06:17 ben: the tf has been meeting regularly making progress on rdf/a 17:06:36 ... sent two docs that represent the latest rdf/a 17:06:38 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-rdfa-primer 17:06:56 ... the first one summarises the issues 17:07:04 ... reflects our current thinking 17:07:15 ... there is a big issue 17:07:20 ... the curie issue 17:07:26 Topic: RDF-in-XHTML 17:07:33 ... the rest is fairly uncontroversial 17:07:44 ... i can go through and do some examples 17:08:07 guus: we will try to project now 17:08:14 ... can you indicate the main changes 17:08:23 ... after boston discussion 17:08:31 ben: the main development since then 17:08:39 ... is the simplificcation of the inheritance rules 17:08:59 aharth has joined #swbp 17:09:05 Benjamin has joined #swbp 17:09:05 ... originally we tried to represent arbitrary rdf graphs which generated a lot of triples 17:09:15 guus: we now have the doc on screen 17:09:37 ben: with simplified inheritance of attributes 17:09:48 ... but cannot represent arbitrary rdf graph 17:09:54 ... but greatly simplifies things 17:10:12 ... guus should I do a few important examples 17:10:22 guus: a few examples and then questions 17:10:22 q+ to mention xml:lang issue 17:10:37 ben: look at 2.1 17:10:40 ... using prop attributes to designate rdf triple 17:11:07 ... nothing that is surprising 17:11:22 ... once something is an object, it cannot be retasked as a subject 17:11:27 ... have to repeat the uri to do that 17:11:41 ... 2.2 shows qualified links using rel attribute 17:11:47 ... can be used on any xhtml element 17:11:59 ... example is creative commons license 17:12:09 q+ to note XMLLiteral error in examples from primer 17:12:20 ... the rel can be interpretted as a qname, but I'll get back to that 17:12:22 jeremy, you wanted to mention xml:lang issue and to note XMLLiteral error in examples from primer 17:12:24 ack jjc 17:12:48 jjc: back in 2.1 should those not be xml literals rather than plain literals 17:12:49 Elisa has joined #swbp 17:12:55 ben: yes - thats an error 17:13:03 danbri: can you create plain literals 17:13:05 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-rdfa-syntax 17:13:11 ben: yes - we don't discuss that in the primer 17:13:19 ... see full spec 17:13:26 q+ to mention xml:lang issue 17:13:34 ... something about datatype plain - missed 17:14:06 ... the syntax doc describes how to handle literals (uri above) 17:14:21 todo for danbri: check range of foaf:name, if it allows xml literal 17:14:25 ... we are working on how to make a literal by concatenating the child element content 17:14:37 ... section 3 introduces about attribute 17:14:50 ... allows to make statement about subjects other than current document 17:14:50 -> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-rdfa-primer#id0x04b0de70 3.1 Qualifying Other Documents 17:15:00 ... e.g. about a photogrpah in the document 17:15:16 ... in 3.2 we see the qualification of junks of documents 17:15:25 ... give an xml id to an element 17:15:50 ... can use link and meta attributes to make statements about chunks 17:16:11 ... in 3.2 first example box, section id = person, link element off of that 17:16:43 ... there has been talk of syntactic sugar for rdf:type but they are not resolved yet 17:16:50 ... possibly using the class attribute 17:17:05 danbri: section-id = person 17:17:13 ... is that about the document or the person 17:17:27 ... the claims are about the person not the document 17:17:46 Vale has joined #swbp 17:17:47 s/section-id = person/
/ 17:17:50 ben: that's ok - 17:17:59 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Sep/0020 17:18:01 danbri: that will be a big conceptual leap for xhtml people 17:18:05 vpresutt has joined #swbp 17:18:07 (answers dan questions) 17:18:20 q+ to mention discussion of Dan's question 17:18:28 ben: the point is to be able to support difference between person and their home page 17:18:48 [I think this example is probably a bad idea -- not good practice] 17:18:54 ... we can designate a chunk of the document to represent the person 17:19:04 al: it would be much safer not to go there 17:19:21 ... assume frag's within documents denote sections of documents 17:19:29 ben: I'm confused about the risk here 17:19:42 jjc: this question is answered in rdf concepts document 17:19:57 ... the frag id is interpretted as an rdf frag id and can denote the person 17:20:04 So how does one attach a property within a section to the base document? 17:20:26 dwood: use the about="" attribute to override the subject 17:20:30 ... it is interpretted in an rdf graph with respect to rdf mime type 17:20:56 al: what happens when you want to annotate the document 17:21:30 al: what happens when you want to make statements about the section of the document 17:21:35 yes, this confusion between fragment of a document vs. Person is real and will continue 17:21:36 jjc: it gets difficult 17:21:48 al: then you use one uri to denote two things 17:22:06 danbri: i said this would be rathole 17:22:18 al: that's why I say don't go there 17:22:23 danbri: can you do blank nodes 17:22:25 ben: yes 17:22:38 ... lets take this point offline - I didn't think we had any controversy yet 17:22:41 Alistair suggests we could choose a different example and I suspect he's correct 17:23:08 action: ben to contact alistair on use of frag id's 17:23:47 - action should include david booth and danbri also 17:23:59 ben: section 4.1 bnodes is a natural progression what we said 17:24:07 [I suggest that as there are at least 4 people who want to discuss this that "off-line" mean "by mail, copying the WG list"] 17:24:26 ... if you don't have an id on a fragment then you get a bnode 17:24:39 ... using link rel 17:24:44 ... see example 17:24:56 ... if you want to give the bnode a name you can 17:25:01 ... see second example 17:25:10 ... ignore the square brackets for now 17:25:24 Guus has joined #swbp 17:25:29 q? 17:25:34 ... you can relate bnodes using the about attribute to designate what bnode you are referring to 17:25:43 danbri: what is the scope of the bnode name 17:25:50 ben: yes 17:25:58 s/yes/ the whole document/ 17:26:30 example: if we had some wrapping document eg CDF 2.0 that had sub-islands of rdf/a ... 17:26:33 davidB: in the generated rdf, what is the current document? The entire document? 17:26:44 ben: I'm confused - what do you mean by conversion 17:26:45 would those sub-islands of rdf/a (each with their own , arguably? 17:26:45 q+ to note processing issues 17:26:52 ...have bnode IDs in the same space 17:27:00 davidB: in the example you show the xthml and the resulting RDF 17:27:14 ... the resulting RDf refers to the current document 17:27:22 ben: its the current uri so the xhtml document 17:27:53 ... section 4.2 has limited support for reification 17:28:03 ... in some useful cases 17:28:08 ... but I'd like to skip this 17:28:17 giorgos has joined #swbp 17:28:18 guus: should you mention reification in the primer 17:28:21 ben: good point 17:28:35 ... we should make this more of a primer 17:28:49 danbri: I'm going to propose you drop reification 17:28:56 jjc: I tried to make that point 17:29:12 ben: I urge you to check out the creative commons and foaf examples 17:29:20 ... the big issue is the compact uri issue 17:29:22 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-10-27-CURIE 17:29:28 ... a large part of which is my fault 17:29:49 ... there was an issue iwth requirements 17:29:52 -Ralph 17:30:03 I note that Creative Commons has a use case for which they think reification helps, so I challenge DanBri and Jeremy to (continue to) help in showing how to express the Creative Commons case (approximately 'who wrote this license') 17:30:44 +Ralph 17:35:12 q+ 17:35:23 ChrisW has joined #swbp 17:35:49 q+ to see if there is a sense of the WG resolution regarding the utility of CURIEs 17:35:55 libby has joined #swbp 17:36:01 jeremy has joined #swbp 17:36:09 aharth has joined #swbp 17:36:21 bwm_scribe has joined #swbp 17:36:29 back 17:36:41 scribing interrupted by network failure, continueing offline 17:36:41 ben: at the end of section 2 in the primer there is a good example of a curie 17:36:41 ... second issue is how can we have subjects and objects that can be uri's or curies 17:36:41 ... so we introduced square bracket notation 17:36:41 ... we considered a lot of different options 17:36:42 ... e.g. different attributes names 17:36:44 ... but this sames cleanest 17:36:46 ... importantly it gives us a solution ot the b-node problem 17:36:48 ... I will put together a doc summarizing our discussions 17:36:50 guus: I have a question about curies 17:36:52 ben: yes 17:36:54 guus: this could create a timing problem 17:36:56 jjc: I beleive this issue is bang on charter for this task force 17:36:58 ... the length of uri's is a significant barrier to the deployment of semantic web technology 17:37:00 ... if you look at microformats or wiki 17:37:07 dbooth has joined #swbp 17:37:07 jjc: its knowledge meeting the web 17:37:27 guus: he was supporting ben's point about the need for curies 17:37:33 danbri: consistency is important 17:37:41 ... can rel and href take the same kind of values 17:37:46 raphael has joined #swbp 17:37:53 ben: good question we are discussing that know 17:37:57 s/know/now/ 17:38:12 ... [missed] 17:38:30 Ben: we're trying for backward compatibility for some HTML syntax; e.g. rel="next" 17:38:30 ... if you take html from a prior version then rel etc should still work on xhtml 2 17:38:53 guus: i'm going to give this discussion max 5 mins 17:39:21 jjc: rel="next" is an unqualified name i.e. from xhtml 2 namespace 17:39:47 danbri: you mentioned no follow in passing as if that has now been accepted into the namespace 17:40:03 ben: we have not added no follow into the namespace - bad example 17:40:41 jacco: current tools will not parse this correctly 17:40:46 ben: yes - we are looking at that 17:40:52 q+ to also ask for a sense of the WG about RDF/A as a separate module 17:41:16 guus: lets have tech discussion on the list and focus now on planning 17:41:17 jacco has joined #swbp 17:41:37 q+ to mention xml:lang issue 17:41:42 ... what are the task force's plans 17:41:46 Ralph, you wanted to also ask for a sense of the WG about RDF/A as a separate module 17:41:54 ack Ralph 17:41:54 RalphS, you wanted to see if there is a sense of the WG resolution regarding the utility of CURIEs 17:41:54 Benjamin_ has joined #swbp 17:42:12 ralph: there are two important things the tf needs the wg input on 17:42:43 ... unlike xml namespaces, there are other ways to abbreviate uris 17:43:09 ... it is largely an aesthetic argument being made by those who express concern about curies 17:43:18 ... we have seen a lot of pushback on the curie idea 17:44:06 ... before we adjourn f2f, please can we have the sense of the wg on whether we agree that sw technology requires not typing so much in docs 17:44:16 ... second thing relate to question about parsers 17:44:17 FabGandon has joined #swbp 17:44:28 ... rdf/a is being done in context of xhtml 2 17:44:49 ... which is sufficiently different to xhtml 1 that tools have to change 17:45:04 ... there is a desire to use rdf/a with other kinds of xml docs 17:45:28 ... how interested is the wg in making this a module that can be used with say svg or xhtml 1 17:45:45 guus: i'm glad that the tf has made so much progress recently 17:45:57 ... it gives wg as a whole a problem 17:46:06 ... we need time to reflect and think about these issues 17:46:17 ... not comfortable getting an opinion now 17:46:30 ralph: that's why i said before end of meeting 17:46:42 guus: like to hear ben's opinion on what can be done by 1/Feb 17:46:43 (i.e. end of meeting tomorrow) 17:46:51 ben: is 1/Feb when we should wrap up by 17:47:04 guus: from a minimialis tpoint of view - yes 17:47:13 we also have a deadline from the HTML WG charter 17:47:14 ben: the primer is our main goal in the next couple of weeks 17:47:24 (further point might be #7 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Oct/0057 ) 17:47:26 Doesn't the RDF/A primer rely on getting the syntax doc completed? 17:47:26 ... then do xslt to extract triples 17:47:39 ... we hope to have these docs in business shape by 1/Feb 17:47:48 q+ to mention HTML WG dependency and timeline 17:47:52 ... we need to discuss their status in terms of wg notes 17:48:09 guus: I suggest your propose a schedule to bring to wd including review by wg 17:48:24 ... need editors draft before Christmas, preferably earlier 17:48:32 ben: i think we can do that 17:48:51 jjc: this tf is also a tf of the xhtml wg 17:49:03 ben: if it becomes a note - there is the question of where it lives afterwards 17:49:11 guus: that all has to be discussed 17:49:14 zakim, unmute me 17:49:14 David_Wood should no longer be muted 17:49:33 ... I would appreciate an output before the end of the charter 17:49:36 We've been viewing our primary deployment path as via the HTML WG 17:49:40 ... and the primer is a good candidate 17:49:51 q+ 17:50:01 ... I'd like to see how to mark up your home page 17:50:14 ... because that was the original goal 17:50:15 that's why I asked for a sense of the WG resolution on whether that should remain our primary deployment objective 17:50:35 raph: i appreciate where guus is going 17:50:56 ... this tf has viewed its mission as helping html wg find a solution to include in xhtml 2 specification 17:51:09 ... may be that xhtml wg has a tighter deadline 17:51:26 ... they are supposed to be in last call 9 months ago 17:51:34 ChrisW has joined #swbp 17:51:39 ... if our primary deployment task is through xhtml 2 17:51:42 ... we must be part of that 17:52:07 ... if the sense is that a separate module is the way to go we are less tied to their schedule 17:52:15 ... but then this wg would have more to do 17:52:23 ... and we may not be able to do that 17:52:36 jjc: tight coupling means that eventually the payback is huge 17:52:52 ... doesn't matter if its not done by the end of this wg 17:53:05 guus: do you have plans for continuation of this wg 17:53:25 ... if bp does not go ahead, does it continue in xhtml 17:53:33 q? 17:53:45 ralph: there is a lot of pressure to make progress by end of January 17:53:49 ack jjc 17:53:56 jjc: there is another issue 17:54:10 s/by end/before the end/ 17:54:10 ... that xml lang gets lost 17:54:19 guus: lets note that 17:54:21 (further point might be #7 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Oct/0057 ) 17:54:35 danbri_ has joined #swbp 17:54:45 I think that will be a big issue .... 17:54:45 davidW: it seems odd to publish the primer without the spec 17:54:53 If the RDF-in-XHTML work remains in its current state much longer there are many people who will be severely criticized 17:54:54 ... can we get the syntax doc done 17:55:04 [fwiw I sent mail re rdf/a and reification; jeremy if you could take a look i'd be v grateful] 17:55:04 ben: I think so - the syntax doc is nearer done 17:55:15 davidW: lets get it up for review then 17:55:19 ben: ok 17:55:26 guus: there are issues to resolve 17:55:28 ben: yes 17:55:42 guus: I'd like to see a schedule 17:55:57 zakim, mute me 17:55:57 David_Wood should now be muted 17:56:02 action ben produce schedule for getting docs done 17:56:14 jjc: we could ask tf to publish what we have now for wider review 17:56:25 s/action ben/ACTION: ben to/ 17:56:29 action: Ben produce schedule for getting RDF/A editor's drafts docs ready for WG review 17:56:33 guus: you might want to consider publishing what we have if resolving issues will take a while 17:56:36 For records info on CURIE: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-10-21-curie 17:56:38 NEW OEP EDITOR'S DRAFT: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SemInt/ 17:56:42 for discussion tomorrow 17:56:49 (I don't have email access) 17:57:13 guus: its nearly 6pm 17:57:22 ... we started 30 mins late and finish 30 mins late 17:57:33 ... thank you ben 17:57:45 ... thanks david and ralph for joining us 17:58:04 ... there is an updated schedule for tomorrow on the list 17:58:37 -Ben_Adida 17:58:40 [happy to finally know how to pronounce "quay".ir 17:58:41 Andreas: dinner is in Quay street, near spanish arch K C Blakes 17:58:47 ... as "key" :) ] 17:58:52 ADJOURNED 17:58:52 -MeetingRoom 17:59:03 zakim, bye 17:59:03 leaving. As of this point the attendees were Ralph, David_Wood, Guus, Brian, Jeremy, ChrisW, Alistair, DanBri, Andreas, Libby, Ben, Fabien, Jacco, Raphael, Giorgos_Stamou, 17:59:03 Zakim has left #swbp 17:59:06 ... Giorgos_Stoilos, Vassilis, Evan, Elisa, MikeU, Aldo, JeffP, DBooth, DavidBooth, GavinMacKenzie, Deb, MeetingRoom, Stefan_Decker, Valentina, philT, brianmcb, debm, Ben_Adida 17:59:16 rrsagent, pointer? 17:59:16 See http://www.w3.org/2005/11/04-swbp-irc#T17-59-16 17:59:26 rrsagent, draft minutes 17:59:26 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/11/04-swbp-minutes.html dbooth 18:01:45 rrsagent, make log public 18:10:53 rrsagent, bye 18:10:53 I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/04-swbp-actions.rdf : 18:10:53 ACTION: Ralph to copy the WordNet to CVS space and post URL [1] 18:10:53 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/04-swbp-irc#T13-05-50 18:10:53 ACTION: ben to contact alistair on use of frag id's [2] 18:10:53 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/04-swbp-irc#T17-23-08 18:10:53 ACTION: Ben produce schedule for getting RDF/A editor's drafts docs ready for WG review [3] 18:10:53 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/04-swbp-irc#T17-56-29