IRC log of swbp on 2005-11-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

08:01:12 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #swbp
08:01:12 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/11/04-swbp-irc
08:01:18 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #swbp
08:01:32 [RalphS]
Meeting: SWBPD WG Face-to-Face
08:01:45 [RalphS]
zakim, this will be sw_bp
08:01:45 [Zakim]
ok, RalphS; I see SW_BPD(F2F)4:00AM scheduled to start in 59 minutes
09:22:09 [Zakim]
SW_BPD(F2F)4:00AM has now started
09:22:09 [Zakim]
SW_BPD(F2F)4:00AM has ended
09:22:10 [Zakim]
Attendees were
09:22:20 [Zakim]
SW_BPD(F2F)4:00AM has now started
09:22:27 [Zakim]
+??P0
09:23:06 [Zakim]
+Ralph
09:23:43 [Raphael]
Raphael has joined #swbp
09:23:54 [Raphael]
hi RalphS :-)
09:25:44 [Jacco]
Jacco has joined #swbp
09:27:16 [Zakim]
+Ralph
09:27:17 [Jacco]
Jacco has joined #swbp
09:27:33 [Zakim]
-Ralph
09:28:11 [Zakim]
+Ralph
09:28:20 [Zakim]
-Ralph
09:29:17 [RalphS]
zakim, ??p0 is MeetingRoom
09:29:17 [Zakim]
+MeetingRoom; got it
09:29:42 [RalphS]
zakim, please make this record public
09:29:42 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'please make this record public', RalphS
09:29:47 [RalphS]
rrsagent, please make this record public
09:30:15 [aharth]
aharth has joined #swbp
09:30:28 [aharth]
hi, morning!
09:31:34 [dwood]
dwood has joined #swbp
09:37:25 [Zakim]
+David_Wood
09:39:51 [Elisa]
Elisa has joined #swbp
09:41:39 [Zakim]
-David_Wood
09:42:35 [Zakim]
+David_Wood
09:46:43 [RalphS]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0018.html
09:47:37 [RalphS]
yes
09:47:40 [dwood]
yes
09:47:57 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #swbp
09:48:54 [ChrisW]
we can hear you
09:49:15 [RalphS]
Guus: 11 people now in the room
09:49:37 [RalphS]
would someone write here the names of all who are present, please?
09:50:07 [RalphS]
zakim, meetingroom has Guus, Brian, Jeremy, ChrisW
09:50:07 [Zakim]
+Guus, Brian, Jeremy, ChrisW; got it
09:50:54 [FabGandon]
FabGandon has joined #swbp
09:51:08 [Guus]
Guus has joined #swbp
09:52:40 [dwood]
Guus: My apologies for not being there!
09:52:49 [RalphS]
s/:/,/
09:52:55 [ChrisW-scribe]
Agendum: Waitinf for latecomers to wander in
09:53:03 [RalphS]
I wish I could be there too
09:54:07 [ChrisW-scribe]
small groups greeting and mumbling with each other
09:54:08 [RalphS]
Scribe: ChrisW
09:54:17 [RalphS]
ScribeNick: ChrisW-scribe
09:54:43 [RalphS]
Chris, could you write here the names of all who are present, please?
09:55:42 [bwm]
bwm has joined #swbp
09:55:53 [danbri]
danbri has joined #swbp
09:56:00 [ChrisW-scribe]
Guus thanks Andreas & DERI
09:56:04 [danbri]
+1
09:56:59 [RalphS]
Alistair Miles
09:57:02 [RalphS]
Dan Brickley
09:57:14 [RalphS]
Brian McBride
09:57:16 [ChrisW-scribe]
Present: AListair, Danbri, BrianMcBride
09:57:25 [libby]
libby has joined #swbp
09:57:46 [ChrisW-scribe]
...Andreas, Libby,
09:57:56 [ChrisW-scribe]
...BenNguyen
09:58:13 [ChrisW-scribe]
Fabien
09:58:29 [ChrisW-scribe]
...Jacov, Rafael
09:58:48 [RalphS]
zakim, meetingroom has Alistair, DanBri, Brian, Andreas, Libby, Ben, Fabien, Jacco, Raphael
09:58:48 [Zakim]
Brian was already listed in MeetingRoom, RalphS
09:58:49 [Zakim]
+Alistair, DanBri, Andreas, Libby, Ben, Fabien, Jacco, Raphael; got it
09:58:53 [Raphael]
Giorgos
09:58:58 [ChrisW-scribe]
giorgios,
09:58:59 [Raphael]
Vassilis
09:59:00 [Jacco]
s/jacov/jacco
09:59:07 [Raphael]
George
09:59:20 [Raphael]
s/Rafael/Raphael
10:00:00 [ChrisW-scribe]
two giorgos
10:00:07 [ChrisW-scribe]
jeremy
10:00:10 [ChrisW-scribe]
evan, elisa
10:00:14 [ChrisW-scribe]
chrisw
10:00:16 [ChrisW-scribe]
mikeU
10:01:12 [RalphS]
zakim, meetingroom also has Giorgos_Stamou, Giorgos_Stoilos, Vassilis, Jeremy, Evan, Elisa, ChrisW, MikeU, Guus
10:01:12 [Zakim]
+Giorgos_Stamou, Giorgos_Stoilos, Vassilis, Jeremy, Evan, Elisa, ChrisW, MikeU, Guus; got it
10:01:31 [RalphS]
zakim, who's in meetingroom?
10:01:31 [Zakim]
MeetingRoom has Alistair, DanBri, Andreas, Libby, Ben, Fabien, Jacco, Raphael, Giorgos_Stamou, Giorgos_Stoilos, Vassilis, Jeremy, Evan, Elisa, ChrisW, MikeU, Guus
10:02:10 [RalphS]
zakim, meetingroom also has Brian
10:02:10 [Zakim]
+Brian; got it
10:02:21 [ChrisW-scribe]
Jeff Pan and Aldo Gangemi arrived
10:02:24 [MikeU]
MikeU has joined #swbp
10:02:36 [jeremy]
jeremy has joined #swbp
10:02:39 [ChrisW-scribe]
zakime, meetingroom also has Aldo, JeffP
10:02:45 [ChrisW-scribe]
zakim, meetingroom also has Aldo, JeffP
10:02:45 [Zakim]
+Aldo, JeffP; got it
10:04:46 [ChrisW-scribe]
jjc: should we establish criteria for moving notes forward now
10:04:53 [danbri]
[oh, huh... i didn't show up as registered; am sure I did, but I guess must be mistaken]
10:04:53 [ChrisW-scribe]
...a lot of documents
10:05:23 [ChrisW-scribe]
guus: can we have a concrete proposal?
10:06:01 [ChrisW-scribe]
ralph: what are you suggesting? To change the practice or repeat it?
10:06:37 [ChrisW-scribe]
jjc: concerned about running out of time and publishing unfinished notes as a result
10:07:10 [ChrisW-scribe]
...make sure to apply process properly, regardless of time
10:07:15 [aharth]
dwood: i'll ask the technician again...
10:07:22 [RalphS]
yes, concern about rushing things through as we get close to the end of January is certainly justified
10:07:33 [RalphS]
s/dwood:/dwood,/
10:08:47 [ChrisW-scribe]
guus: clear goal of meeting is to get to the notes within the contrants
10:08:52 [danbri]
[ for remote participants --- http://www.flickr.com/photos/danbri/59645352/ ]
10:09:31 [ChrisW-scribe]
...have a proposal by end of meeting for coord. group regarding future of WG
10:09:37 [RalphS]
not cantankerous, Jeremy -- you raised a good point
10:09:44 [ChrisW-scribe]
Agendum: PORT TF
10:09:52 [RalphS]
Topic: PORT TF
10:10:55 [ChrisW-scribe]
SKOS Core Guide
10:10:55 [ChrisW-scribe]
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/guide/2005-10-06/
10:12:02 [RalphS]
zakim, DBooth just arrived in MeetingRoom
10:12:02 [Zakim]
+DBooth; got it
10:12:03 [ChrisW-scribe]
zakim, meetingroom also has DavidBooth, GavinMacKenzie
10:12:04 [Zakim]
+DavidBooth, GavinMacKenzie; got it
10:12:41 [ChrisW-scribe]
Discussing: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0195.html
10:14:53 [ChrisW-scribe]
Alistair basically summarizing above note
10:18:15 [ChrisW-scribe]
ITEM 1: 'Extending' SKOS Core
10:19:15 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #swbp
10:19:29 [ChrisW-scribe]
Discussing: http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/cvs-public/~checkout~/skos/drafts/appextensions.html
10:21:44 [RalphS]
this seems to be a good primer on how to use RDF for vocabulary definition, applied to a specific case
10:21:48 [RalphS]
and as such is quite useful
10:22:37 [RalphS]
DWood: is there a the difference between "extending the SKOS Core" and "extending SKOS"?
10:22:46 [ChrisW-scribe]
alistair: skos == skos core
10:25:02 [ChrisW-scribe]
danbri: concerned that its much easier said than done
10:25:32 [ChrisW-scribe]
...does not seem to be tool support for it - this would set back adoption
10:25:37 [RalphS]
"its" == "RDFS inferencing" (Alistair's term)
10:26:03 [ChrisW-scribe]
jjc: we (W3C) made the decision a while ago to make RDFS inferences cheap enough that web tools will support them
10:26:15 [ChrisW-scribe]
...there is some support in Jena for this
10:26:28 [ChrisW-scribe]
...the hard bit is figuring out which schema to dereference
10:27:33 [ChrisW-scribe]
brian: what scale of inference
10:28:05 [ChrisW-scribe]
alistair: things like Mesh, dewey-decimal, etc. woudl publish their own extensions
10:28:41 [ChrisW-scribe]
guus: agree w/ jeremy that we shouldn't back off from inference
10:29:13 [ChrisW-scribe]
...AListair was too optomistic about the number of triples (underestimated)
10:29:36 [ChrisW-scribe]
...real scalability issues but that shouldn't stop us
10:30:14 [RalphS]
I agree with Guus -- let's use RDFS and encourage the tools to support subPropertyOf and subClassOf efficiently
10:30:16 [ChrisW-scribe]
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]
Jeff has joined #swbp
10:31:28 [ChrisW-scribe]
danbri: at least three parties, publishers, extender, and data sets, and users
10:31:40 [ChrisW-scribe]
...yes, that's four
10:32:10 [ChrisW-scribe]
brain: not convinced we shoudl recommend something that is currently impractical
10:32:18 [ChrisW-scribe]
^brain^brian^
10:32:36 [RalphS]
[I didn't understand which bits Brian thinks may be impractical]
10:33:06 [ChrisW-scribe]
jjc: wants to spank Brian
10:33:22 [ChrisW-scribe]
guus: have to be aware of scalability problems
10:34:35 [ChrisW-scribe]
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 [dwood]
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 [ChrisW-scribe]
...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 [ChrisW-scribe]
...badly
10:35:49 [RalphS]
[I appreciate DanBri's partial photo of the meeting room http://www.flickr.com/photos/35468151816@N01/59645352/ -- Thanks, DanBri]
10:35:58 [ChrisW-scribe]
jjc: a wider issue: there are statements in SKOS that have a wider semantic ... meaning
10:36:14 [giorgos]
giorgos has joined #swbp
10:36:44 [ChrisW-scribe]
...that is, formal semantic constraints
10:36:51 [ChrisW-scribe]
...e.g. constraint on language tag
10:37:38 [ChrisW-scribe]
...basically, that SKOS is already moving into the territory danbri was worried about?
10:38:27 [ChrisW-scribe]
alistair: there are other constraints, like no two concepts shoudl have the same preferred label
10:38:36 [ChrisW-scribe]
...but some concept schemes where you may want to break that
10:40:23 [ChrisW-scribe]
danbri: how far skos is extended to become a modeling framework is a concern
10:41:06 [ChrisW-scribe]
alistair: we promote the extension of owl core until it begins to tread on owl
10:41:21 [bwm]
q+ to ask whether there is existing practice of this form of extension
10:41:27 [ChrisW-scribe]
^owl core^skos core^
10:41:44 [Zakim]
bwm, you wanted to ask whether there is existing practice of this form of extension
10:42:15 [ChrisW-scribe]
alistair: there is some experience: gemet thesaurus
10:42:31 [ChrisW-scribe]
...not enough pracitcal use but a lot of interest
10:42:43 [gavin_mckenzie]
gavin_mckenzie has joined #swbp
10:43:26 [dwood]
Is it reasonable to explicitly state that SKOS should not be extended in any manner which is already defined in OWL?
10:43:32 [ChrisW-scribe]
jjc: it just describes a simpl e use of RDF the way it was intended
10:43:41 [RalphS]
+1 to Jeremy's statement
10:44:01 [ChrisW-scribe]
Brian: (previously) questioned whether the experience was enough to make a "best practice"
10:44:08 [RalphS]
this is showing poeople how to use RDFS
10:44:09 [ChrisW-scribe]
Guus agrees with Jjc
10:45:39 [ChrisW-scribe]
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 [RalphS]
[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 [RalphS]
ITEM 2: Importing SKOS Core into OWL (DL) Ontologies
10:46:23 [ChrisW-scribe]
Alistair: one schema for SKOS
10:46:39 [ChrisW-scribe]
some of the bits are not compatible w/ OWL-DL
10:47:29 [ChrisW-scribe]
proposal: have an rdfs version, and owl-dl version, and a merged version in owl full
10:47:55 [dwood]
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 [ChrisW-scribe]
some of the owl-dl problems:
10:49:05 [ChrisW-scribe]
some subprops of rdfs:label
10:49:18 [ChrisW-scribe]
most properties are just rdf:Property
10:50:44 [ChrisW-scribe]
...lots of annotation properties so can't be "extended" (subprop'd) in OWL DL
10:52:49 [RalphS]
[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 [ChrisW-scribe]
fabian: concerned that there is some redundancy so that in the merged (owl full) version you have two things
10:55:55 [RalphS]
[I hoped we could use lang properties to permit inclusion of multiple rdfs:label properties in a single schema information resource]
10:56:50 [ChrisW-scribe]
alistair: yes, also a problem for maintenance
10:57:21 [ChrisW-scribe]
...but ok because it makes it simpler
10:58:48 [ChrisW-scribe]
guus: is there a need for OWL-DL in the thesaurus world, do we need to worry about it?
10:59:45 [ChrisW-scribe]
jjc: see some semantic constraints that are outside owl-dl
11:00:04 [ChrisW-scribe]
...so agree w/ guus that may not need to worry about it
11:00:23 [Guus]
q?
11:00:40 [ChrisW-scribe]
danbri: owl-dl tool referencing skos data would be polluted if there isn't an OWL-DL version of skos
11:02:10 [ChrisW-scribe]
brian: seems like a common problem - how to describe different versions in different languages
11:02:14 [RalphS]
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 [ChrisW-scribe]
...do we need a best practice
11:02:48 [ChrisW-scribe]
ITEM 3: Problem with SKOS Collections
11:03:04 [RalphS]
I vote for favoring RDFS :)
11:03:45 [ChrisW-scribe]
discussing: http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/cvs-public/~checkout~/skos/drafts/collections-5.html
11:05:23 [dbooth]
dbooth has joined #swbp
11:05:59 [ChrisW-scribe]
discussion to clarify the thesaurus terminology
11:06:44 [ChrisW-scribe]
basic issue: the "narrower term" is a collection which is not supposed to be a skos:concept
11:07:39 [ChrisW-scribe]
...but range of narrower term property is skos:concept
11:09:01 [ChrisW-scribe]
aldo: this is not a collection, this is just an "unnamed" concept
11:09:46 [dwood]
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 [ChrisW-scribe]
guus: the problem is that "chairs by function" is a meta-class
11:10:14 [RalphS]
"concerned, but not surprised" -- yep :(
11:10:35 [ChrisW-scribe]
jjc: no examples of this - would be good to have some
11:12:52 [ChrisW-scribe]
alistair: some times these "collections" are ordered and the order means something
11:13:56 [ChrisW-scribe]
mikeU: could use annotation properties indicating metaclass membership for OWL DL version
11:14:11 [dbooth]
But a "collection" does not say what the ordering means.
11:14:46 [ChrisW-scribe]
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 [RalphS]
yeah, I'd like to see if there's a different relationship (than owl:disjoint) between skos:Concept and skos:Collection
11:16:06 [ChrisW-scribe]
jjc: agree w/ aldo that collection and concept are the same
11:16:42 [RalphS]
hmm. perhaps not the same but there's a connection
11:16:42 [dbooth]
jjc: Things like union create unnamed classes. Perhaps this is what's happening.
11:16:44 [ChrisW-scribe]
guus: the problem is that skos:concept is used for anything that can be used in annotation
11:17:35 [ChrisW-scribe]
discussing solution seciton of http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/cvs-public/~checkout~/skos/drafts/collections-5.html
11:17:46 [RalphS]
[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 [ChrisW-scribe]
jjc: is the problem just that skos:concept is misnamed
11:20:58 [ChrisW-scribe]
...should it be named skos:namedConcept ?
11:21:54 [ChrisW-scribe]
alistair: there are coordinated (combined?) concepts also
11:23:20 [ChrisW-scribe]
guus: there are two kinds of concepts: indexing and those for organizing the indexing concepts
11:24:39 [ChrisW-scribe]
...separate naming issues from organizing issues
11:24:52 [ChrisW-scribe]
jjc: or a compelling example of why that won't work
11:25:30 [ChrisW-scribe]
guus: clearly presented - propose we hav ea breakout session to resolve the issues
11:26:38 [ChrisW-scribe]
guus: for planning - it has been suggested that SKOS be one of the primary outcomes of SWBP
11:26:50 [ChrisW-scribe]
...taken very seriously in library community
11:27:01 [ChrisW-scribe]
...perhaps should be taken into a rec track
11:27:21 [RalphS]
[Isn't this question of "what's the future path" part of tomorrow's agenda?]
11:27:28 [ChrisW-scribe]
...would beg the question as to what we need to finish in swbp, and what to leave for new wg?
11:27:52 [ChrisW-scribe]
alistair: defer judgement on whether it shoudl be rec
11:28:12 [ChrisW-scribe]
...in this wg would like to resolve these three issues + possibly one or two recent ones
11:28:25 [RalphS]
[I heard Alistair say "defer judgement on rec to [??]", didn't hear to whom he thought it should be defered]
11:29:07 [ChrisW-scribe]
[to people who know about "that kind of thing"]
11:29:32 [ChrisW-scribe]
guus: would rather finish the basic uses of skos in swbp and save the rest for next wg
11:29:43 [RalphS]
hmm. would "the people who know" be the users of SKOS or someone else?
11:30:30 [ChrisW-scribe]
danbri: only meaty problem is the final one (collectsion/concepts) so I think it could be moved to new wg
11:30:37 [RalphS]
q+ to suggest that extensions be the primary SWBPD goal
11:30:51 [ChrisW-scribe]
[guus is going around the room]
11:31:42 [ChrisW-scribe]
dbooth: not speaking for HP - but seems like an application of SW technology and not really in W3C domain
11:31:53 [ChrisW-scribe]
...but may not happen if it isn't
11:32:10 [ChrisW-scribe]
q-
11:32:58 [ChrisW-scribe]
ralph: would like alistair to give a better sense of where the community is
11:33:29 [ChrisW-scribe]
...much more "horizontal" an effort than some things W3C has considered
11:33:46 [ChrisW-scribe]
...don't think WG has time to finish all three issues raised today
11:34:33 [ChrisW-scribe]
...makes an excellent note on how to use RDF
11:34:35 [dbooth]
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 [dwood]
q+ so Guus doesn't forget me :)
11:35:56 [dwood]
zakim, unmute me
11:35:56 [Zakim]
sorry, dwood, I do not see a party named 'dwood'
11:35:58 [RalphS]
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 [ChrisW-scribe]
ack dwood
11:36:14 [RalphS]
zakim, nidk dwood is David_Wood
11:36:14 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'nidk dwood is David_Wood', RalphS
11:36:18 [RalphS]
zakim, nick dwood is David_Wood
11:36:18 [Zakim]
ok, RalphS, I now associate dwood with David_Wood
11:36:36 [ChrisW-scribe]
can't hear you
11:37:38 [RalphS]
+1 to seeing SKOS work continue in W3C
11:38:02 [dwood]
zakim, mute me
11:38:02 [Zakim]
David_Wood should now be muted
11:38:25 [ChrisW-scribe]
dwood: would like to see skos continue beyond swbp and rec track
11:38:54 [RalphS]
[oops; network disconnect between MIT & Galway?]
11:38:56 [jeremy]
jeremy has joined #swbp
11:38:57 [ChrisW-scribe]
jjc: who would participate in a wg?
11:39:05 [FabGandon]
FabGandon has joined #swbp
11:39:15 [Raphael]
Raphael has joined #swbp
11:39:21 [gavin_mckenzie]
gavin_mckenzie has joined #swbp
11:39:35 [dbooth]
dbooth has joined #swbp
11:39:55 [ChrisW-scribe]
different library community people
11:39:59 [ChrisW-scribe]
shoudl be involved
11:40:04 [ChrisW-scribe]
not typical W3C people
11:40:21 [ChrisW-scribe]
so, consider whether they are likely to join WG
11:40:43 [RalphS]
[I'd like to know how those folk have been participating in the SKOS design up to this point]
11:40:56 [ChrisW-scribe]
spoken to Michael Wilson who is UK w3c person
11:41:00 [ChrisW-scribe]
lots of interest
11:41:25 [Elisa]
Elisa has joined #swbp
11:41:31 [ChrisW-scribe]
[they've been participating on the mailing list]
11:41:41 [Zakim]
Ralph, you wanted to suggest that extensions be the primary SWBPD goal
11:42:22 [ChrisW-scribe]
danbri: 23 posters on mailing list + a lot of observers
11:42:28 [RalphS]
DanBri: there were 23 distinct individuals posting on the [SKOS] mailing list last month
11:43:09 [ChrisW-scribe]
break
11:43:15 [RalphS]
[I guess that's the public-esw-thes@w3.org mailing list]
11:43:34 [ChrisW-scribe]
zakim, meeting_room also holds DebM
11:43:34 [Zakim]
sorry, ChrisW-scribe, I do not recognize a party named 'meeting_room'
11:43:35 [RalphS]
zakim, meetingroom also has Deb
11:43:35 [Zakim]
+Deb; got it
11:44:28 [ChrisW-scribe]
[Gavin]
11:44:52 [RalphS]
zakim, who's here?
11:44:52 [Zakim]
On the phone I see MeetingRoom, Ralph (muted), David_Wood (muted)
11:44:53 [Zakim]
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 [Zakim]
... JeffP, DBooth, DavidBooth, GavinMacKenzie, Deb
11:44:58 [Zakim]
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]
dbooth2 has joined #swbp
11:53:59 [jjc]
jjc has joined #swbp
11:59:52 [aharth]
aharth has joined #swbp
12:02:34 [bwm]
bwm has joined #swbp
12:05:24 [Raphael]
Raphael has joined #swbp
12:06:24 [Guus]
q?
12:06:43 [bwm]
bwm has joined #swbp
12:07:47 [dbooth2]
Scribe: dbooth
12:08:40 [dbooth]
Topic: WordNet
12:09:03 [dbooth]
Temporary chair for this session: ChrisW
12:09:24 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #swbp
12:10:27 [dbooth]
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 [Guus]
q+
12:11:06 [dbooth]
... Data model has been created by Guus and finalized by me. Covers the WordNet schema from the prolog source
12:11:55 [dbooth]
... One document distributed by Mark. Some general issues on the work of the TF, some raised by Jeremy.
12:11:56 [RalphS]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0173.html Jeremy's comments on WN
12:12:12 [RalphS]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0232.html Aldo's response to Jeremy
12:12:43 [dbooth]
... Also want to apply WordNet model to Lexical Markuup Framework.
12:13:15 [THE_CHAIR]
ack guus
12:13:46 [THE_CHAIR]
q
12:13:52 [THE_CHAIR]
zakim, who is on the queue?
12:13:52 [Zakim]
I see no one on the speaker queue
12:13:52 [dbooth]
q?
12:14:35 [Elisa]
Elisa has joined #swbp
12:15:22 [dbooth]
Viewing http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark/wn/wn-conversion.html on screen
12:16:29 [Jacco]
Jacco has joined #swbp
12:16:36 [dbooth]
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 [dbooth]
... Can read the same file and ignore the extensions.
12:18:22 [dbooth]
... 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]
aliman_scribe has joined #swbp
12:19:11 [dbooth]
... Main difference from current: relations are partial.
12:19:34 [dbooth]
... Use 2.0 because 2.1 does not have the prolog yet.
12:20:00 [dbooth]
... What's in the prolog source will be in the RDF source.
12:20:27 [dbooth]
Aldo: Wordnet source uses something that is not completely finished.
12:20:52 [dbooth]
Guus: This comes under the category: What should be the maintenance strategy? I suggest start from Jeremy's email suggestion.
12:21:17 [dbooth]
... First point: define a mapping from WordNet to OWL.
12:21:36 [dbooth]
Brian: What are the TF's plans?
12:22:21 [dbooth]
Aldo: Most of the port is done. Should be published/used. Issues on how to use it. Translation 100MB.
12:22:49 [dwood]
What is Princeton's position on maintenance?
12:23:48 [dbooth]
... 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]
Jacco has joined #swbp
12:24:55 [dbooth]
... 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 [dbooth]
... Second: Involve linguistic assoc.
12:25:33 [dbooth]
... Third: harmonize the various wordnet efforts, such as neufchatel and others, to avoid doing the same thing multiple times.
12:25:48 [dbooth]
Jeremy: Timescale?
12:26:09 [dbooth]
Brian: That third one is more an objective than a plan.
12:26:29 [dbooth]
Aldo: Can propose to them to join the effort.
12:26:53 [dbooth]
... Re timescale: can provide stuff to Princeton in the next few weeks.
12:27:13 [dbooth]
... On second one, the conference is in May, so it would have to be after that.
12:27:53 [dbooth]
... On the third one, I'm already in communication with LMF ISO committee.
12:28:21 [dlm]
dlm has joined #swbp
12:28:39 [dbooth]
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 [dbooth]
Aldo: We have a draft of a WD.
12:29:29 [dbooth]
Guus: my take on timing: If we appoint internal reviewers, within 6 wks we can get a WD out.
12:29:53 [dbooth]
... Including WG decision.
12:30:05 [dbooth]
ChrisW: WD as item 0 in Aldo's plan?
12:30:27 [dbooth]
Guus: Yes, suitable for princeton and language community.
12:30:48 [dlm]
dlm has joined #swbp
12:30:49 [RalphS]
q+ to ask the WN TF how far from a first WD they think the current Editor's Draft is
12:31:02 [dbooth]
... If we take the normal process of gettign their input, it would push us past Feb.
12:31:17 [dbooth]
ChrisW: But the WD seems like a vehicle to reach out to others.
12:31:36 [RalphS]
[boo on asking Princeton to comment formally on Editor's Draft]
12:31:43 [dbooth]
Guus: Yes. Princeton has already looked at it.
12:31:44 [RalphS]
["boo" == -1]
12:32:06 [THE_CHAIR]
q?
12:32:20 [dbooth]
Brian: WD would be based on the doc linked from the agenda?
12:32:22 [dbooth]
Guus: Yes.
12:33:23 [dbooth]
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 [jjc]
q+
12:33:25 [Jacco]
Jacco has joined #swbp
12:33:42 [aliman]
aliman has joined #swbp
12:33:55 [THE_CHAIR]
ack ralph
12:33:56 [Zakim]
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 [dbooth]
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]
bwm has joined #swbp
12:34:57 [dwood]
+1 on a public WD first
12:35:15 [dbooth]
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 [dbooth]
... How much more time needed (editorial) before asking for WG review?
12:36:34 [THE_CHAIR]
ack jjc
12:36:37 [dbooth]
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 [dbooth]
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 [dbooth]
Guus: I now have a student working on this.
12:39:23 [dbooth]
Jeremy: Prereq for second doc are political issues.
12:39:36 [dbooth]
Guus: Not for writing it. Getting consensus yes.
12:39:43 [THE_CHAIR]
ack ralph
12:41:03 [dbooth]
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 [dbooth]
Guus: Current draft is adequate for pub in my opinion.
12:42:07 [dbooth]
Jeremy: My main concern is what do we say about future expectations for it.
12:42:31 [dbooth]
Guus: Future work is separate discussion.
12:42:39 [RalphS]
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 [RalphS]
s/note/note in the SOTD/
12:43:14 [dbooth]
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 [dbooth]
danbri: It would be great if the work were finished, but nothing wrong with publishing as far as we got.
12:43:52 [RalphS]
+1 to DanBri's "publish what we've got to save the world having to reinvent this"
12:44:19 [dwood]
yep, get it out to the world
12:44:23 [dbooth]
... Also tech discussion relates to planning and roadmap. I've always liked mapping synsets on to classes. Has a popular idiom.
12:45:01 [jjc]
q+ to make two review comments on current draft
12:45:04 [dbooth]
... Issue: Same URI can be used for the class and lexical representation? And what does URI dereference to?
12:45:49 [Benjamin]
Benjamin has joined #swbp
12:49:00 [jeremy]
jeremy has joined #swbp
12:49:04 [aliman]
aliman has joined #swbp
12:49:05 [THE_CHAIR]
THE_CHAIR has joined #swbp
12:49:11 [THE_CHAIR]
ack jjc
12:49:11 [Zakim]
jjc, you wanted to make two review comments on current draft
12:49:21 [aharth]
aharth has joined #swbp
12:49:40 [bwm]
bwm has joined #swbp
12:50:03 [dbooth]
dbooth has joined #swbp
12:50:29 [Ben]
Ben has joined #swbp
12:51:17 [danbri]
danbri has joined #swbp
12:52:48 [RalphS]
Guus: I think the WordNet work could continue within the Semantic Web Interest Group
12:53:57 [dbooth]
dbooth has joined #swbp
12:54:43 [THE_CHAIR]
ping
12:55:22 [Elisa]
Elisa has joined #swbp
12:56:11 [RalphS]
[the last line I see from scribe is ":45] <dbooth> ... Issue: Same URI can be used for the class and lexical representation? And what does URI dereference to?"
12:56:22 [Ben]
connection problems here with the wireless
12:57:00 [Ben]
david will send email of what's been missed
12:57:02 [THE_CHAIR]
dbooth will send back scribe
12:57:10 [RalphS]
<insert DBooth's mail here>
12:57:16 [RalphS]
</insert>
12:57:16 [RalphS]
:)
12:57:27 [Ben]
danbri : thinking about the relationship between skos and WN
12:57:36 [Ben]
... a lot of worj to be done in skos needs owl people
12:57:50 [dbooth]
Danbri: Re relationship between SKOs and Wordnet. Lots of SKOS work needs OWL people's brains.
12:57:58 [Ben]
... people approve of the skos approach, they also want to talk about terms
12:58:26 [dbooth]
Danbri: Faceted stuff scares me, because it is reinventing OWL.
12:59:47 [dbooth]
... 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 [dbooth]
Alistair: __ have terminology markup, and they know a lot about multilinguality, and they've started looking at SKOS.
13:01:10 [bwm]
bwm has joined #swbp
13:01:37 [dbooth]
Guus: Happy to have these options on the table.
13:02:20 [THE_CHAIR]
q?
13:02:23 [dbooth]
Aldo: Community of Wordnet community are dynamically holding. We're providing something to support the mainstream.
13:02:33 [THE_CHAIR]
^holding^evolving^
13:02:41 [dbooth]
... Might want to suggest practices to transform.
13:03:28 [RalphS]
[would the TF like to solicit reviewers now?]
13:03:39 [RalphS]
[ah, Guus already on it]
13:04:03 [dbooth]
s/holding/evolving/
13:04:03 [dbooth]
ChrisW: No decisions made.
13:04:06 [dbooth]
Guus: I propose we assign WG reviewers to ed draft. Volunteers?
13:04:12 [jeremy]
jeremy has joined #swbp
13:04:31 [dbooth]
Volunteers: Alistair, Brian, Ben, Jacco, Jeremy
13:04:55 [dbooth]
... plus DanBri, though also a TF member.
13:05:50 [dbooth]
ACTION: Ralph to copy the WordNet to CVS space and post URL
13:06:14 [dbooth]
Review deadline: 25-Nov-2005
13:06:32 [dbooth]
DanBri: mailing list for SKOS worked well for us.
13:06:53 [dbooth]
ADJOURNED FOR LUNCH -- continuing at 2:00pm local
13:07:03 [RalphS]
[54 minute lunch break]
13:08:39 [Zakim]
-David_Wood
13:27:05 [RalphS]
Mark's WordNet conversion document is now copied to http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wn-conversion.html
13:28:16 [Zakim]
-Ralph
13:28:23 [RalphS]
?!
13:29:47 [Zakim]
+Ralph
13:31:50 [Zakim]
-MeetingRoom
13:32:00 [RalphS]
oh well
13:39:41 [bwm]
bwm has joined #swbp
13:46:51 [gavin_mckenzie]
gavin_mckenzie has joined #swbp
13:54:07 [bwm_]
bwm_ has joined #swbp
13:56:47 [FabGandon]
FabGandon has joined #swbp
13:58:21 [Zakim]
+David_Wood
13:59:43 [dbooth]
dbooth has joined #swbp
14:01:15 [bwm_]
bwm_ has joined #swbp
14:01:37 [Raphael]
Raphael has joined #swbp
14:02:08 [Zakim]
+??P12
14:02:19 [RalphS]
zakim, ??p12 is MeetingRoom
14:02:19 [Zakim]
+MeetingRoom; got it
14:02:59 [Guus]
Guus has joined #swbp
14:04:41 [dwood]
zakim, mute me
14:04:41 [Zakim]
sorry, dwood, I do not see a party named 'dwood'
14:04:45 [Ben]
Ben has joined #swbp
14:04:48 [RalphS]
zakim, Stefan_Decker has arrived in meetingroom
14:04:48 [Zakim]
+Stefan_Decker; got it
14:04:55 [RalphS]
zakim, nick dwood is David_Wood
14:04:56 [Zakim]
ok, RalphS, I now associate dwood with David_Wood
14:04:56 [dwood]
zakim, nick dwood is David_Wood
14:04:56 [Zakim]
ok, dwood, I now associate you with David_Wood
14:05:04 [dwood]
zakim, mute me
14:05:04 [Zakim]
David_Wood should now be muted
14:05:50 [libby]
libby has joined #swbp
14:05:57 [aharth]
aharth has joined #swbp
14:06:35 [dbooth]
WG thanks Stefan for hosting!
14:07:10 [Ben]
jacco : brief overview of what MM has been doing in the last weeks
14:07:19 [Ben]
... things don't look ready yet
14:07:24 [Ben]
3 issues
14:07:35 [Ben]
1 first deliverable
14:07:47 [Ben]
2 possible structure on 2nd deliverable
14:08:18 [libby]
stefan has left...
14:08:23 [Ben]
3 future work (vocabularies image annotation, and if recharter extend to video annotation)
14:08:31 [RalphS]
zakim, Stefan_Decker has left meetingroom
14:08:31 [Zakim]
-Stefan_Decker; got it
14:08:34 [Ben]
1- image annotation on the semantic web
14:08:56 [Ben]
contrbutors : giorgos, raphael and JAcco, many other contributors
14:09:19 [Ben]
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 [Ben]
discuss them in the context of use cases
14:09:36 [gavin_mckenzie]
gavin_mckenzie has joined #swbp
14:09:48 [Ben]
main challenges : you run a risk of mentionning some projects and missing others
14:09:50 [THE_CHAIR]
THE_CHAIR has joined #swbp
14:10:05 [Ben]
lost of work and lost of progress in the area : problem of keeping up to date.
14:10:32 [Ben]
... problem ensuring documents outside the w3c namespace remain stable. This has been moved out of the main draft
14:10:52 [Ben]
if the main draft is ready, this can be published as a wg note
14:11:11 [Ben]
4 use cases with example solutions
14:11:12 [RalphS]
[I propose using the W3C Wiki for the 'living' resources material]
14:11:29 [Ben]
to do list :
14:11:37 [Ben]
1- lot of clean up
14:11:43 [Ben]
2- draft suffered from time pressure
14:11:48 [Ben]
3- better integration of sections
14:12:21 [Ben]
4- important use cases missing: news related images, scientific images, solution of media productions services use case (still working on this)
14:12:26 [ChrisW]
q+ to request referring to deliverables by name not number
14:12:49 [Ben]
Issues, the use case examples are seperate documents. Should this be integrated into the main document.
14:13:01 [Ben]
Problem : these solutions might get outdated. especially the vocab.
14:13:24 [Ben]
However the main principles remain valid, so long as people know they should use updated version of the vocab
14:13:39 [Ben]
jeremy has raised the problem of patent problems
14:13:55 [Ben]
jjc : action : verify or not if there is a patent issue and if there is clarify distinction
14:14:17 [Ben]
jjc : general rule not to discuss patent issues on the public mailing list
14:15:03 [Ben]
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 [Ben]
... 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 [Ben]
... 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 [Ben]
... the question is : what communities to target ?
14:16:44 [Ben]
... EWIMT workshop in london soon, also SWAMM workshop in may at WWW conference
14:17:17 [Ben]
... 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 [Ben]
Chris : this is a big WG, I have trouble remembering the references of deliverables
14:17:43 [libby]
I still owes a written review
14:17:45 [Guus]
q\q?
14:17:47 [Zakim]
ChrisW, you wanted to request referring to deliverables by name not number
14:18:00 [Elisa]
Elisa has joined #swbp
14:18:05 [Ben]
jacco : 1- overview of the vocab and tools out there for SW annotations for images
14:18:17 [Ben]
2- interoperability between SW and non SW approaches
14:18:30 [Ben]
Chris : call 1 overview and 2 interoperability
14:18:54 [dlm]
dlm has joined #swbp
14:18:55 [vassilis]
vassilis has joined #swbp
14:18:55 [Ben]
Mike : general remarks : a lot of good content in the document.
14:19:03 [RalphS]
-> 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 [Ben]
... discussion on images not relevant for the target audience
14:19:18 [Ben]
jacco : we dont want to give people false expectations.
14:19:29 [Ben]
.. the SW in itself wont solve all the issues with image annotation
14:19:44 [Ben]
Mike : lots of use cases, general positive view on the note
14:20:04 [Ben]
.. there is much to do still. Areas of concern : the objectives need to be more clear. The stated objectives are weak.
14:20:13 [Ben]
.. include : SW is a benefit to this area
14:20:23 [Raphael]
Discussing Mike's review: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0020.html
14:20:29 [Ben]
.. more emphasis on motivating the use of SW technologies.
14:20:46 [Ben]
.. the description of the use cases were inconsistent in style and format
14:21:10 [Ben]
... need a list of all the use cases
14:21:46 [Ben]
... 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 [Ben]
Raphael : this will be done (?)
14:22:11 [Ben]
Mike : the document does not have a coherence, a lot of cut and paste.
14:22:35 [Ben]
... a lot of specific comments I will not go through.
14:22:48 [Ben]
Jacco : thanks, comments were helpful
14:23:09 [Ben]
One of the main goals to have a structure to show were the document was going to. Is direction ok ?
14:23:10 [Ben]
Mike : yes
14:23:33 [jeremy]
jeremy has joined #swbp
14:23:37 [jeremy]
q+
14:24:09 [Ben]
Mike : I volunteered to be internal reviewer
14:24:32 [Ben]
Guus : decision to publish as WD under the condition comments get addressed ?
14:24:35 [RalphS]
q+ to object to publishing in current state
14:24:46 [Ben]
... would you recommend publishing as WD ?
14:24:59 [Ben]
Mike : I think so but there is a lot of work to be done
14:25:06 [Ben]
Jacco : I'd like a second review
14:25:15 [Ben]
jjc : its a long review
14:25:44 [Ben]
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 [Ben]
mike: more coherent stories + summary of the use cases into the document.
14:26:14 [Ben]
Guus : is it juste editorial process ?
14:27:44 [RalphS]
<ben apparently agrees to scribe off-line; insert his comments here>
14:27:47 [bwm_]
q+ to ask about source of use cases
14:28:10 [dbooth]
dbooth has joined #swbp
14:28:39 [dbooth]
q+
14:28:45 [Ben]
Ben has joined #swbp
14:28:53 [Guus]
q"
14:28:56 [Guus]
q?
14:29:02 [FabGandon]
guus: nothing prevents the current doc to move to working draft
14:29:10 [Ben]
jjc : I'd prefer a style where the document is interesting and not trying to sell the document
14:29:20 [Ben]
Mike: I agree
14:29:26 [Ben]
jjc : I thought this was an interesting document
14:30:01 [Ben]
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]
Vale has joined #swbp
14:30:21 [Ben]
.. 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 [Ben]
jjc: the document needs to discuss that
14:30:40 [Zakim]
Ralph, you wanted to object to publishing in current state
14:30:53 [Ben]
Ralph : i agree with mike
14:31:03 [Ben]
it shouldn't be a drawback from publishing
14:31:11 [Ben]
... would not obejct to pulish in this form
14:31:25 [Ben]
... would leave to othe editors to do the editorial work before it goes public
14:31:52 [dbooth]
s/jjc :/jjc:/g
14:31:59 [danbri]
danbri has joined #swbp
14:32:28 [Ben]
Ralph: jane needs to go through the administrative process of joining the WG before the document may be published
14:32:45 [Ben]
Guus: I have mailled her about this
14:33:12 [Ben]
... it is an action she needs to fullfill
14:33:22 [Ben]
... jacco to take an action about reminding her
14:34:22 [RalphS]
I also have sent mail to Jane to point her to the Invited Expert application
14:35:27 [jjc]
jjc has joined #swbp
14:35:32 [FabGandon_]
FabGandon_ has joined #swbp
14:35:34 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #swbp
14:35:44 [FabGandon_]
scribe: FabGandon_
14:35:49 [FabGandon_]
ibby: to review after revision
14:35:50 [bwm_]
bwm_ has joined #swbp
14:36:12 [dbooth]
s/mike :/mike:/g
14:36:12 [dbooth]
s/ :/:/g
14:36:16 [dbooth]
q?
14:36:22 [bwm_]
q-
14:36:25 [FabGandon_]
libby: document touching too much different problems
14:36:26 [dbooth]
s/ibby/Libby/
14:36:34 [Raphael]
Raphael has joined #swbp
14:36:41 [RalphS]
[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__]
FabGandon__ has joined #swbp
14:38:29 [dwood]
yes?
14:38:44 [dwood]
OK
14:38:49 [danbri_]
danbri_ has joined #swbp
14:39:07 [dwood]
Does anyone have a switch and some cable?
14:39:14 [dwood]
zakim, unmute me
14:39:14 [Zakim]
David_Wood should no longer be muted
14:39:31 [FabGandon]
FabGandon has joined #swbp
14:40:06 [RalphS]
[meeting room scribes going off-line due to network issues at DERI]
14:40:07 [dwood]
zakim, mute me
14:40:07 [Zakim]
David_Wood should now be muted
14:40:19 [bwm__]
bwm__ has joined #swbp
14:40:28 [danbri]
maybe folk who are connected could duplicate some of real scribing, for ralph + david
14:40:28 [danbri]
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 [danbri]
...2 things came to mind
14:40:35 [danbri]
...wasn't clear to me where the work is going
14:40:40 [danbri]
...could that be made clearer?
14:40:49 [danbri]
... was left w/ feeling "ok interesting - but what next?"
14:41:00 [danbri]
j: see the 'what next' docs
14:41:10 [danbri]
david: title seems broader than the actual paper
14:41:17 [danbri]
...suggest narrowing the title
14:41:21 [dbooth]
dbooth has joined #swbp
14:41:24 [danbri]
j: i'll have to think about that
14:41:37 [danbri]
d: what i read was a good description of use the cases
14:41:46 [RalphS]
j = jacco
14:41:53 [danbri]
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 [RalphS]
d = dbooth
14:42:02 [danbri]
...prob is that the meet re tools + vocabs is in the other vocabs
14:42:12 [danbri]
dbooth: since i didn't see the other docs, i can't comment
14:42:19 [danbri]
jacco: may be we can scope title better
14:42:32 [danbri]
raphael: [missed point re a proposal from ralph]
14:42:44 [danbri]
jacco: i like suggestion from ralph to do it in a wiki context
14:42:47 [danbri]
raphael: ok
14:42:58 [Ben-scribe]
Ben-scribe has joined #swbp
14:43:01 [danbri]
jacco: 1 more request for libby -- -re targetting communities for public feedback
14:43:03 [danbri]
libby: certainly
14:43:18 [Ben-scribe]
Guus: online scribing is off. We try to fix asap. Even wire has a problem.
14:43:23 [danbri]
guus: i'm going to propose to this wg to publish an edited version, at editor's discretion
14:43:38 [RalphS]
I object to publishing this until Jane Hunter's status is corrected
14:43:40 [danbri]
ben-scribe --- is my psueo-scribing ok here?
14:43:51 [danbri]
q+ to note ralph objection
14:43:58 [danbri]
(missed point vfrom brian)
14:44:22 [danbri]
jjc: [missed]
14:44:28 [bwm__]
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 [bwm__]
jacco: yes
14:44:58 [danbri]
guus: publish 2 conditions. (1) IP issue resolved to ralph's satisfaction (2) jane hunter ack / status is resolved
14:45:07 [RalphS]
yes, once Jane Hunter has Invited Expert status I am OK with publishing
14:45:09 [danbri]
... under those conditions i propose to publish this as a wd of swbpd wg
14:45:14 [danbri]
...with editorial discretion
14:45:35 [danbri]
ralph: what does editorial discretion mean?
14:45:44 [danbri]
guus: take on board comments from wg
14:46:03 [danbri]
ralph: i'd feel more comfortable with specifics, eg. 'take on mikes xyz comments' not a general open door to changes
14:46:12 [danbri]
guus: mike, jeremy, libby, david's comments
14:46:26 [RalphS]
fine to that list of specific comments
14:46:57 [ChrisW]
!-2^david^dbooth^
14:46:58 [danbri]
danbri: relays jjc's concern to ralph
14:46:59 [danbri]
ralph: ack'd
14:47:16 [dbooth]
s/david/dbooth/
14:47:20 [danbri]
guus: accepted by consensus. thanks editors!
14:47:25 [danbri]
(no objections etc)
14:47:49 [danbri]
action on taskforce coordinations to prepare a version for publication
14:48:23 [danbri]
jacco: existing standards won't go away
14:49:00 [val]
val has joined #swbp
14:49:17 [danbri]
...existing standards interop w/ rdf etc [missed detail]
14:52:05 [danbri]
raphael: there's currently 3 or 4 versions of mpeg 7 [ in rdf/owl?? -danbri]
14:52:09 [danbri]
...don't model things in same way
14:52:23 [danbri]
...semantic vs syntactic interop
14:52:32 [danbri]
guus: are you saying the standard is ambiguous?
14:52:43 [danbri]
jacco: problem of lack of formal semantics...
14:53:21 [danbri]
chris: re wordnet, skos ... similar role --- formalising things that haven't been yet
14:53:30 [danbri]
[tm also, i think]
14:53:54 [danbri]
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 [danbri]
[valentina arrived just after lunch]
14:54:09 [dbooth]
s/coching/couching/
14:54:12 [RalphS]
zakim, Valentina has arrived in meeetingroom
14:54:12 [Zakim]
sorry, RalphS, I do not recognize a party named 'meeetingroom'
14:54:17 [RalphS]
zakim, Valentina has arrived in meetingroom
14:54:17 [Zakim]
+Valentina; got it
14:54:32 [ChrisW]
zakim, philT has arrived in meetingroom
14:54:32 [Zakim]
+philT; got it
14:54:40 [danbri]
[missed]
14:54:49 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is here?
14:54:49 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ralph (muted), David_Wood (muted), MeetingRoom
14:54:50 [Zakim]
MeetingRoom has Valentina, philT
14:54:51 [Zakim]
On IRC I see val, Ben-scribe, dbooth, bwm__, danbri, Raphael, ChrisW, jjc, vassilis, libby, Guus, dwood, Zakim, RRSAgent, RalphS
14:55:41 [Elisa]
Elisa has joined #swbp
14:55:43 [RalphS]
oh, when the connection was lost zakim erased his memory
14:56:54 [danbri]
[...]
14:57:03 [danbri]
mike: this is great, ... but scope seems enormous
14:57:08 [danbri]
..."boy that's a lot of work!"
14:57:13 [danbri]
jacco: i think impossible before feb
14:57:20 [danbri]
mike: perhaps a cursory treatment of each?
14:57:25 [Guus]
q?
14:57:26 [ChrisW]
zakim, meetingroom also has guus, jacco, alistair, danbri, dbooth, brianmcb, debm
14:57:26 [Zakim]
+guus, jacco, alistair, danbri, dbooth, brianmcb, debm; got it
14:57:28 [danbri]
mike: can't poss do a good set of recommendations on that schedule
14:57:29 [danbri]
q-
14:57:38 [danbri]
...10-12 pages, several parags for each
14:57:45 [dbooth]
q?
14:58:05 [FabGandon]
FabGandon has joined #swbp
14:58:08 [RalphS]
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 [Zakim]
alistair was already listed in MeetingRoom, RalphS
14:58:09 [Zakim]
danbri was already listed in MeetingRoom, RalphS
14:58:10 [Zakim]
jacco was already listed in MeetingRoom, RalphS
14:58:11 [Zakim]
guus was already listed in MeetingRoom, RalphS
14:58:13 [Zakim]
dbooth was already listed in MeetingRoom, RalphS
14:58:14 [Zakim]
+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 [RalphS]
oops
14:58:28 [RalphS]
sorry, Chris
14:58:31 [ChrisW]
ok
14:58:37 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is here?
14:58:37 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ralph (muted), David_Wood (muted), MeetingRoom
14:58:38 [Zakim]
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 [Zakim]
... Evan, Elisa, ChrisW, MikeU, Brian, Aldo, JeffP, GavinMacKenzie, Deb
14:58:43 [Zakim]
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]
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 [danbri]
guus: [summarises for ralph]
15:00:10 [danbri]
ralph: i agree w/ danbri's concerns
15:00:16 [danbri]
...maybe other options
15:00:22 [danbri]
...eg. to work on specific vocabs
15:00:34 [danbri]
...that seems to me that it might be a candidate for a 'w3c incubator group
15:00:40 [danbri]
[ a new mechanism within w3c]
15:00:57 [danbri]
...an incubator [aka "XG"]
15:01:03 [danbri]
jacco: pls post a pointer
15:01:05 [RalphS]
Incubator Group is an option for working on vocabularies
15:01:05 [ChrisW]
q?
15:01:11 [danbri]
jjc: on dan's point re intellectual policy
15:01:18 [danbri]
...w3c patent policy only applies to rec-track
15:01:23 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #swbp
15:01:31 [danbri]
...so if there is concern re IP, then that could be an arg for patent policy
15:01:49 [danbri]
...even in a wg context, targetting a wg note, patent policy is largely silent
15:02:04 [danbri]
...so, in as much as there are patent in this
15:02:16 [danbri]
... a rec-track might be needed
15:02:27 [aharth]
aharth has joined #swbp
15:03:41 [danbri]
[...]
15:03:56 [danbri]
jacco: if the wg is to be rechartered, when might we know this?
15:04:02 [danbri]
ralph: you'll know that, when there's a proposal to the ac, to recharter groups
15:04:14 [danbri]
...its not likely to happen much before end of january
15:04:20 [danbri]
jjc: historically, many groups have over-run
15:04:32 [danbri]
ralph: [missed]
15:04:47 [danbri]
phil t: what are we talking about exactly re new charters?
15:04:48 [RalphS]
yes, true that groups have over-run their charter but that's not recommended
15:04:56 [danbri]
guus: could be a simple exstension, or it could be new wgs etc
15:05:04 [danbri]
phil: seems significant work and potentially part of a new charter
15:05:22 [danbri]
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 [danbri]
...we've seen precisely that happen.
15:05:45 [RalphS]
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 [danbri]
...i think, over course of the 2 days, we're getting a sense of what each tf needs
15:06:05 [danbri]
...summarise in afternoon
15:06:20 [danbri]
phil t: i agree w/ jjc's point re ipr
15:06:31 [danbri]
...originally at time group started, different aspirations around semweb
15:06:44 [Zakim]
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 [danbri]
...does it need to change? maturity? areas of interest?
15:06:52 [danbri]
ralph: [as above]
15:07:02 [danbri]
...i strongly recommend that this wg work within its charter scope
15:07:06 [danbri]
...both timelines and otherwise
15:07:16 [danbri]
...thats not to say that we shouldn't continue working up until very last moment
15:07:35 [danbri]
...the MM TF helps us all understand this area
15:07:52 [danbri]
...all these questions (what happens where, etc) ... are informed by what goes on in the TF now
15:08:15 [danbri]
...but please don't assume you can continue on past end of january unaffected
15:08:29 [danbri]
...q of what happens after Feb ... we'll keep talking about that between now and then
15:08:46 [danbri]
guus: as we discuss each TF, ... will make a list w/ status of each TF, get a sense of scenarios...
15:09:22 [danbri]
[...]
15:09:31 [danbri]
guus: to contiue this, need to make it part of a new charter
15:09:44 [RalphS]
-> 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 [danbri]
...within 6 months we might have a better stab at 1st note but not a great deal more
15:10:18 [danbri]
mike: there is an overlap betwene this [?] note and an [?] OEP one
15:10:48 [danbri]
guus: multimedia perspective... refelcts a different standards community
15:10:48 [danbri]
mike: agreed
15:10:52 [danbri]
...what would be done, ...eg take EXIF thing for pixel, ... and show owl:sameAs pixelsize or whatever
15:11:11 [danbri]
...the things you use to declare mappings, will be the mechnisms we talk about in OEP
15:11:26 [danbri]
jacco: re incubator, i think ralph was suggestiong that mainly for vocab work
15:11:36 [danbri]
guus: we won't make a decision now; this is input for final discussions
15:11:50 [danbri]
g: what was decision re structure?
15:11:57 [danbri]
j: not deciding now
15:12:04 [danbri]
g: we're plannign to end this deliverable on time?
15:12:16 [danbri]
j: will re-visit at end of this f2f
15:12:20 [danbri]
g: and discuss then the structure?
15:12:29 [danbri]
j: do that offline, well, on the mailing list
15:12:38 [danbri]
g=georges(?sorry)
15:12:42 [danbri]
guus: ..[missed]
15:12:52 [danbri]
...depends on outcome of futures discussion tommrorow
15:13:12 [ChrisW]
guus: woudl be useful to put a stake inthe ground re: interop note
15:13:15 [danbri]
raphael: ...is there already an XG?
15:13:22 [danbri]
danbri: none that i know of
15:14:00 [danbri]
[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]
gs has joined #swbp
15:14:15 [danbri]
jacco: [...] VRA Core
15:14:24 [danbri]
...specific things for images. A bias towards cultural heritage.
15:14:35 [danbri]
...Mark V has been working hard on a schema rdfs/owl for VRA
15:14:49 [danbri]
(mark van assem)
15:15:00 [danbri]
...if we could have a vra schema w/ similar acceptance to Dublin Core's
15:15:12 [danbri]
jacco: so q to the wg... is this an actviity suited to this wg?
15:15:23 [RalphS]
q+
15:15:38 [RalphS]
q+ to say that XG is definitely appropriate for the VRA vocabulary work
15:15:50 [ChrisW]
can we get the URL?
15:15:59 [ChrisW]
is this document on line?
15:16:00 [Elisa]
Elisa has joined #swbp
15:16:16 [RalphS]
q+ to remind us about "best practice"
15:16:20 [Zakim]
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 [danbri]
...how do we move it forward?
15:16:24 [danbri]
[...]
15:16:37 [danbri]
ralph: VRA vocab... that kind of work is exactly what an incubator group is appropriate to do
15:16:40 [Raphael]
This one Chris ? http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/MM/vra-conversion.html
15:16:53 [danbri]
...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 [danbri]
...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 [gs]
q+
15:17:25 [danbri]
...neither to me seem to match original expectations for this wg
15:17:42 [danbri]
...more about nominiating some current practices as best practices
15:17:53 [danbri]
..premature to consider that work as a best practice
15:18:03 [danbri]
...maybe for an XG, possibily for a WG
15:18:12 [danbri]
guus: i have a number of doubts
15:18:15 [danbri]
...maybe other suggestions
15:18:35 [danbri]
...i wrote the first vra schema, as a test... was approached by Linda C by vra
15:18:54 [danbri]
...unsure about how it is being maintained
15:19:00 [danbri]
...not sure this is a problem
15:19:16 [danbri]
...in terms of content, it is exellently done. a nicely used 'dumb down' principle (from dublin core)
15:19:20 [danbri]
...but needs to be a community behind it
15:19:28 [danbri]
...also: this is very skos related
15:19:43 [danbri]
...has many of the issues...
15:19:43 [RalphS]
-> 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 [danbri]
...closer to skos
15:20:13 [danbri]
jacco: tools + vocab doc uses the schema
15:20:28 [danbri]
chris: using vra is similar to skos?!
15:20:40 [danbri]
guus: many issues that are in the same .... from same community
15:20:52 [danbri]
vra = visual resource association
15:21:00 [danbri]
... vra core categories, v 3.0
15:21:14 [danbri]
...is owl Full
15:21:19 [danbri]
...specialises DC
15:21:39 [danbri]
aldo: it's not a thesaurus...
15:21:43 [danbri]
jacco: more like dublin core
15:22:29 [danbri]
al: dublin core and skos are natural partners
15:22:34 [danbri]
guus: yes, natural partners
15:22:44 [danbri]
chris: [not same, just related ok]
15:23:05 [danbri]
al: imporant for dc and skos to grow together
15:23:15 [danbri]
...to have them related sociallly is important
15:24:41 [Ben-scribe]
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 [danbri]
al: dcmi usage board moving towards endorsing external refinements
15:25:15 [danbri]
[rather than trying to do everything monolithically]
15:25:44 [danbri]
mike: those [dc] extensions... any concern about rubberstamping incompatible extensions?
15:26:09 [danbri]
guus: built into dc, the dumb down rules, ... fact of life that people need the extensions
15:26:44 [Ben-scribe]
Danbri: lots of discussions in the DC world. This should allow cleaner extensions.
15:27:57 [bwm_]
bwm_ has joined #swbp
15:27:59 [FabGandon_]
FabGandon_ has joined #swbp
15:28:08 [libby_]
libby_ has joined #swbp
15:28:24 [danbri_]
danbri_ has joined #swbp
15:28:31 [dbooth2]
dbooth2 has joined #swbp
15:28:33 [vasilis]
vasilis has joined #swbp
15:28:34 [danbri_]
[oof, network vanished briefly]
15:28:48 [rtroncy]
rtroncy has joined #swbp
15:28:53 [dwood]
15:15-16:30
15:28:53 [dwood]
RDFTM TF
15:29:09 [RalphS]
Topic: RDFTM TF
15:29:11 [danbri_]
guus: welcome valentina
15:29:27 [danbri_]
[coffee until quarter-two]
15:30:27 [jeremy]
jeremy has joined #swbp
15:32:25 [Benjamin]
Benjamin has joined #swbp
15:44:17 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #swbp
15:47:41 [ChrisW-scribe]
ChrisW-scribe has joined #swbp
15:47:49 [aharth]
aharth has joined #swbp
15:49:19 [Benjamin]
jjc: meeting for the xml datatypes after end of this meeting
15:50:03 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #swbp
15:50:44 [raphael]
Jacco is scribing off-line ...
15:51:11 [raphael]
jjc makes an announcement for a small working group before the dinner tonight on XML Schema datatypes
15:51:46 [dwood]
zakim, unmute me
15:51:46 [Zakim]
David_Wood should no longer be muted
15:52:44 [dwood]
zakim, mute me
15:52:44 [Zakim]
David_Wood should now be muted
15:53:58 [vassilis]
vassilis has joined #swbp
15:53:59 [Jacco]
Jeremy: XML Schema datatypes break out session 45 minutes after the end of this meeting
15:54:20 [Benjamin]
valentina: the document contains a survey of existing proposals
15:54:21 [Jacco]
Andreas: Dinner starts at 20:00
15:54:27 [Jacco]
Guus: tomorrow we start at 9:00, on SE and Schema datatypes, coffee break, moved OEP discussion to after lunch
15:54:42 [Jacco]
Now: A+D, tutorial, vocab. management task force. SKOS-break out directly after coofee break, after lunch OEP
15:54:48 [Jacco]
Now: A+D, tutorial, vocab. management task force. SKOS-break out directly after coofee break, after lunch OEP
15:54:50 [Benjamin]
... we have studied those proposals to identify the mapping issues to address, to define guidelines for rdf topic maps interoperability
15:54:55 [Jacco]
Ralph: possible for me to participate in the SKOS-break out?
15:55:02 [Jacco]
Ralph: possible for me to participate in the SKOS-break out?
15:55:10 [Jacco]
Dan: no, is in parallel with SPARQL
15:55:40 [Benjamin]
val: would like comments on structure of document
15:55:41 [Jacco]
Topic: RDF/TM
15:55:51 [RalphS]
s/Ralph:/DWood:/
15:56:03 [RalphS]
s/Ralph: poss/DWood: poss/
15:56:07 [Jacco]
Valentina presenting slides, sorry I missed that
15:57:24 [Jacco]
valentina is posting url of her slides...
15:57:43 [dbooth2]
Slides: http://tesi.fabio.web.cs.unibo.it/RDFTM/TDFTMMappingGuidelines
15:57:52 [dbooth2]
(if I typed the URL correctly)
15:58:40 [raphael]
same here ...
15:58:44 [Jacco]
Jacco has joined #swbp
15:58:57 [dbooth2]
Valentina: (in response to question about auth challenge on the page) strange.
16:00:03 [Benjamin]
correc URL is : http://tesi.fabio.web.cs.unibo.it/RDFTM/RDFTMMappingGuidelines
16:00:09 [Jacco]
intro with glossery of terms so both communties agree on this
16:00:29 [Jacco]
2nd section of draft is about requirements
16:00:54 [Jacco]
today I will show you the informal description section
16:01:25 [dbooth2]
s|Slides: http://tesi.fabio.web.cs.unibo.it/RDFTM/TDFTMMappingGuidelines||
16:01:44 [Jacco]
proposed solution on the data level of RDF/TM interoperability
16:01:49 [dbooth2]
s/(if I typed the URL correctly)//
16:01:59 [dbooth2]
s/same here ...//
16:02:10 [Jacco]
- how to author RDF or TM documents with max operability
16:02:11 [dbooth2]
s/correc /Slide /
16:02:57 [Jacco]
discuss goals and non goals, see slides
16:03:16 [Jacco]
non goal: provide unified model
16:03:41 [Jacco]
approach: define vocabulary for the mapping
16:03:56 [Jacco]
+ guidance
16:04:35 [Jacco]
we have no addressed issues on guided translations
16:05:02 [Jacco]
it possible to obtain a better translations if you have guidance
16:05:22 [Jacco]
slide explaining LTM syntax
16:05:59 [Jacco]
1st block represents TM assertion, a is a topic with name "name"
16:06:18 [Jacco]
in TM we have 2 types of IDs
16:06:26 [Jacco]
in RDF you id by URI
16:07:06 [Jacco]
in TM the URI can be a subject id, when the topic defines a information resource descring a subject
16:07:50 [Jacco]
or it IDs an abstract concept
16:08:51 [Benjamin]
Benjamin has joined #swbp
16:11:11 [Jacco]
correction to the above: URI is either a subject locator or a subject identifier
16:11:37 [Jacco]
topic also have variant names
16:11:55 [Jacco]
within a certain scope s
16:12:23 [Jacco]
last block is a binary association, p is the name of the association
16:12:31 [dbooth2]
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 [Jacco]
valentina discusses examples of typical mappings
16:15:04 [dbooth2]
s/Subject indicator/Subject identifier/
16:17:42 [dbooth]
ScribeNick: aliman_scribe
16:17:46 [dbooth]
Scribe: Alistair
16:18:18 [aliman_scribe]
danbri: pat hayes had comments on this point ... formalisation should happen soon ...
16:18:36 [RalphS]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0216.html Pat Hayes' comments
16:18:51 [aliman_scribe]
see pat hayes email ...
16:19:13 [dbooth]
Pat Hayes email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0216.html
16:19:18 [aliman_scribe]
val: if a resource is explicitly defined as type information resource, then we knoe the URI must become a subject locator ...
16:19:49 [danbri]
[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 [aliman_scribe]
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 [aliman_scribe]
... val: but this is guided translation, and you should be explicit about what is and is not an information resource ...
16:20:28 [aliman_scribe]
and without guidance, assume not.
16:20:55 [aliman_scribe]
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 [aliman_scribe]
val: yes. If you don't have this particular guidance, you fall into the unguided translation ...
16:21:45 [aliman_scribe]
we don't deal with identity in the unguided translation, so this coudl change in the unguided translation ...
16:22:13 [Elisa]
Elisa has joined #swbp
16:22:39 [aliman_scribe]
this point for unguiged transaltion is undecided as yet.
16:24:22 [dwood]
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 [aliman_scribe]
al notes that angle brackets are missing for the long URLs in notation3 example
16:25:49 [aliman_scribe]
val: we define that iso:topic-name is a NamingProperty ...
16:26:33 [dwood]
q+ to ask Valentina about the mapping of RDF to TM Models
16:26:35 [aliman_scribe]
if we had no subject locator, we would use one subject identifier chosen at random as the URI of the resource ...
16:26:49 [aliman_scribe]
danbri: what do you do with the others?
16:27:12 [aliman_scribe]
val: if you have more than one subject locator, one is URI, others are owl:sameAs
16:28:46 [aliman_scribe]
val: when you have more than one subject identifier in the topic, one becomes URI for the resource ..
16:28:56 [aliman_scribe]
others become subject identifier properties.
16:29:03 [aliman_scribe]
Al; this is wrong
16:29:30 [RalphS]
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 [aliman_scribe]
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]
ChrisW-scribe has joined #swbp
16:30:12 [RalphS]
e.g. [ rfdtm:subjectIdentifier :a ] owl:sameAs [ rdftm:subjectIdentifier :b ]
16:30:41 [aliman_scribe]
danbri: sameas is ok ... you have the property subjectIdentifier turn one into URI ... ?
16:30:47 [RalphS]
^ implied by some relationship between :a and :b
16:31:02 [aliman_scribe]
val: talk about it later ...
16:31:26 [aliman_scribe]
jjc: in terms of document this is wrong, because it contradicts MUSTs, becomes non-deterministic
16:32:02 [RalphS]
I think it's incorrect (re: slide 11) to say that a subjectIdentifier URI becomes the URI of the topic resource
16:32:08 [aliman_scribe]
val: identity is the most complex issue
16:32:22 [RalphS]
... a subjectIdentifier appears always to be an information resource that is (intended to be) interpreted by a human
16:32:23 [aliman_scribe]
jjc: if you choose the first, you get round tripping, if you choose at random, you don't
16:32:35 [danbri]
[..ooOO ("could you get different graphs, but the same inferences out via the sameAs claims?") ]
16:32:46 [aliman_scribe]
jacco: is the order of the subject identifiers relevant?
16:33:09 [RalphS]
[I can't follow the voices enough to know whether I should interject that comment or not]
16:34:00 [aliman_scribe]
val: we would like to discuss this, lars marius has the idea presented, i see all the points made here ...
16:34:03 [RalphS]
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 [aliman_scribe]
still an issue, would like to discuss further on the list and work out a solution.
16:34:24 [RalphS]
perhaps f2f time is best used in discussing approach
16:34:34 [aliman_scribe]
guus: what is status of the task force?
16:34:52 [danbri]
[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 [danbri]
q?
16:35:42 [dwood]
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]
benadida has joined #swbp
16:36:03 [dwood]
zakim, unmute me
16:36:03 [Zakim]
David_Wood should no longer be muted
16:36:15 [Zakim]
David_Wood, you wanted to ask Valentina about the mapping of RDF to TM Models
16:36:48 [benadida]
zakim, call me
16:36:48 [Zakim]
Sorry, benadida; you need to be more specific about your location
16:37:49 [Zakim]
+Ben_Adida
16:38:22 [dwood]
zakim, mute me
16:38:22 [Zakim]
David_Wood should now be muted
16:38:42 [benadida]
zakim, mute me
16:38:42 [Zakim]
Ben_Adida should now be muted
16:40:50 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #swbp
16:40:59 [jeremy]
jeremy has joined #swbp
16:41:24 [raphael]
raphael has joined #swbp
16:41:37 [libby_]
libby_ has joined #swbp
16:41:53 [bwm_]
bwm_ has joined #swbp
16:42:01 [raphael]
Al is still scribing but offline ... (connexion lost again!)
16:42:35 [bwm_]
valentina: idea was to finish in December
16:42:39 [bwm_]
... but this was not possible
16:42:47 [dbooth]
dbooth has joined #swbp
16:42:56 [bwm_]
guus: this is a draft
16:43:04 [bwm_]
... we could have an editors draft
16:43:18 [bwm_]
... and it will take time to get wg consensus on publishing a working draft
16:43:31 [bwm_]
... my guess is this is a 3-4 month process to get to wd status
16:43:43 [bwm_]
... and not sure this is realistic
16:43:54 [bwm_]
jjc: would it be better to take current wd to a note
16:44:00 [bwm_]
guus: its not in a final state
16:44:19 [bwm_]
... we would like editors to say they think they are done having processed all comments
16:44:31 [bwm_]
... maybe all we should do is publish this survey
16:44:55 [bwm_]
... maybe that would not be all we wanted, but it is something
16:45:17 [bwm_]
valentina: we have already addressed reviews on wd
16:45:27 [bwm_]
jjc: so it would be acheivable to produce a note
16:45:36 [dwood]
Are you discussing not attempting to publish http://tesi.fabio.web.cs.unibo.it/RDFTM/RDFTMInteroperabilityGuidelinesSteveDraft ?
16:45:43 [bwm_]
... the current doc is unlikely to be finishable in the time frame
16:45:47 [dwood]
or a different document?
16:45:50 [bwm_]
... better to aim at something achievable
16:46:02 [danbri_]
danbri_ has joined #swbp
16:46:02 [bwm_]
guus: my suggestion is
16:46:14 [bwm_]
... take current wd and bring it to note by end of charter of wg
16:46:36 [bwm_]
... have internal dicsussion with task force about what could be done beyond the charter
16:46:44 [bwm_]
... then we could look at options
16:46:57 [bwm_]
... the earlier you do this, the more time we have to discuss options
16:47:15 [bwm_]
... that would be a consensus of the tf as a whole
16:47:26 [bwm_]
... if the wg gets rechartered we are committed to ...
16:47:34 [dwood]
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 [bwm_]
valentina: I will schedule a tf telecon to discuss this and post results to the list
16:47:52 [bwm_]
guus: I'm looking for possible ways to continue
16:48:01 [bwm_]
... and as a minimal thing complete the note
16:48:09 [RalphS]
I believe the "current draft" is http://tesi.fabio.web.cs.unibo.it/RDFTM/RDFTMInteroperabilityGuidelines as per the Agenda
16:48:10 [bwm_]
... and don't underestimate the time it will take to do that
16:48:18 [bwm_]
... first it has to be reviewed by the WG
16:48:28 [RalphS]
(and per Valentina's msg of 27 Oct http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0215.html )
16:48:31 [dwood]
zakim, unmute me
16:48:31 [Zakim]
David_Wood should no longer be muted
16:48:31 [bwm_]
jjc: its realistic to do that in the time frame but its not trivial
16:48:36 [bwm_]
guus: any more comments
16:48:45 [bwm_]
jjc: I will send email on the doc we had to review
16:49:09 [bwm_]
davidW: what are turning into a note?
16:49:13 [Zakim]
David_Wood, you wanted to ask if the "current wd" under discussion is the Guidelines for RDF/TM Interoperability at
16:49:13 [bwm_]
guus: the survey
16:49:15 [Zakim]
... http://tesi.fabio.web.cs.unibo.it/RDFTM/RDFTMInteroperabilityGuidelinesSteveDraft
16:49:27 [bwm_]
... because that's all we have time for
16:49:32 [aliman_scribe]
aliman_scribe has joined #swbp
16:49:39 [bwm_]
davidW: thats fine
16:49:43 [bwm_]
guus: any more comments
16:49:52 [bwm_]
q?
16:49:54 [dwood]
zakim, mute me
16:49:54 [Zakim]
David_Wood should now be muted
16:50:02 [FabGandon]
FabGandon has joined #swbp
16:50:14 [bwm_]
danbri: I wanted to ask about reification but that takes too long
16:50:19 [aliman_scribe]
[scribing posting offline notes] ...
16:50:35 [aliman_scribe]
davidw: because too hard?
16:50:35 [RalphS]
(Guus clarifies; the Survey WD is the document targetted at Note)
16:50:37 [bwm_]
note: bwm's scribing is unofficial
16:50:39 [aliman_scribe]
val: there we many discussions re mapping at the level of the models ...
16:50:44 [aliman_scribe]
personally i think it's not possible ...
16:50:48 [aliman_scribe]
we haven't discussed in TF
16:50:50 [benadida]
zakim, unmute me
16:50:50 [Zakim]
Ben_Adida should no longer be muted
16:50:53 [aliman_scribe]
val: next steps too address n-ary relations issues, and reification ...
16:50:58 [aliman_scribe]
n-ary relations mandatory to collaborate on a vocabulary (???) ...
16:51:03 [aliman_scribe]
we need to identify the best formalism for defining mapping rules ...
16:51:04 [RalphS]
[thanks, Brian, informality acknowledged and very much appreciated]
16:51:08 [aliman_scribe]
writing down of the rule formally
16:51:11 [aliman_scribe]
and resolve the identity issue
16:51:16 [aliman_scribe]
guus: what is timeline?
16:51:24 [aliman_scribe]
val: no official timeline, discussing with tf members, also depends on the WG future
16:51:28 [aliman_scribe]
guus: not completed by 1st feb
16:51:34 [aliman_scribe]
... so what is required to finish this work? ... can then look for organisational strucutre to do this ...
16:51:38 [aliman_scribe]
val: idea was to finish december, but not possible ...
16:51:46 [Zakim]
-Ben_Adida
16:51:47 [aliman_scribe]
think we can have a draft for 1st feb ...
16:52:37 [aliman_scribe]
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 [aliman_scribe]
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 [aliman_scribe]
maybe several months ... not realistic
16:53:20 [ChrisW-scribe]
ChrisW-scribe has joined #swbp
16:53:20 [aliman_scribe]
jjc: time better spent bringin current WD to working group note?
16:53:25 [aliman_scribe]
jjc: publishing a final version of this document is solid achievement realistic in time
16:53:29 [aliman_scribe]
... current sketch of doc will take a lot of time to finish ...
16:53:34 [aliman_scribe]
better to aim at acheivable goal.
16:53:37 [aliman_scribe]
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 [aliman_scribe]
then if we have specific proposal, then we can look at options to satisfy ...
16:53:58 [aliman_scribe]
earlier you do this, earlier we can adapt WG planning ...
16:54:03 [aliman_scribe]
but this needs consensus of TF as a whole, to say that we are committed to continuing this work.
16:54:08 [aliman_scribe]
val: will schedule next telecon and decide these things, then post to list.
16:54:12 [aliman_scribe]
guus: expect proposal for how to continue, and as minimal thing to produce this Note ...
16:54:16 [aliman_scribe]
jjc: realistic to do within timeframe, but not trivial!
16:54:21 [aliman_scribe]
davidw: is uni bologna wiki draft the thing we're going to make into a note?
16:54:27 [aliman_scribe]
guus: no only the survey.
16:55:15 [danbri]
http://tesi.fabio.web.cs.unibo.it/twiki/pub/RDFTM/RDFTMMappingGuidelines/RDFTMGuidelines.pdf <- accessible now
17:00:55 [Zakim]
+Ben_Adida
17:03:06 [benadida]
zakim, mute me
17:03:06 [Zakim]
Ben_Adida should now be muted
17:03:12 [benadida]
and now, Ralph? :)
17:03:20 [libby_]
ralph: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicecupoftea/59738682/
17:03:37 [libby_]
(not very exciting)
17:03:50 [benadida]
zakim, unmute me
17:03:50 [Zakim]
Ben_Adida should no longer be muted
17:04:52 [libby_]
http://swordfish.rdfweb.org/photos/2005/11/04/ <- photos from earlier
17:06:17 [bwm_scribe]
ben: the tf has been meeting regularly making progress on rdf/a
17:06:36 [bwm_scribe]
... sent two docs that represent the latest rdf/a
17:06:38 [benadida]
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-rdfa-primer
17:06:56 [bwm_scribe]
... the first one summarises the issues
17:07:04 [bwm_scribe]
... reflects our current thinking
17:07:15 [bwm_scribe]
... there is a big issue
17:07:20 [bwm_scribe]
... the curie issue
17:07:26 [RalphS]
Topic: RDF-in-XHTML
17:07:33 [bwm_scribe]
... the rest is fairly uncontroversial
17:07:44 [bwm_scribe]
... i can go through and do some examples
17:08:07 [bwm_scribe]
guus: we will try to project now
17:08:14 [bwm_scribe]
... can you indicate the main changes
17:08:23 [bwm_scribe]
... after boston discussion
17:08:31 [bwm_scribe]
ben: the main development since then
17:08:39 [bwm_scribe]
... is the simplificcation of the inheritance rules
17:08:59 [aharth]
aharth has joined #swbp
17:09:05 [Benjamin]
Benjamin has joined #swbp
17:09:05 [bwm_scribe]
... originally we tried to represent arbitrary rdf graphs which generated a lot of triples
17:09:15 [bwm_scribe]
guus: we now have the doc on screen
17:09:37 [bwm_scribe]
ben: with simplified inheritance of attributes
17:09:48 [bwm_scribe]
... but cannot represent arbitrary rdf graph
17:09:54 [bwm_scribe]
... but greatly simplifies things
17:10:12 [bwm_scribe]
... guus should I do a few important examples
17:10:22 [bwm_scribe]
guus: a few examples and then questions
17:10:22 [jeremy]
q+ to mention xml:lang issue
17:10:37 [bwm_scribe]
ben: look at 2.1
17:10:40 [bwm_scribe]
... using prop attributes to designate rdf triple
17:10:58 [RalphS]
-> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-rdfa-primer#id0x057a8758 Textual Properties
17:11:01 [bwm_scribe]
... using attributes like rel and rev and about
17:11:07 [bwm_scribe]
... nothing that is surprising
17:11:22 [bwm_scribe]
... once something is an object, it cannot be retasked as a subject
17:11:27 [bwm_scribe]
... have to repeat the uri to do that
17:11:41 [bwm_scribe]
... 2.2 shows qualified links using rel attribute
17:11:47 [bwm_scribe]
... can be used on any xhtml element
17:11:59 [bwm_scribe]
... example is creative commons license
17:12:09 [jeremy]
q+ to note XMLLiteral error in examples from primer
17:12:20 [bwm_scribe]
... the rel can be interpretted as a qname, but I'll get back to that
17:12:22 [Zakim]
jeremy, you wanted to mention xml:lang issue and to note XMLLiteral error in examples from primer
17:12:24 [bwm_scribe]
ack jjc
17:12:48 [bwm_scribe]
jjc: back in 2.1 should those not be xml literals rather than plain literals
17:12:49 [Elisa]
Elisa has joined #swbp
17:12:55 [bwm_scribe]
ben: yes - thats an error
17:13:03 [bwm_scribe]
danbri: can you create plain literals
17:13:05 [benadida]
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-rdfa-syntax
17:13:11 [bwm_scribe]
ben: yes - we don't discuss that in the primer
17:13:19 [bwm_scribe]
... see full spec
17:13:26 [jeremy]
q+ to mention xml:lang issue
17:13:34 [bwm_scribe]
... something about datatype plain - missed
17:14:06 [bwm_scribe]
... the syntax doc describes how to handle literals (uri above)
17:14:21 [danbri]
todo for danbri: check range of foaf:name, if it allows xml literal
17:14:25 [bwm_scribe]
... we are working on how to make a literal by concatenating the child element content
17:14:37 [bwm_scribe]
... section 3 introduces about attribute
17:14:50 [bwm_scribe]
... allows to make statement about subjects other than current document
17:14:50 [RalphS]
-> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-rdfa-primer#id0x04b0de70 3.1 Qualifying Other Documents
17:15:00 [bwm_scribe]
... e.g. about a photogrpah in the document
17:15:16 [bwm_scribe]
... in 3.2 we see the qualification of junks of documents
17:15:25 [bwm_scribe]
... give an xml id to an element
17:15:50 [bwm_scribe]
... can use link and meta attributes to make statements about chunks
17:16:11 [bwm_scribe]
... in 3.2 first example box, section id = person, link element off of that
17:16:43 [bwm_scribe]
... there has been talk of syntactic sugar for rdf:type but they are not resolved yet
17:16:50 [bwm_scribe]
... possibly using the class attribute
17:17:05 [bwm_scribe]
danbri: section-id = person
17:17:13 [bwm_scribe]
... is that about the document or the person
17:17:27 [bwm_scribe]
... the claims are about the person not the document
17:17:46 [Vale]
Vale has joined #swbp
17:17:47 [RalphS]
s/section-id = person/<section id="person">/
17:17:50 [bwm_scribe]
ben: that's ok -
17:17:59 [jeremy]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Sep/0020
17:18:01 [bwm_scribe]
danbri: that will be a big conceptual leap for xhtml people
17:18:05 [vpresutt]
vpresutt has joined #swbp
17:18:07 [jeremy]
(answers dan questions)
17:18:20 [jeremy]
q+ to mention discussion of Dan's question
17:18:28 [bwm_scribe]
ben: the point is to be able to support difference between person and their home page
17:18:48 [RalphS]
[I think this example is probably a bad idea -- not good practice]
17:18:54 [bwm_scribe]
... we can designate a chunk of the document to represent the person
17:19:04 [bwm_scribe]
al: it would be much safer not to go there
17:19:21 [bwm_scribe]
... assume frag's within documents denote sections of documents
17:19:29 [bwm_scribe]
ben: I'm confused about the risk here
17:19:42 [bwm_scribe]
jjc: this question is answered in rdf concepts document
17:19:57 [bwm_scribe]
... the frag id is interpretted as an rdf frag id and can denote the person
17:20:04 [dwood]
So how does one attach a property within a section to the base document?
17:20:26 [benadida]
dwood: use the about="" attribute to override the subject
17:20:30 [bwm_scribe]
... it is interpretted in an rdf graph with respect to rdf mime type
17:20:56 [bwm_scribe]
al: what happens when you want to annotate the document
17:21:30 [bwm_scribe]
al: what happens when you want to make statements about the section of the document
17:21:35 [RalphS]
yes, this confusion between fragment of a document vs. Person is real and will continue
17:21:36 [bwm_scribe]
jjc: it gets difficult
17:21:48 [bwm_scribe]
al: then you use one uri to denote two things
17:22:06 [bwm_scribe]
danbri: i said this would be rathole
17:22:18 [bwm_scribe]
al: that's why I say don't go there
17:22:23 [bwm_scribe]
danbri: can you do blank nodes
17:22:25 [bwm_scribe]
ben: yes
17:22:38 [bwm_scribe]
... lets take this point offline - I didn't think we had any controversy yet
17:22:41 [RalphS]
Alistair suggests we could choose a different example and I suspect he's correct
17:23:08 [bwm_scribe]
action: ben to contact alistair on use of frag id's
17:23:47 [bwm_scribe]
- action should include david booth and danbri also
17:23:59 [bwm_scribe]
ben: section 4.1 bnodes is a natural progression what we said
17:24:07 [RalphS]
[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 [bwm_scribe]
... if you don't have an id on a fragment then you get a bnode
17:24:39 [bwm_scribe]
... using link rel
17:24:44 [bwm_scribe]
... see example
17:24:56 [bwm_scribe]
... if you want to give the bnode a name you can
17:25:01 [bwm_scribe]
... see second example
17:25:10 [bwm_scribe]
... ignore the square brackets for now
17:25:24 [Guus]
Guus has joined #swbp
17:25:29 [Guus]
q?
17:25:34 [bwm_scribe]
... you can relate bnodes using the about attribute to designate what bnode you are referring to
17:25:43 [bwm_scribe]
danbri: what is the scope of the bnode name
17:25:50 [bwm_scribe]
ben: yes
17:25:58 [bwm_scribe]
s/yes/ the whole document/
17:26:30 [danbri]
example: if we had some wrapping document eg CDF 2.0 that had sub-islands of rdf/a ...
17:26:33 [bwm_scribe]
davidB: in the generated rdf, what is the current document? The entire document?
17:26:44 [bwm_scribe]
ben: I'm confused - what do you mean by conversion
17:26:45 [danbri]
would those sub-islands of rdf/a (each with their own <head>, arguably?
17:26:45 [RalphS]
q+ to note processing issues
17:26:52 [danbri]
...have bnode IDs in the same space
17:27:00 [bwm_scribe]
davidB: in the example you show the xthml and the resulting RDF
17:27:14 [bwm_scribe]
... the resulting RDf refers to the current document
17:27:22 [bwm_scribe]
ben: its the current uri so the xhtml document
17:27:53 [bwm_scribe]
... section 4.2 has limited support for reification
17:28:03 [bwm_scribe]
... in some useful cases
17:28:08 [bwm_scribe]
... but I'd like to skip this
17:28:17 [giorgos]
giorgos has joined #swbp
17:28:18 [bwm_scribe]
guus: should you mention reification in the primer
17:28:21 [bwm_scribe]
ben: good point
17:28:35 [bwm_scribe]
... we should make this more of a primer
17:28:49 [bwm_scribe]
danbri: I'm going to propose you drop reification
17:28:56 [bwm_scribe]
jjc: I tried to make that point
17:29:12 [bwm_scribe]
ben: I urge you to check out the creative commons and foaf examples
17:29:20 [bwm_scribe]
... the big issue is the compact uri issue
17:29:22 [benadida]
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-10-27-CURIE
17:29:28 [bwm_scribe]
... a large part of which is my fault
17:29:49 [bwm_scribe]
... there was an issue iwth requirements
17:29:52 [Zakim]
-Ralph
17:30:03 [RalphS]
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 [Zakim]
+Ralph
17:35:12 [RalphS]
q+
17:35:23 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #swbp
17:35:49 [RalphS]
q+ to see if there is a sense of the WG resolution regarding the utility of CURIEs
17:35:55 [libby]
libby has joined #swbp
17:36:01 [jeremy]
jeremy has joined #swbp
17:36:09 [aharth]
aharth has joined #swbp
17:36:21 [bwm_scribe]
bwm_scribe has joined #swbp
17:36:29 [bwm_scribe]
back
17:36:41 [bwm_scribe]
scribing interrupted by network failure, continueing offline
17:36:41 [bwm_scribe]
ben: at the end of section 2 in the primer there is a good example of a curie
17:36:41 [bwm_scribe]
... second issue is how can we have subjects and objects that can be uri's or curies
17:36:41 [bwm_scribe]
... so we introduced square bracket notation
17:36:41 [bwm_scribe]
... we considered a lot of different options
17:36:42 [bwm_scribe]
... e.g. different attributes names
17:36:44 [bwm_scribe]
... but this sames cleanest
17:36:46 [bwm_scribe]
... importantly it gives us a solution ot the b-node problem
17:36:48 [bwm_scribe]
... I will put together a doc summarizing our discussions
17:36:50 [bwm_scribe]
guus: I have a question about curies
17:36:52 [bwm_scribe]
ben: yes
17:36:54 [bwm_scribe]
guus: this could create a timing problem
17:36:56 [bwm_scribe]
jjc: I beleive this issue is bang on charter for this task force
17:36:58 [bwm_scribe]
... the length of uri's is a significant barrier to the deployment of semantic web technology
17:37:00 [bwm_scribe]
... if you look at microformats or wiki
17:37:07 [dbooth]
dbooth has joined #swbp
17:37:07 [bwm_scribe]
jjc: its knowledge meeting the web
17:37:27 [bwm_scribe]
guus: he was supporting ben's point about the need for curies
17:37:33 [bwm_scribe]
danbri: consistency is important
17:37:41 [bwm_scribe]
... can rel and href take the same kind of values
17:37:46 [raphael]
raphael has joined #swbp
17:37:53 [bwm_scribe]
ben: good question we are discussing that know
17:37:57 [bwm_scribe]
s/know/now/
17:38:12 [bwm_scribe]
... [missed]
17:38:30 [RalphS]
Ben: we're trying for backward compatibility for some HTML syntax; e.g. rel="next"
17:38:30 [bwm_scribe]
... if you take html from a prior version then rel etc should still work on xhtml 2
17:38:53 [bwm_scribe]
guus: i'm going to give this discussion max 5 mins
17:39:21 [bwm_scribe]
jjc: rel="next" is an unqualified name i.e. from xhtml 2 namespace
17:39:47 [bwm_scribe]
danbri: you mentioned no follow in passing as if that has now been accepted into the namespace
17:40:03 [bwm_scribe]
ben: we have not added no follow into the namespace - bad example
17:40:41 [bwm_scribe]
jacco: current tools will not parse this correctly
17:40:46 [bwm_scribe]
ben: yes - we are looking at that
17:40:52 [RalphS]
q+ to also ask for a sense of the WG about RDF/A as a separate module
17:41:16 [bwm_scribe]
guus: lets have tech discussion on the list and focus now on planning
17:41:17 [jacco]
jacco has joined #swbp
17:41:37 [jeremy]
q+ to mention xml:lang issue
17:41:42 [bwm_scribe]
... what are the task force's plans
17:41:46 [Zakim]
Ralph, you wanted to also ask for a sense of the WG about RDF/A as a separate module
17:41:54 [bwm_scribe]
ack Ralph
17:41:54 [Zakim]
RalphS, you wanted to see if there is a sense of the WG resolution regarding the utility of CURIEs
17:41:54 [Benjamin_]
Benjamin_ has joined #swbp
17:42:12 [bwm_scribe]
ralph: there are two important things the tf needs the wg input on
17:42:43 [bwm_scribe]
... unlike xml namespaces, there are other ways to abbreviate uris
17:43:09 [bwm_scribe]
... it is largely an aesthetic argument being made by those who express concern about curies
17:43:18 [bwm_scribe]
... we have seen a lot of pushback on the curie idea
17:44:06 [bwm_scribe]
... 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 [bwm_scribe]
... second thing relate to question about parsers
17:44:17 [FabGandon]
FabGandon has joined #swbp
17:44:28 [bwm_scribe]
... rdf/a is being done in context of xhtml 2
17:44:49 [bwm_scribe]
... which is sufficiently different to xhtml 1 that tools have to change
17:45:04 [bwm_scribe]
... there is a desire to use rdf/a with other kinds of xml docs
17:45:28 [bwm_scribe]
... how interested is the wg in making this a module that can be used with say svg or xhtml 1
17:45:45 [bwm_scribe]
guus: i'm glad that the tf has made so much progress recently
17:45:57 [bwm_scribe]
... it gives wg as a whole a problem
17:46:06 [bwm_scribe]
... we need time to reflect and think about these issues
17:46:17 [bwm_scribe]
... not comfortable getting an opinion now
17:46:30 [bwm_scribe]
ralph: that's why i said before end of meeting
17:46:42 [bwm_scribe]
guus: like to hear ben's opinion on what can be done by 1/Feb
17:46:43 [RalphS]
(i.e. end of meeting tomorrow)
17:46:51 [bwm_scribe]
ben: is 1/Feb when we should wrap up by
17:47:04 [bwm_scribe]
guus: from a minimialis tpoint of view - yes
17:47:13 [RalphS]
we also have a deadline from the HTML WG charter
17:47:14 [bwm_scribe]
ben: the primer is our main goal in the next couple of weeks
17:47:24 [jeremy]
(further point might be #7 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Oct/0057 )
17:47:26 [dwood]
Doesn't the RDF/A primer rely on getting the syntax doc completed?
17:47:26 [bwm_scribe]
... then do xslt to extract triples
17:47:39 [bwm_scribe]
... we hope to have these docs in business shape by 1/Feb
17:47:48 [jeremy]
q+ to mention HTML WG dependency and timeline
17:47:52 [bwm_scribe]
... we need to discuss their status in terms of wg notes
17:48:09 [bwm_scribe]
guus: I suggest your propose a schedule to bring to wd including review by wg
17:48:24 [bwm_scribe]
... need editors draft before Christmas, preferably earlier
17:48:32 [bwm_scribe]
ben: i think we can do that
17:48:51 [bwm_scribe]
jjc: this tf is also a tf of the xhtml wg
17:49:03 [bwm_scribe]
ben: if it becomes a note - there is the question of where it lives afterwards
17:49:11 [bwm_scribe]
guus: that all has to be discussed
17:49:14 [dwood]
zakim, unmute me
17:49:14 [Zakim]
David_Wood should no longer be muted
17:49:33 [bwm_scribe]
... I would appreciate an output before the end of the charter
17:49:36 [RalphS]
We've been viewing our primary deployment path as via the HTML WG
17:49:40 [bwm_scribe]
... and the primer is a good candidate
17:49:51 [dwood]
q+
17:50:01 [bwm_scribe]
... I'd like to see how to mark up your home page
17:50:14 [bwm_scribe]
... because that was the original goal
17:50:15 [RalphS]
that's why I asked for a sense of the WG resolution on whether that should remain our primary deployment objective
17:50:24 [bwm_scribe]
... maybe that is asking too much
17:50:35 [bwm_scribe]
raph: i appreciate where guus is going
17:50:56 [bwm_scribe]
... this tf has viewed its mission as helping html wg find a solution to include in xhtml 2 specification
17:51:09 [bwm_scribe]
... may be that xhtml wg has a tighter deadline
17:51:26 [bwm_scribe]
... they are supposed to be in last call 9 months ago
17:51:34 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #swbp
17:51:39 [bwm_scribe]
... if our primary deployment task is through xhtml 2
17:51:42 [bwm_scribe]
... we must be part of that
17:52:07 [bwm_scribe]
... if the sense is that a separate module is the way to go we are less tied to their schedule
17:52:15 [bwm_scribe]
... but then this wg would have more to do
17:52:23 [bwm_scribe]
... and we may not be able to do that
17:52:36 [bwm_scribe]
jjc: tight coupling means that eventually the payback is huge
17:52:52 [bwm_scribe]
... doesn't matter if its not done by the end of this wg
17:53:05 [bwm_scribe]
guus: do you have plans for continuation of this wg
17:53:25 [bwm_scribe]
... if bp does not go ahead, does it continue in xhtml
17:53:33 [dwood]
q?
17:53:45 [bwm_scribe]
ralph: there is a lot of pressure to make progress by end of January
17:53:49 [bwm_scribe]
ack jjc
17:53:56 [bwm_scribe]
jjc: there is another issue
17:54:10 [RalphS]
s/by end/before the end/
17:54:10 [bwm_scribe]
... that xml lang gets lost
17:54:19 [bwm_scribe]
guus: lets note that
17:54:21 [jeremy]
(further point might be #7 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Oct/0057 )
17:54:35 [danbri_]
danbri_ has joined #swbp
17:54:45 [jeremy]
I think that will be a big issue ....
17:54:45 [bwm_scribe]
davidW: it seems odd to publish the primer without the spec
17:54:53 [RalphS]
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 [bwm_scribe]
... can we get the syntax doc done
17:55:04 [danbri]
[fwiw I sent mail re rdf/a and reification; jeremy if you could take a look i'd be v grateful]
17:55:04 [bwm_scribe]
ben: I think so - the syntax doc is nearer done
17:55:15 [bwm_scribe]
davidW: lets get it up for review then
17:55:19 [bwm_scribe]
ben: ok
17:55:26 [bwm_scribe]
guus: there are issues to resolve
17:55:28 [bwm_scribe]
ben: yes
17:55:42 [bwm_scribe]
guus: I'd like to see a schedule
17:55:57 [dwood]
zakim, mute me
17:55:57 [Zakim]
David_Wood should now be muted
17:56:02 [bwm_scribe]
action ben produce schedule for getting docs done
17:56:14 [bwm_scribe]
jjc: we could ask tf to publish what we have now for wider review
17:56:25 [dbooth]
s/action ben/ACTION: ben to/
17:56:29 [RalphS]
action: Ben produce schedule for getting RDF/A editor's drafts docs ready for WG review
17:56:33 [bwm_scribe]
guus: you might want to consider publishing what we have if resolving issues will take a while
17:56:36 [FabGandon]
For records info on CURIE: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-10-21-curie
17:56:38 [ChrisW]
NEW OEP EDITOR'S DRAFT: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SemInt/
17:56:42 [ChrisW]
for discussion tomorrow
17:56:49 [ChrisW]
(I don't have email access)
17:57:13 [bwm_scribe]
guus: its nearly 6pm
17:57:22 [bwm_scribe]
... we started 30 mins late and finish 30 mins late
17:57:33 [bwm_scribe]
... thank you ben
17:57:45 [bwm_scribe]
... thanks david and ralph for joining us
17:58:04 [bwm_scribe]
... there is an updated schedule for tomorrow on the list
17:58:37 [Zakim]
-Ben_Adida
17:58:40 [RalphS]
[happy to finally know how to pronounce "quay".ir
17:58:41 [bwm_scribe]
Andreas: dinner is in Quay street, near spanish arch K C Blakes
17:58:47 [RalphS]
... as "key" :) ]
17:58:52 [bwm_scribe]
ADJOURNED
17:58:52 [Zakim]
-MeetingRoom
17:59:03 [dbooth]
zakim, bye
17:59:03 [Zakim]
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]
Zakim has left #swbp
17:59:06 [Zakim]
... Giorgos_Stoilos, Vassilis, Evan, Elisa, MikeU, Aldo, JeffP, DBooth, DavidBooth, GavinMacKenzie, Deb, MeetingRoom, Stefan_Decker, Valentina, philT, brianmcb, debm, Ben_Adida
17:59:16 [RalphS]
rrsagent, pointer?
17:59:16 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2005/11/04-swbp-irc#T17-59-16
17:59:26 [dbooth]
rrsagent, draft minutes
17:59:26 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/11/04-swbp-minutes.html dbooth
18:01:45 [dbooth]
rrsagent, make log public
18:10:53 [RalphS]
rrsagent, bye
18:10:53 [RRSAgent]
I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/04-swbp-actions.rdf :
18:10:53 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ralph to copy the WordNet to CVS space and post URL [1]
18:10:53 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/04-swbp-irc#T13-05-50
18:10:53 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: ben to contact alistair on use of frag id's [2]
18:10:53 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/04-swbp-irc#T17-23-08
18:10:53 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ben produce schedule for getting RDF/A editor's drafts docs ready for WG review [3]
18:10:53 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/04-swbp-irc#T17-56-29