IRC log of swbp on 2005-11-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

08:26:51 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #swbp
08:26:51 [RRSAgent]
logging to
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]
08:28:22 [RalphS]
Chair: Guus
08:49:15 [Zakim]
SW_BPD(F2F)3:30AM has now started
08:49:17 [Zakim]
09:05:21 [Zakim]
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]
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]
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]
-> 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 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]
-> 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]
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]
-> 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]
-> WAI EO WG Charter
11:28:48 [RalphS]
11:31:42 [RalphS]
Guus: Fabien, could you post to the WG a list of the available resources in Europe?
11:38:30 [RalphS]
11:38:45 [RalphS]
[previous discussion was on Tutorials page]
11:40:13 [RalphS]
-> [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]
-> [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]
12:19:51 [RalphS]
-> 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]
-> [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]'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]
-> [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]
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]
12:50:20 [RalphS]
12:50:43 [Zakim]
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]
13:08:29 [bwm]
bwm has joined #swbp
13:09:40 [libby]
photos from yesterday updated:
13:12:06 [RalphS]
[how much weight did Jeremy gain? ]
13:15:06 [RalphS]
blue bottles in 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]
13:44:42 [libby]
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]
-> 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]
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] is identified in CVS as revision 1.7 of Aug 13 12:36:53 2005 UTC
14:02:37 [RalphS]
14:03:08 [RalphS]
-> 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]
-> 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]
14:11:25 [RalphS]
q+ to comment re: OWL-Time
14:11:48 [RalphS]
Chris: Libby has reviewed
14:13:03 [RalphS]
-> 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]
-> 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]
-> [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]
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) 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 ?]
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]
-> 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]
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]
15:33:37 [RalphS]
-> 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]
15:45:08 [RalphS]
[I hope MeetingRoom folk realize they got disconnected]
15:50:54 [Zakim]
15:52:01 [Zakim]
15:52:36 [RalphS]
zakim, ??P0 is MeetingRoom
15:52:36 [Zakim]
+MeetingRoom; got it
15:52:59 [Zakim]
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:
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]
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]
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:
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="" xmlns=""><depicts><Person><isPrimaryTopicOf rdf:resource=""/></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: (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]
16:50:58 [RalphS]
16:51:09 [jacco]
OEP: which of the 14 could be done in a 6month extention?
16:51:22 [Zakim]
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
17:02:35 [libby]
bye ralph!
17:02:45 [Zakim]
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]
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 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 (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]
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]
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 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