08:26:51 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #swbp
08:26:51 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/11/05-swbp-irc
08:26:54 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #swbp
08:27:04 <RalphS> Meeting: SWBPD WG F2F
08:27:07 <RalphS> (Day 2)
08:27:20 <RalphS> zakim, this will be sw_bp
08:27:20 <Zakim> ok, RalphS; I see SW_BPD(F2F)3:30AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
08:28:12 <RalphS> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0024.html
08:28:22 <RalphS> Chair: Guus
08:49:15 <Zakim> SW_BPD(F2F)3:30AM has now started
08:49:17 <Zakim> +Ralph
09:05:21 <Zakim> +??P0
09:05:37 <RalphS> zakim, ??p0 is MeetingRoom
09:05:37 <Zakim> +MeetingRoom; got it
09:06:19 <dwood> dwood has joined #swbp
09:07:55 <Zakim> +David_Wood
09:08:39 <dwood> zakim, nick dwood is David_Wood
09:08:39 <Zakim> ok, dwood, I now associate you with David_Wood
09:10:23 <RalphS> [David, when it's your own nick you can simply say "zakim, I am David_Wood"]
09:10:56 <RalphS> [network in meeting room is not working today]
09:13:28 <RalphS> zakim, MeetingRoom has Guus, Jeremy, Jeff, Phil, Elisa, Evan, Giorgos, Giorgos, Jacco, Raphael, Benjamin, Libby, Alistair, Andreas
09:13:28 <Zakim> +Guus, Jeremy, Jeff, Phil, Elisa, Evan, Giorgos, Giorgos, Jacco, Raphael, Benjamin, Libby, Alistair, Andreas; got it
09:13:45 <RalphS> zakim, MeetingRoom also has DanBri
09:13:45 <Zakim> +DanBri; got it
09:13:52 <RalphS> Topic: SE TF
09:13:56 <RalphS> [PhilT]
09:15:10 <RalphS> zakim, MeetingRoom also has Deb, DBooth
09:15:10 <Zakim> +Deb, DBooth; got it
09:15:21 <RalphS> Regrets: Gavin
09:16:34 <RalphS> -> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/SE/ODA/ Ontology Driven Architectures and Potential Uses of the Semantic Web in Systems and Software Engineering
09:17:24 <RalphS> [Libby scribing, apparently]
09:17:30 <RalphS> [scribing is off-line due to network]
09:18:31 <RalphS> rrsagent, please make this record public
09:19:29 <dwood> zakim, mute me
09:19:29 <Zakim> David_Wood should now be muted
09:19:53 <RalphS> [Jeremy makes some comments that can't be heard remotely]
09:20:26 <RalphS> DanBri: not concerned that this sort of document doesn't match normal W3C content
09:20:36 <RalphS> DBooth: will send some comments
09:21:00 <RalphS> ... is an interesting research area but my impression is that the content is speculative rather than "best practice"
09:22:26 <RalphS> ??: easy transition to modelling in OWL
09:22:53 <RalphS> DBooth: my comments only apply to the first (ODA) document
09:23:43 <RalphS> Guus: apparently the issue with the [ODA] document is that it is less technical in nature
09:24:21 <dwood> zakim, unmute me
09:24:21 <Zakim> David_Wood should no longer be muted
09:24:29 <RalphS> [these notes extremely sketchy due to not being able to hear speakers; mostly serve to provide places to hang expected email]
09:25:15 <RalphS> Guus: would the TF object if we only published the [Primer for OO] now?
09:26:36 <RalphS> q+ to raise a procedural objection to publishing O-O Primer at the moment
09:26:57 <RalphS> David: comparing SemWeb technologies with O-O is a good step
09:27:18 <RalphS> ... agree that ODA document is lacking in technical content
09:27:36 <RalphS> ... if TF publishes a doc in the near term, it should be the Primer
09:27:58 <dwood> zakim, mute me
09:27:58 <Zakim> David_Wood should now be muted
09:28:05 <RalphS> zakim, meetingroom also has Mike, Aldo, Valentina
09:28:05 <Zakim> +Mike, Aldo, Valentina; got it
09:28:32 <RalphS> Andreas: the University network is down
09:32:11 <RalphS> ack me
09:32:11 <Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to raise a procedural objection to publishing O-O Primer at the moment
09:32:21 <RalphS> Ralph: Holger has not been appointed to the WG
09:33:09 <RalphS> ... either of the institutions can appoint him, as both are W3C Members
09:33:47 <RalphS> ... so the Member has signed the IPR (good) but Holger's AC Rep needs to acknowledge agreement with the WG participation requirements
09:34:46 <RalphS> Jeremy: I volunteer to review Primer on behalf of the WG
09:34:50 <dwood> zakim, unmute me
09:34:50 <Zakim> David_Wood should no longer be muted
09:35:26 <RalphS> Evan: I'm listed as author but didn't contribute much
09:35:33 <RalphS> Mike: I am willing to review
09:37:27 <RalphS> ... [later] I prefer to pass
09:37:57 <RalphS> Guus: I propose 25 Nov as review deadline
09:38:47 <RalphS> Jeremy: the document contains two screen shots
09:39:04 <RalphS> ... does this imply endorsement?
09:39:12 <RalphS> ... Protege and Altova
09:40:11 <RalphS> ... Protege probably OK as it's open source
09:40:20 <RalphS> Ralph: there may be a copyright issue
09:40:52 <RalphS> ACTION: Ralph ask if there's a policy on implicit endorsement of commercial products by showing screen shots in a TR
09:41:27 <RalphS> Guus: I would prefer a separate tools page as that material gets out of date
09:41:44 <RalphS> DanBri: not too concerned about the endorsement question
09:42:05 <RalphS> ... may be good for W3C to show an open source product and a commercial product side-by-side
09:42:19 <RalphS> Phil: how do we show that these things are a reality?
09:43:16 <RalphS> ACTION: Phil get copyright permission for these screen shots
09:44:45 <RalphS> Mike, Evan: use swoop instead of Altova
09:45:01 <RalphS> ... and mention that there are commercial tools
09:45:22 <RalphS> DanBri: could point to the SWIG and its public mailing list as a forum where other tool developers can announce their products
09:45:54 <RalphS> ??: all such tools can be included in the Application & Demos list
09:47:14 <RalphS> David: reader has to read deeply into the document in order to find the rationale
09:48:01 <RalphS> ... would like the TF to move rationale closer to the beginning
09:48:13 <RalphS> ... a list of products needs to be complete at its time of publishing
09:48:36 <RalphS> Phil: hearing a consensus to refer to an updateable list
09:49:01 <RalphS> David: is business.semanticweb.org still being maintained?
09:49:19 <dwood> zakim, mute me
09:49:19 <Zakim> David_Wood should now be muted
09:50:12 <RalphS> Guus: it's appropriate to delay the review deadline until this question is resolved of screenshots and which products are referenced
09:51:11 <RalphS> ACTION: Phil send mail describing how the Primer will handle references to products
09:52:38 <RalphS> Guus: depending on review comments we could hope to decide on publishing the Primer at the 28 Nov telecon
09:52:43 <RalphS> Ralph: regrets for 28 Nov telecon
09:53:22 <RalphS> zakim, MeetingRoom also has Brian
09:53:22 <Zakim> +Brian; got it
09:55:22 <RalphS> Evan: perhaps the ODA document could be moved into the Interest Group
09:56:01 <RalphS> DBooth: I'm uncomfortable with SWBPD publishing this document as it's speculative research
09:56:37 <RalphS> DanBri: it's hard to say that a given document represents consensus of SWIG as it's a large group
09:57:00 <RalphS> ... the recently-published Calendaring note represented several years of discussion in SWIG 
09:57:22 <RalphS> ... in the case of ODA I'd prefer that there were evidence of the material coming from a larger set of WG participants
09:57:37 <RalphS> Phil: the practice discussed in this note is a reality now
09:58:00 <RalphS> ... intended to be an introduction to people not familiar with the area
09:58:11 <RalphS> ... so the style may be wrong but the content is correct
09:59:06 <RalphS> ... I'm hearing this is difficult for the WG to sponsor
09:59:35 <RalphS> ... at the Boston f2f we heard that this is a valuable piece of work so we moved it forward
09:59:40 <RalphS> ... where do we go from here?
10:00:15 <RalphS> Guus: there's a difference of perspective from the outside on a WG Note versus an IG Note
10:00:30 <RalphS> ... this work seems worth publishing
10:00:47 <RalphS> DanBri: thinking about SWIG situation there are two types of documents
10:01:02 <RalphS> ... the RDF Calendar doc represented several years of discussion
10:01:11 <RalphS> ... this document is just at the start
10:01:24 <RalphS> ... I would be willing to present this to SWIG in that context
10:01:47 <RalphS> Guus: I would expect the IG to comment
10:02:00 <RalphS> ... but there's less need for consensus within the IG before publishing
10:02:09 <RalphS> ... so more 'discussion' rather than 'review'
10:02:30 <RalphS> Phil: I'd like to see publication as soon as possible
10:02:59 <RalphS> Jeremy: disagree that there was consensus in Boston about this work
10:03:15 <RalphS> ... I don't think this is appropriate as either a WG or an IG Note
10:03:57 <RalphS> Guus: I thought this version was a big step forward from the Boston version
10:05:07 <RalphS> Ralph: I think this is a contribution that should be acknowledged and published somehow but it might not be a "Technical Report"
10:06:14 <RalphS> Guus: note that the IG represents a much broader audience, so discussion there already achieves a goal of widening awareness
10:09:41 <RalphS> DanBri: [something about identity reasoning that should be communicated into future Rules requirements]
10:17:34 <RalphS> Topic: XSD TF
10:18:28 <RalphS> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0213.html review version of XSCH [Jeremy 2005-10-27]
10:21:09 <RalphS> Jeremy: the main issue has to do with equality of typed literals coming from different branches of the XML hierarchy
10:21:16 <RalphS> ... e.g. zero
10:21:24 <RalphS> ... as a float, double, or decimal
10:21:51 <RalphS> ... from some points of view these are not comparable and from other points of view they are comparable
10:22:40 <RalphS> ... Jeff and I took the view that making these comparable was most sensible for users
10:23:06 <RalphS> ... but we got some developer feedback that this would be hard to implement
10:24:06 <RalphS> ... during discussion last night, Evan suggested that taking the conservative approach that these are not comparable is less error-prone
10:24:23 <RalphS> ... and datatype properties could have range constraints to help avoid typing issues
10:25:26 <RalphS> ... SPARQL's position is that these are different but it's possible to write a SPARQL query ... [writes on whiteboard] ....
10:25:46 <RalphS> ... containing an XPath 'equals' that does type conversion as required
10:26:10 <RalphS> DBooth: does this apply only to literals or does it also apply to computed values?
10:26:41 <RalphS> Jeremy: how do you compute values?  if by a plug-in, the plug-in will make a decision about the types
10:26:51 <RalphS> ... real decision here is about literals
10:27:53 <RalphS> ... when fixing a Jena bug in indexing over literals in triple tables we want to index over values rather than over lexical forms
10:28:20 <RalphS> ... in order to make lookups efficient you have to make a decision about what key to use in the index
10:29:03 <RalphS> ... rounding errors make it hard to have a consistent lookup key for numbers when they're represented in different ways
10:29:36 <RalphS> Guus: zero is a special case in mathematics, so please don't use it as the base of the decision
10:29:52 <RalphS> Jeremy: we use 1.3 in the document as it rounds differently
10:30:51 <RalphS> Guus: how about treating everything as different except zero; zero is a special case
10:32:11 <RalphS> Jeremy: we could also choose not to make a decision at this stage and document both approaches
10:32:32 <RalphS> DBooth: this issue of rounding differences is well-known in Computer Science
10:33:08 <RalphS> ... so there's a basis for expecting people to understand that [these values] could compare as different
10:33:27 <RalphS> Jeff: [unhearable]
10:33:52 <RalphS> Phil: the general notion of precision of definition is important
10:34:31 <RalphS> DanBri: queries will be written by people with [non-CS] backgrounds
10:35:13 <RalphS> Jeremy: the purpose of the decision I'd like the WG to make is to say what documents mean and what entailments hold
10:35:42 <RalphS> ... it's possible to address rounding issues in the application either way once we decide what the document means
10:42:32 <RalphS> DanBri: there appears to be a dependency with SPARQL
10:42:46 <RalphS> Jeremy: it's not a formal dependency and I'd like to see this document closed
10:43:07 <RalphS> ... I'd like a straw poll on this type comparison question
10:43:44 <RalphS> DBooth: but the actual value of "1.3"^^xsd:float is not 1.3
10:43:54 <RalphS> Jeff: yes, it is
10:45:15 <RalphS> ... [even if the machine representation is different]
10:46:06 <RalphS> DanBri: this discussion makes me feel this is a very architectural-level issue for SemWeb
10:46:55 <RalphS> Guus: this issue goes along with qualified cardinality restrictions and compound keys as fundamental SemWeb architecture
10:47:46 <RalphS> Jeremy: [words straw poll]
10:47:57 <RalphS> ... example 3h
10:48:37 <RalphS> ... is example 3H an entailment or is it not or do we not decide?
10:48:47 <RalphS> Jeff: ... want to point out ...
10:49:23 <RalphS> ... I agree that "1.3"^^xsd:decimal entails "1.3"^^xsd:float but not the other way around
10:49:52 <RalphS> Jeremy: until you make a full concrete proposal I don't think you understand
10:49:55 <RalphS> s/Jeff:/Ben:/
10:51:18 <RalphS> ??: can I have two equals operators one of which supports this entailment and the other that doesn't?
10:51:31 <RalphS> Jeremy: I'm not totally sure but I believe this is possible
10:51:46 <RalphS> ??: you can define your own XPath functions
10:51:58 <RalphS> zakim, who's here?
10:51:58 <Zakim> On the phone I see Ralph (muted), David_Wood (muted), MeetingRoom
10:51:59 <Zakim> MeetingRoom has Guus, Jeremy, Jeff, Phil, Elisa, Evan, Giorgos, Giorgos, Jacco, Raphael, Benjamin, Libby, Alistair, Andreas, DanBri, Deb, DBooth, Mike, Aldo, Valentina, Brian
10:52:01 <Zakim> On IRC I see dwood, Zakim, RRSAgent, RalphS
10:54:22 <RalphS> [straw poll]
10:56:01 <RalphS> Guus: third option reworded as 'leave it to applications'
10:57:57 <RalphS> results: does entail: 0, does not entail: 9, leave it to applications: 12
10:59:24 <RalphS> Jeremy: leaving it to the application is a non-monotonic choice
11:00:14 <RalphS> Ralph: could we discuss, please, the interoperability issues if we leave this choice to applications
11:00:55 <RalphS> Jeremy: is it possible to publish noting that we did not reach a decision on this question?
11:01:05 <RalphS> Guus: that would be my least-preferred choice
11:01:11 <RalphS> [15 minute coffee break]
11:18:29 <RalphS> resuming ...
11:18:40 <RalphS> [logistics for SKOS breakout session]
11:22:14 <RalphS> [Jeff scribing]
11:23:11 <RalphS> -> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/Tutorials Semantic Web Tutorials
11:23:29 <RalphS> Guus: there's a planned activity on education and outreach
11:28:22 <RalphS> ... "The mission of the Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG) is to develop strategies, and awareness and training resources, to educate a variety of audiences regarding the need for Web accessibility and approaches to implementing Web accessibility."
11:28:38 <RalphS> -> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/charter4 WAI EO WG Charter
11:28:48 <RalphS> s/.../Ralph:/
11:31:42 <RalphS> Guus: Fabien, could you post to the WG a list of the available resources in Europe?
11:38:30 <RalphS> [ADTF]
11:38:45 <RalphS> [previous discussion was on Tutorials page]
11:40:13 <RalphS> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0027.html [ADTF,ALL] goals for f2f [Libby 2005-11-04]
11:46:03 <RalphS> Libby: I'm proposing that this work be moved to SWIG at the end of January
11:46:19 <RalphS> Guus: might be more appropriate for Education & Outreach also
11:46:32 <RalphS> ... SWBPD has had a hard time giving it sufficient attention
11:48:49 <RalphS> Fabien: it's important to show people what the data looks like
11:49:35 <RalphS> Ralph: a combined approach -- involve the developer community via SWIG to make viewers for DOAP resources which then will foster more DOAP files that an Education & Outreach WG could use
11:55:18 <RalphS> ACTION: Ralph cite relevant CG meeting records regarding SemWeb Education & Outreach discussions
11:56:20 <RalphS> [DAWG Liaison]
11:57:07 <RalphS> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0107.html [All] SPARQL Query Language Review [David 2005-10-14]
11:57:20 <RalphS> David: I made some oversights in that draft that DanC has since corrected
11:58:03 <RalphS> ... I have drafted responses to the comments and would like the WG to decide whether to submit these or not
11:58:46 <RalphS> ... the review has not been formally sent to DAWG yet, but DAWG noticed it in our archive
11:59:35 <RalphS> Brian: ...
12:01:04 <RalphS> [Guus summarizes for Brian]
12:01:19 <RalphS> Brian: comments about the design of the language may be inappropriate for SWBPD
12:01:30 <RalphS> ... more appropriate would be comments on how to use SPARQL
12:01:39 <RalphS> ... commenting only on the basis of work that SWBPD has done
12:01:56 <RalphS> David: I did highlight some interoperability and scalability concerns which are appropriate for SWBPD
12:02:44 <RalphS> q+ to commend David for good comments but to question which ones are _SemWeb_ Best Practice and which are best practice in other areas
12:03:09 <RalphS> Guus: consider splitting personal comments from SemWeb best practice and add XSD datatype issue
12:03:46 <RalphS> ... Jeremy or Jeff asked to phrase the XSD datatype issue for David to incorporate
12:04:35 <RalphS> [I think Brian said what I'd wanted to say, won't push to get the floor unless there's a pause]
12:05:23 <RalphS> Brian: considering interoperability and scalability comments it's not clear we can base this on existing work of the WG
12:05:45 <RalphS> David: is there anything other than [XSD] that we can send to DAWG on behalf of the WG?
12:07:12 <RalphS> ack me
12:07:12 <Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to commend David for good comments but to question which ones are _SemWeb_ Best Practice and which are best practice in other areas
12:07:24 <RalphS> Ralph: one point that might be relevant to SWBPD is the bnode question
12:07:42 <RalphS> David: I'd like SWBPD to consider both bnode and the result of DESCRIBE
12:09:26 <libby> libby has joined #swbp
12:13:37 <RalphS> [ODM Liaison]
12:13:53 <RalphS> Elisa: ... midnight 14 Nov ... (some deadline)
12:14:29 <RalphS> ... that version of ODM developed largely by people also participating in this WG; e.g. Chris Welty has become IBM lead on ODM work
12:14:45 <RalphS> ... a version will be published next week
12:14:48 <libby> ...thinks the current product is signifiantly improved esp wrt rdf and owl
12:15:34 <RalphS> ... RDF & OWL profile will allow UML tool vendors to ...
12:16:25 <RalphS> ... topic maps metamodels also revised
12:16:38 <RalphS> ... doc to be published by 14 Nov
12:16:49 <RalphS> ... will be stable except possibly for some metamodel mappings
12:17:24 <RalphS> ... comments on that document will be appreciated; I will pass along to OMG anything sent here
12:17:45 <RalphS> ... very excited about the progress
12:18:09 <RalphS> ... I will point people to particular chapters that might be of special interest
12:19:36 <libby> [VM]
12:19:51 <RalphS> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0031.html minutes from SWBP f2f 2005-11-05 first session: SE and XSD datatypes [Libby 2005-11-05]
12:20:44 <libby> al giving status update
12:21:00 <libby> al: started off wanting to do a more general note
12:21:08 <RalphS> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0186.html [VM] VM Task Force update [Tom Baker 2005-11-25]
12:21:20 <libby> ...what you get from dereferencing, downloads, versioning etc
12:21:34 <libby> ...draft on wiki; Al revised; no time to finish
12:21:46 <libby> ...idea to just do URI dereferencing part
12:22:13 <libby> ...here's what SKOS does, DC, foaf, here's what they did practically: that's the new goal, realistic for start feb
12:22:35 <libby> al: problem is foaf skos dc doesn't quite do the same thing yet
12:23:07 <libby> ...minumum requirem,ents + extra stuff - see Al's email
12:23:30 <libby> ...Vm telecon scheduled, incl w3c web people for a sanity check of Al's suggested apache configs
12:23:52 <libby> ...not sure how Tom feels about the note...
12:24:11 <RalphS> q+ to characterize the BP Note that VM is converging on now
12:24:24 <libby> guus: big waste if don't produce anything; this brief note seems very relevant; bit concerned re timing, resources
12:24:46 <libby> al: is the apache stuff turns out to be ok, will be fast to do
12:25:03 <libby> guus: what do you need from the WG here?
12:25:32 <libby> al: validating the set of specified requirments (how we want the uris to behave) ....[missed a bit]
12:25:39 <libby> guus: useful for people to comment now?
12:25:41 <libby> al: yes
12:26:09 <Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to characterize the BP Note that VM is converging on now
12:26:10 <libby> jc: scope: with/wthout fragids? 
12:26:14 <libby> al: both
12:26:57 <libby> ralph: represents a short answer to the q: what should I put at the end of an rdf schema; very pragmatic
12:27:09 <libby> [/me not catching all of it, sorry ralph]
12:28:03 <libby> ralph does not expect a lot of controversey
12:28:42 <libby> jc: hopes nop controversey but fears secondary resources might be just as contentious as primary
12:28:55 <libby> al: read the document, thinks clear
12:29:50 <libby> ...thing prepared for the next telecon - help from wg is first section only
12:29:55 <RalphS> specifically, the document Alistair prepared for VMTF telecon on 15 Nov
12:30:55 <RalphS> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0004.html [VM] Agenda for 15 Nov Telecon [Alistair 2005-11-01]
12:31:10 <libby> danbri: based on the skos breakout and discussions yesterday - to know more about partitioning owl dl and owl full versions would be really useful - not needed for this version though - but any info wg members have on good strategies here woudl be useful
12:31:23 <libby> al: describe current first
12:32:00 <libby> guus: before lunch - 2 reviewers for Al's documents and also look over now
12:32:07 <libby> andreas volunteers
12:32:20 <libby> david booth voluneers
12:33:36 <RalphS> Guus: I'm not inclined to continue this TF in the charter for a new Best Practices group
12:33:46 <libby> guus: how should this work continue? personal feeling ... not inclined to include in new charter unless new contact and clear that will fucntion better in the future
12:34:04 <libby> ...likes danbri's suggestion but interested in that in a particular context
12:34:06 <RalphS> ... DanBri's observation that OWL-DL question requires a proper place
12:34:09 <libby> al: also versioning
12:34:36 <libby> guus: perhaps for discussion later; think of the proper place for these items
12:35:42 <libby> ...and how can we make sure in the future that the work gets done (not intended as a criticism of participants)
12:36:41 <libby> ...for later discussion: versioning and resolving uris to OWL DL / OWL full
12:37:23 <RalphS> [ah, DanBri's OWL-DL point was apparently about how to resolve an RDF namespace URI to an RDFS, OWL-DL, or OWL-Full representation]
12:37:49 <RalphS> [that's perhaps a hard problem and not something we have sufficient practices yet to nominate a 'best' practice]
12:37:57 <libby> lunch: resume 13.45 GMT
12:38:03 <RalphS> [70 minute lunch break]
12:38:07 <Zakim> -David_Wood
12:43:45 <RalphS> zakim, who's in meetingroom?
12:43:45 <Zakim> MeetingRoom has Guus, Jeremy, Jeff, Phil, Elisa, Evan, Giorgos, Giorgos, Jacco, Raphael, Benjamin, Libby, Alistair, Andreas, DanBri, Deb, DBooth, Mike, Aldo, Valentina, Brian
12:49:19 <Zakim> -Ralph
12:50:20 <RalphS> oops
12:50:43 <Zakim> +Ralph
12:51:00 <RalphS> zakim, I am Ralph
12:51:00 <Zakim> ok, RalphS, I now associate you with Ralph
13:01:59 <libby> libby has joined #swbp
13:02:06 <libby> internet is back!
13:03:11 <aharth> aharth has joined #swbp
13:07:05 <RalphS> yay!
13:08:29 <bwm> bwm has joined #swbp
13:09:40 <libby> photos from yesterday updated: http://swordfish.rdfweb.org/photos/2005/11/04/
13:12:06 <RalphS> [how much weight did Jeremy gain? http://www.flickr.com/photos/danbri/59826153/ ]
13:15:06 <RalphS> blue bottles in http://swordfish.rdfweb.org/photos/2005/11/04/2005-11-04-Pages/Image34.html definitely add something :)
13:31:48 <bwm_> bwm_ has joined #swbp
13:38:26 <danbri> danbri has joined #swbp
13:38:33 <danbri> at last :)
13:44:12 <ChrisW> ChrisW has joined #swbp
13:44:37 <RalphS> [reconvening]
13:44:42 <libby> [OEP]
13:45:31 <FabGandon> FabGandon has joined #swbp
13:45:40 <Valentina> Valentina has joined #swbp
13:46:16 <jacco> jacco has joined #swbp
13:46:26 <Elisa> Elisa has joined #swbp
13:46:39 <aliman> aliman has joined #swbp
13:46:47 <vassilis> vassilis has joined #swbp
13:46:49 <Valentina> Valentina has joined #swbp
13:47:06 <Elisa> the first document, n-ary relations is ready to go to publication
13:47:26 <RalphS> ?did Chris say 'is ready' or 'is not ready>
13:47:43 <Elisa> there have been significant changes to the first working draft
13:47:52 <RalphS> Scribe: Elisa
13:48:16 <Elisa> so how long does it have to be available for public review before it goes to note?
13:48:19 <Guus> Guus has joined #swbp
13:48:26 <Elisa> Guus -- my preference is that it goes to a note
13:48:47 <AlanR> AlanR has joined #swbp
13:49:34 <Elisa> Chris -- next telecon will vote on n-ary relations going to note
13:49:34 <Elisa> David Booth -- sent comments but hasn't seen them reflected in the draft
13:49:36 <Elisa> looked at the version referenced for this meeting
13:49:57 <Elisa> says draft 7 sept 2005 -- that is the latest version
13:50:09 <danbri_> danbri_ has joined #swbp
13:50:13 <Elisa> David's comments do not seem to be reflected in that version
13:50:30 <Elisa> David will look them up and resend them, or
13:50:36 <RalphS> (ah, I understand Chris to have said that N-ary relations is not quite ready today to vote on going to Note but will be ready soon)
13:50:53 <Elisa> Chris can go over them with David after this meeting
13:51:08 <Elisa> David -- perhaps they were not as evident as he was expecting
13:51:31 <Elisa> Next editor's draft -- simple part whole relations being edited by Alan and Chris
13:51:39 <RalphS> -> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/#edrafts OEP Editor's Drafts
13:51:47 <Elisa> has been reviewed and comments responded -- ready to go to working draft
13:52:15 <Elisa> Chris would like to have a short discussion on comments and then vote for it to become a working draft
13:52:32 <RalphS> Chris: Simple Part-Whole draft reviewed by Guus and Bill McDaniels
13:52:56 <Elisa> responded to Bill (from Adobe)'s review -- queried him a couple of times but didn't get a response
13:53:01 <Elisa> responded to all of his comments including why some comments were not acted on
13:53:16 <danbri__> danbri__ has joined #swbp
13:53:22 <Elisa> Guus -- if he hasn't responded after some length of time, silence should mean willingness to 
13:53:28 <Elisa> accept the revisions
13:53:34 <Elisa> Brian agreed
13:53:47 <ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SimplePartWhole/index.html
13:55:56 <RalphS> ack me
13:55:56 <Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to comment on 1st published version being a Note
13:56:18 <RalphS> Ralph: if this WG does not expect to publish another version, it's appropriate for us to go to Note
13:56:25 <RalphS> ... we can always update a Note if we need to do so
13:56:29 <FabGandon> FabGandon has joined #swbp
13:56:40 <jeremy> jeremy has joined #swbp
13:57:14 <RalphS> ... if the WG does not expect to publish another revision, it should be a Note
13:59:08 <RalphS> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SimplePartWhole/index.html is identified in CVS as revision 1.7 of Aug 13 12:36:53 2005 UTC
14:02:37 <RalphS> QCRs
14:03:08 <RalphS> -> http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/public/qcr.html Qualified Cardinality Restrictions (QCRs)
14:03:18 <RalphS> ^ 25 May draft
14:03:37 <RalphS> Chris: there's a new draft that I will push to CVS very soon
14:03:47 <RalphS> ... would like reviewers
14:04:05 <RalphS> ... (hardcopies available in here in meeting room)
14:05:07 <RalphS> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0071 OEP agenda for f2f [Chris 2005-09-17]
14:06:23 <RalphS> Chris: I will publish the version to be reviewed as soon as I get reliable network access, no later than tonight in my hotel room
14:07:34 <RalphS> Jeremy: [some changes] ...
14:07:42 <RalphS> Chris: I'll move those to the 'Changes' section
14:10:01 <jeremy> jeremy has joined #swbp
14:10:02 <ChrisW> ChrisW has joined #swbp
14:10:26 <libby> libby has joined #swbp
14:11:09 <danbri__> danbri__ has joined #swbp
14:11:18 <RalphS> OWL-Time
14:11:25 <RalphS> q+ to comment re: OWL-Time
14:11:48 <RalphS> Chris: Libby has reviewed
14:13:03 <RalphS> -> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-timezone-20051013/ Working with Time Zones [W3C Working Group Note 13 October 2005]
14:13:37 <RalphS> Ralph: OWL-Time WD should cite RDF Calendaring Note some time
14:13:49 <RalphS> -> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-rdfcal-20050929/ RDF Calendar - an application of the Resource Description Framework to iCalendar Data [W3C Interest Group Note 29 September 2005]
14:14:16 <jacco> jacco has joined #swbp
14:14:16 <jeremy> jeremy has joined #swbp
14:14:21 <RalphS> Libby: I mentioned both of those in my review
14:14:21 <danbri__> danbri__ has joined #swbp
14:14:57 <libby> libby has joined #swbp
14:14:59 <Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to comment re: OWL-Time
14:15:09 <aliman> aliman has joined #swbp
14:15:19 <RalphS> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0105.html [ALL,OEP] Review of "Time Ontology in OWL" and "Time Zone Resource in OWL" [Libby 2005-10-14]
14:15:29 <FabGandon> FabGandon has joined #swbp
14:16:36 <RalphS> [sorry for missing Libby's review comments; I see she did note the two related works that I was speaking of]
14:17:01 <Zakim> +David_Wood
14:17:48 <bwm_> bwm_ has joined #swbp
14:18:17 <jacco> jacco has joined #swbp
14:19:11 <dwood> zakim, I am David_Wood
14:19:11 <Zakim> ok, dwood, I now associate you with David_Wood
14:19:59 <RalphS> q+ to repeat an administrative concern
14:21:45 <RalphS> DBooth: motivation for using this technology to solve this problem is not clear
14:22:34 <RalphS> Chris: you wouldn't be using this time ontology alone; you'd have some larger reasoning problem that includes a temporal component
14:22:47 <RalphS> ... a lot of RDF apps need time
14:23:18 <RalphS> DBooth: I'd prefer to structure my application so it only has to deal with UTC
14:23:30 <RalphS> Chris: this is addressed in the other document
14:23:48 <FabGandon> FabGandon has joined #swbp
14:24:03 <danbri__> danbri__ has joined #swbp
14:24:50 <bwm_> bwm_ has joined #swbp
14:24:59 <jacco> jacco has joined #swbp
14:25:16 <RalphS> Chris: the Time notes were split into two notes because a lot of times [heh] you can ignore timezones
14:25:38 <RalphS> ... the Time Zone Note is for when timezones are relevant to your application
14:26:21 <danbri> [ see also (apols if duplicating) http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-rdfcal-20050929/#L21805 11. Shop hours, recurring events and timezones ]
14:26:42 <danbri> -> "There is a question of whether timezone rules should be given by reference or by copy" 
14:27:18 <RalphS> Chris: this work was started 3 years ago by the [DARPA] DAML project
14:27:38 <RalphS> ... the group was lead by Jerry Hobbs and they did a very extensive review of existing work
14:27:46 <danbri> [ are all those refs now part of http://www.isi.edu/~pan/OWL-Time.html ?] 
14:30:10 <RalphS> q+ also to ask if we can cite RDF apps that use the material in the Time Notes
14:34:10 <RalphS> DanBri: we should keep a list of namespaces we've created
14:34:20 <RalphS> Chris: yes, I've asked for a mechanism in W3C to do that
14:34:36 <RalphS> Guus: might be good for the WG to address this
14:40:21 <RalphS> Ralph: yes, the question of whether there's a pattern for namespaces has come up but we've not yet found a compelling reason to resolve it
14:40:47 <RalphS> ack me
14:40:47 <Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to repeat an administrative concern and to enter broken-record mode and to ask if we can cite RDF apps that use the material in the Time Notes
14:42:44 <RalphS> Ralph: Feng Pan is not a WG participant
14:44:26 <RalphS> Ralph: the Status of this Document section for *all* documents should be accurate for that specific document
14:44:40 <RalphS> ... Editor's Drafts should not claim to be Working Drafts
14:45:48 <RalphS> Semantic Integration Note
14:46:48 <RalphS> -> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SemInt/ Semantic Integration & Interoperability Using RDF and OWL  [W3C Editor's Draft 3 November 2005]
15:10:55 <RalphS> [looks like DERI fell ofg the Net again]
15:11:00 <RalphS> s/ofg/off/
15:13:49 <RalphS> [maybe every WG participant should pick a unique bright color]
15:13:55 <RalphS> [as Jeremy has done :)]
15:27:15 <RalphS> kudos to OEP for documenting ideas for future work on their TF page
15:27:44 <RalphS> [15 minute break]
15:33:02 <RalphS> I'm asked out-of-band whether the HTML TF has made progress with including properties of bnodes in RDF/A
15:33:21 <RalphS> my answer is "yes, we've resolved that with the CURIE proposal"
15:33:30 <RalphS> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-current-issues#bnode
15:33:37 <RalphS> -> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-rdfa-syntax#id0x05187eb0 Blank nodes in RDF/A
15:34:17 <RalphS> 5.2 of the 27 October RDF/A syntax draft shows how we use CURIEs to declare locally-scoped names for bnodes
15:43:03 <Zakim> -MeetingRoom
15:45:08 <RalphS> [I hope MeetingRoom folk realize they got disconnected]
15:50:54 <Zakim> -David_Wood
15:52:01 <Zakim> +??P0
15:52:36 <RalphS> zakim, ??P0 is MeetingRoom
15:52:36 <Zakim> +MeetingRoom; got it
15:52:59 <Zakim> +David_Wood
15:53:12 <dwood> zakim, I am David_Wood
15:53:12 <Zakim> ok, dwood, I now associate you with David_Wood
16:12:25 <libby> libby has joined #swbp
16:13:29 <FabGandon> FabGandon has joined #swbp
16:14:25 <danbri__> danbri__ has joined #swbp
16:15:16 <libby> few more photos: http://swordfish.rdfweb.org/photos/2005/11/05/
16:17:09 <jacco> jacco has joined #swbp
16:17:38 <jacco> discussing extra work for SE TF
16:17:59 <jacco> 2years for automated tools
16:18:24 <jacco> 6 months for compound CASE document
16:19:13 <jacco> XSD: input for RDF/O
16:19:21 <jacco> RDF/OWL revised
16:19:36 <jacco> ADTF: input SWEO
16:20:10 <jacco> Tutorial: also input SWEO
16:20:39 <danbri> see http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Activity
16:20:46 <danbri> [[ Additionally, in response to interest expressed by W3C Members and prospective Members, an Activity Proposal for a group focused on education and outreach is likely. The group would develop strategies and materials to increase awareness of the need for and benefits of the Semantic Web.]]
16:22:37 <jacco> VM: howto publish ontologies without getting owl dl apps into trouble
16:22:53 <jacco> +versioning and change management for vocabularies
16:23:11 <jacco> good practive for html documentation about vocabularies
16:23:21 <RalphS> ah, welcome back, folk!
16:23:39 <jacco> s/practive/practice
16:24:05 <jacco> html-doc: 6 months
16:24:35 <jacco> versioning: 6 months
16:24:45 <jacco> change management 1-2 years
16:25:06 <jacco> RDF/OWL DL/OWL full versions: 6 months
16:25:19 <jacco> OEP: 14 documents have been suggested
16:25:24 <jacco> some belong in SWEO
16:25:31 <jacco> but not all
16:30:00 <jacco> PM: style guide on use of rdfs:label etc
16:30:18 <bwm_> bwm_ has joined #swbp
16:31:02 <jacco> proposal by fabian: notes on Conceptual Graphs
16:31:26 <jacco> survey, mapping and usage
16:32:25 <jacco> jjc: good practices on internationalisation constructs in RDF and OWL
16:34:10 <jacco> guus: potiential scenarios for future work
16:34:36 <jacco> For SKOS: new skos WG or rechartered SWBPD WG
16:34:49 <FabGandon> pointer to mail on possible TF on CGs: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0033.html
16:34:52 <Valentina> Valentina has joined #swbp
16:36:14 <jacco> When no REC track it can only be done in a rechartered SWBPD
16:36:52 <raphael> raphael has joined #swbp
16:36:59 <jacco> alistair: argument for SWBPD: connection with community
16:37:47 <jacco> dependencies iwth OEP and VM
16:38:13 <danbri> [ <Image rdf:about="http://static.flickr.com/26/60050865_d726d4785d.jpg?v=0" xmlns="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"><depicts><Person><isPrimaryTopicOf rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/People/all#swick"/></Person></depicts></Image> ]
16:38:29 <jacco> Giving people coming into SW via SKOS also access to other SW stuff
16:39:26 <jacco> guus draws 2 scenarios: a SWBPD recharted and non rechartered version
16:39:56 <jacco> 2 years is standard?
16:40:05 <jacco> non denial denial :-)
16:41:05 <jacco> 1st no recharter: skos will need to do REC track
16:42:14 <dwood> Message to list regarding SPARQL and bnodes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0035.html (that completes my action item for the moment)
16:42:41 <jacco> WN: problem for >1 year work, needs heading of SWIG
16:43:11 <jacco> danbri, jjc: this could work
16:43:43 <danbri> (danbri: it would need to be more visible & collaborative) [to fit into SWIG]
16:44:16 <jacco> MM: VRA work could be linked to SKOS work, video could be under SWIG, interop under extension
16:44:46 <jacco> RDFTM: under extended period or swig?
16:44:51 <ChrisW> ChrisW has joined #swbp
16:45:09 <jacco> RDF-in-HTML: jjc: prefer SWIG
16:46:34 <jacco> SE also needs to go under SWIG, compound keys could go under extention
16:46:46 <RalphS> [I wonder if the scribe captured any more detail from Jeremy about moving RDF-in-XHTML to SWIG]
16:47:11 <RalphS> [in any case, I'd like to hear more from Jeremy about that but can contact him off-line]
16:47:43 <jacco> VM: RDF vs OWL under extention, rest in SWIG
16:48:09 <RalphS> [I hope there will be good notes from the room on this discussion]
16:48:31 <jeremy> jeremy has joined #swbp
16:49:03 <jacco> merge SKOS and OEP?
16:49:44 <jacco> yes, and call it SWBP :=)
16:50:48 <Zakim> -Ralph
16:50:58 <RalphS> oops
16:51:09 <jacco> OEP: which of the 14 could be done in a 6month extention?
16:51:22 <Zakim> +Ralph
16:52:13 <jacco> SemIntegration, guidance on domain/range and some other simple ones
16:52:25 <jacco> guus likes worst case scenarios :-)
16:52:46 <jacco> Now SWBPD rechartered
16:53:04 <jacco> what work would be better of elsewhere?
16:53:36 <jacco> Evan: we could change the WG name, right? All: Sure
16:55:20 <jacco> Danbri: SWIG is a very loose forum, only produces calandar 
16:55:51 <jacco> more in SWIG would mean more work for the CG and the chair of the SWIG chair
16:56:29 <jacco> dabri is looking for a co-chair
16:57:15 <jacco> danbri: RDF-in-HTML would be a ill-fit
16:57:42 <jacco> chris: put SWEO up there too
16:57:47 <dwood> but ADTF would be a good fit
16:58:16 <danbri> s/is looking for a co-chair/might be looking for a co-chair/
16:58:24 <danbri> (happy to chat about that...)
16:58:36 <jacco> guus: SE could be a good fit
16:58:53 <jacco> Evan: not for the longer term, because of IPR and other reasons
16:59:29 <jacco> chris: outreach part of it makes it better fit in SWBPD2
17:00:08 <jacco> jjc: SWIG is harder to sell to your boss than working for a WG
17:00:33 <jacco> danbri: diff in working on a note or sending lots of email
17:01:07 <jacco> evan: marketing: divorce from commercial alignment
17:01:46 <RalphS> q+ to ask to be excused quickly
17:01:51 <jacco> SWIG might not be the could place to etablish credability
17:02:07 <jeremy> Clarification of http://www.w3.org/2005/11/05-swbp-irc#T16-44-46
17:02:35 <libby> bye ralph! 
17:02:45 <Zakim> -Ralph
17:02:46 <jeremy> I am happy with RDF-in-HTML as part of SWBP, but given timeline issues
17:03:00 <jeremy> RDF-in-HTML is likely to last longer than SWBP (with extension)
17:03:12 <jacco> SE could be part of SWEO
17:03:21 <RalphS> [I'll leave irc open but I've got to leave, sorry]
17:03:25 <jeremy> and I would be happy with the TF to continue as a joint HTML WG/SWIG TF
17:03:36 <jacco> OEP/SKOS/VM part of SWBPD2
17:04:21 <jacco> SWBPD2 could be home of SW Lang Core, to keep track of change proposals
17:04:58 <jacco> MM/Video needs lots of liason work
17:05:44 <jacco> danbri, jacco: do not see video happen in SWIG context
17:05:57 <danbri> (because of IPR / patent policy concerns)
17:06:00 <jacco> Guus: do not see it happen within SWEO either
17:06:53 <jacco> Guus we could split up OEP in guidelines and particular ontologies, including video and owl time etc
17:07:46 <jacco> Evan, Alan: same arguments apply to SE
17:08:28 <jacco> Guus, no there the technical work is in ODM
17:08:43 <jacco> Guus: for SWBPD2 I like to stick to technical work
17:09:05 <dwood> Yes, stick to technical work in any new charter
17:09:26 <dwood> Bounding would be a good change for a while
17:10:43 <jacco> chris: there is lots of liason work that needs a place
17:11:43 <jacco> evan: we should make this explicit
17:12:15 <jacco> guus: the current charter has that
17:12:57 <jacco> oep moved from content (WN, Units/measures) to guidelines
17:14:26 <jacco> guus: liason work for MM, TM, ODM is different from SKOS etc
17:15:37 <jacco> danbri: if we push this to the SWIG, could the SWIG report to the WGs?
17:15:49 <jacco> Guus: do not understand, lets do this offline
17:16:20 <jacco> jjc: if SWBPD2 it might go into this
17:16:36 <jacco> Guus: but than we end up with the same charter
17:17:06 <jacco> Chris: I have a strong preference for focus, the telcons are too long now
17:17:19 <jacco> guus: we extend for more 15 minutes
17:17:38 <jacco> Evan: if we focus where does the liason work fit in?
17:18:16 <dwood> I have a strong preference for any new SWBP2 to have a smaller list of TFs and more defined deliverables.
17:18:38 <dwood> I'd like to resist the temptation to "just throw more in"
17:18:48 <jacco> alistair: ilike the liason stuff, but I also like focus
17:19:21 <dwood> Focus will be particularly important if we intend to do any Rec Track work
17:20:00 <jacco> chris: what about change the charter of SWEO to include liason
17:21:16 <jacco> Guus, Dave, Jacco: SWEO might not be the best place for MM/video and TM
17:22:08 <jacco> Giorgos: MM TF would prefer SWBPD2 over SWEO
17:22:35 <danbri> [there is a draft EO page at http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/EO/ but I don't know it's status, beyond that it is public ]
17:22:48 <jacco> Alistair: what is the output of the liason work?
17:23:11 <jacco> Guus: you do a survey, defining mappings and guidelines on how to use this
17:24:40 <jacco> giorgos: MM work on new datatypes, uncertainty etc?
17:25:11 <jacco> Guus, could feed into SWL Core, but this is not the home for solving the mm problems
17:25:53 <jacco> Guus: MM/Video would not fit into an ontology and vocabulary management group
17:29:31 <jacco> Raphael: liason into XG incubator?
17:30:52 <jacco> chris can XGs use zakim?  
17:31:09 <jacco> danbri: I think so, not sure
17:31:19 <danbri> see  http://www.w3.org/2005/01/incubator-activity (you'll need your w3c member password)
17:31:53 <jacco> giorgos: multimedia is not only liason
17:32:16 <jacco> guus: if you can rephrase it as a vocabulary managment or SWL core problem ...
17:32:21 <danbri> (looking at the incubator docs, i don't see an immediate answer)
17:35:01 <jacco> mpeg dropped their own DDL when XML Schema was mature enough, same could happen to OWL if it has all the things MM needs
17:35:33 <libby> bye dwood!
17:35:59 <Zakim> -David_Wood
17:36:16 <jacco> if we have an vocab. management group, the liason work needs to be dropped
17:36:59 <jacco> if we have a revisited current charter, the MM liason work could stay
17:37:27 <jacco> me: zakim, who is there?
17:37:40 <jacco> zakim, who is there?
17:37:40 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, jacco.
17:37:58 <jacco> zakim, who is on the phone?
17:37:58 <Zakim> On the phone I see MeetingRoom
17:38:29 <ChrisW> ChrisW has joined #swbp
17:39:07 <jacco> danbri: we could do it more free form through mailing lists?
17:39:26 <jacco> jjc: still the how to persuade your boss problem?
17:40:59 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, MeetingRoom, in SW_BPD(F2F)3:30AM
17:41:11 <jacco> guus: in any rechartered group, you need a new chair (perhaps two).  I'm willing to do an exention, but not a rechartered group
17:41:53 <jacco> evan: what is the outcome if we do not reach concensus?
17:42:14 <jacco> guus: we are stronger if we reach it
17:44:24 <danbri> [group thanks chair and local host]
17:44:47 <jacco> ADJOURNED
17:44:55 <jacco> zakim, bye
17:44:55 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees were Ralph, David_Wood, Guus, Jeremy, Jeff, Phil, Elisa, Evan, Giorgos, Jacco, Raphael, Benjamin, Libby, Alistair, Andreas, DanBri, Deb,
17:44:55 <Zakim> Zakim has left #swbp
17:44:59 <Zakim> ... DBooth, Mike, Aldo, Valentina, Brian, MeetingRoom
17:45:16 <jacco> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:45:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/11/05-swbp-minutes.html jacco
17:45:34 <jacco> rrsagent, make log public
18:29:30 <bwm_> bwm_ has joined #swbp
23:58:52 <AlanR> AlanR has joined #swbp