See also: IRC log
<danbri> Guus, Dwood, I'm in IRC only at moment... I hope to dial in, but have another commitment to get finished first...
<BenjaminNguyen> Hi all, on IRC only
<RalphS> Previous: 2005-11-28 http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-swbp-minutes.html
<dwood> Seconded
PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 28 November telecon:
Only IRC log available?!
http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-swbp-irc
<Elisa> second -- I've reviewed them
PROPOSED next meeting 9 January 2006
<dbooth> Minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Dec/0053.html
second Mike U
resolved to accept minutes of 28 nov telcon
PROPOSED next meeting 9 January 2006
hearing no objections, resolved
Agenda amendments:
jjc: wants OWL discussion under AOB
2. LIAISON
2.1 Proposed resolution httpRange-14
<scribe> ACTION: Elisa Kendall to review DWood message on [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action01]
httpRange-14 resolution:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0010.html
elisa: had a discussion after last telcon ... outcome was I didn't need to do a review ...
<dwood> It should be marked DONE
action is DONE
guus: any other issues?
dbooth: posted additional discussion to list
... we do need other people to have a look ... what i posted is in agreement
with what elisa and davidw and i discussed ... what i posted goes further
also ... reflects my viewpoints ...
... can I please have comments from within the group.
dwood: i'll continue to be involved
<RalphS> RE: httpRange-14: Use Case for RDF [DBooth 2005-12-12]
dwood: ralph & dbooth & myself have done some work, but we need WG review before we can take a WG position
<jacco> i can volunteer
aliman: would love to, but don't have much time before xmas
bwm: skimmed DavidWood message, had immediate reaction regarding 'that name doesn't exist' re 404 ...
dwood: we softened this statement to 'I won't tell you anything about it
bwm: will do what I can to comment
jacco: i'll comment, am using t-d-b mechanism in a project
guus: if both jacco and bwm are willing to have a look?
bwm: ok
dbooth: specifically both dwood's message and dbooth's message
<dbooth> My message to review: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Dec/0056.html
<scribe> ACTION: bwm and jacco to review dbooth and dwood message re httpRange-14 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action02]
<dbooth> David Wood's message to review: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Dec/0055.html
2.2 DAWG
<scribe> ACTION: Brian to review SPARQL Last Call document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action03]
[recorded in
[65]http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action04]
bwm: DONE. sent two comments regarding this, one to dawg, one to skos
action is DONE
ACTION Jeremy to provide a phrasing about XSDT.
jeremy: action is DONE, sent message to dawg a week ago
guus: no pending actions for this liason activity (dawg)
<RalphS> Question concerning typed literals in SPARQL [Jeremy 2005-11-30]
bwm: suggesting comments about DESCRIBE to dawg ... it would be nice if someone would say: yes we agree or not ...
<ChrisW> elisa, please mute
<bwm> urls for bwm's comments on dawg http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Dec/0003.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Dec/0004.html
bwm: dawg don't have consensus on whether DESCRIBE should be part of sparql ...
but think it would be useful for e.g. WN ... as standalone thing as well as part of sparql.
guus: useful for other vocabs
... jacco you find this useful?
jacco: havne't folllowed this. will think about it.
<dwood> Brian's message says, "However it strikes me that the direct relationship and the closure are
<dwood> different relationships and it might be best practice, perhaps
<dwood> generally, perhaps under certain circumstances, to define both." Although implementations have treated those two relationships as different to date, I am not sure that needs to happen. The more I think about it, the more I tend to think that it is a very arbitrary distinction that is an artifact of the data modeling.
<scribe> ACTION: guus to find out if his and Jacco's project have strong use case for DESCRIBE [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action04]
jeremy: re httpRange-14 dbooth said ??? re MIME types ??? rdf/html task force ??? action to contact them ???
<scribe> ACTION: jeremy to contact rdf/html task force re dbooth's position on httpRange-14 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action05]
2.3 OMG: ODM review
elisa: update from the OMG meeting last week, ontology sig ... everyone was happy with it, goal is tomove forward ... OWL DL and OWL Full contraints are still missing ... bijan and peter p-s have agreed to help with this ...
want someone else to have a look to check ... next doc jan 23rd ...
specific bit of the doc we need reviewing is OWL DL and Full contraints ....
anyone in meantime who wants to review the OWL chapter, would be
scribe: great. OWL review has had less review than RDF section. OWL metamdoel chapter.
<jeremy> What is the time line for this action?
garyng: i volunteer to look at OWL section of ODM
elisa: comments please before second week of
jan ... although anything causing a change in the metamodel asap please
... i have until the 23rd to publish
jeremy: I can manage 9 jan
<scribe> ACTION: garyng and jeremy to review OWL chapter of ODM review by 9 jan 2006 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action06]
2.4 Protocol and Formats WG request
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to arrange telecon between himself, Alistair and [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action07]
PFWG [recorded in
[58]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/17-swbp-minutes.html#action07]
<scribe> CONTINUED
2.5 Other
<scribe> ACTION: DBooth and Elisa to review WSDL 2.0 RDF Mapping: [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action08]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0054.html
<scribe> CONTINUED for both dbooth and elisa
3. TASK FORCE UPDATES
3.1 PORT - Porting Thesaurii to RDF and OWL (Alistair)
SKOS planning:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Dec/0018.html
<RalphS> Alistair: I suggested that there is not enough time for another SKOS Working Draft before 31 January 2006
<RalphS> ... so our goal should be to augment the issues list during that period
<RalphS> ... if this WG charter is extended we could then do a new Working Draft
<RalphS> Guus: I think it is extremely likely that there will be some W3C activity supporting SKOS work in the future
<RalphS> Alistair: I welcome any information that could be given to the SKOS community on how to help with this future chartering
<RalphS> Guus: the issues and proposals list makes a dream start for a WG
3.2 OEP - Ontology Engineering and Patterns (Deb/Chris)
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to review OWL Time note [recorded in [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action09]
[67]http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action10]
guus: should I withdraw this action, because too late?
chris: no, expecting to release a new draft
soon, have had several comments
... not expecting to do any significant work before new year
<scribe> ACTION: Alistair to review Qualified Cardinality note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action10]
[recorded in
[64]http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action09]
Alistair's review http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Dec/0021.html
<scribe> DONE
guus: jeremy is excused from doing the review
chris: we did get a review from jeremy
guus: enough reviews for QCR already
<scribe> ACTION: Chris to move QCR note to W3C pace [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action11]
<scribe> ACTION: Chris to move todo's to the changes section [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action12]
ACTION Alistair, Jeremy to review QCR note
<scribe> DONE
ACTION Evan to send note to Feng on discussion of semantics
elisa: Evan completed that?
chris: I have no record of that.
<scribe> ACTION: Evan to send note to Feng on discussion of semantics [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action13]
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to bring issue wrt URI space for ontologies [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action14]
to the SWCG
<scribe> CONTINUED
<scribe> ACTION: Raphael Georgios S, Fabien, Phil to review Semantic Integration note [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action15]
chris: expect draft by the end of the year
ACTION Dan to investigate spatial relations work in SWIG
<scribe> ACTION: Dan to investigate spatial relations work in SWIG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action16]
danbri?
<Guus> dan, any progress on action wrt spatial relations?
<scribe> CONTINUED
<danbri> guus, no progress.
guus: current plans & status for oep?
<danbri> continued; ack'd.
chris: i need to resign as coordinator of oep tf because i've agreed to chair rules interchange format ... elisa has agreed to take over as co-coordinator of oep ... hope work of oep will continue in rechartered WG ... have not done much since f2f
guus: what can we wrap up before end of charter?
<Zakim> RalphS, you wanted to asked about part-whole note status
chris: I wlill work with elisa to get n-ary
note and simple parts note to Note (decision already made)
... part-whole needs editorial stuff ... n-ary note needs a different example
at the end
pat hayes is the person doing the n-ary note, if he doesn't I will ....
part-whole note i''ll fix it up
<scribe> ACTION: on Chris and Alan to work with Ralph to make [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action17]
part-whole ready for publication
<scribe> CONTINUED
guus: end state of QCR note?
chris: we didn't make a decision at f2f
<RalphS> [I see only a handful of HTML validation errors in http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SimplePartWhole/ ]
aliman: header from my review: I am aware of no serious issues that should prevent this document being published as a Working Draft, or as a Working Group Note.
chris: jacco also says ok for Note
... alan has revised draft responding to jacco's comments
<scribe> ACTION: chris to get revised draft of QCR off alan, [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action18]
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to incorporate Alistair's comments into revised draft of QCR draft, based on Alan's revision [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action19]
<RalphS> hear! hear! thanks, Chris
Guus: thanks to Chris as coordinator, very productive task force, best of luck with rules WG
3.3 WordNet (Aldo)
Guus: last draft got extensive reviews ... mark van assem is intending to work this week on a revised version ....
<BenjaminNguyen> (late) review sent in by me, reference : http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Dec/0077.html
<scribe> ACTION: mark van assem to produce revised draft of wordnet document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action20]
guus: major change is to move ??? to an appendix ...
<jacco> sorry for the echo
mark will add several pages to the main text describing the worndet model and how to use it
scribe: brian is this change OK?
bwm: going in the right direction
3.4 XSCH - XML Schema Datatypes (Jeremy)
<scribe> ACTION: Jacco to ask Jeff to clarify his proposal for data [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action21]
types (float, decimal, etc.)
jacco: i felt jeremey and jeff don't agree on the solution, didn't feel ok with stepping into the discussion
jeremy: technically me and jeff do not agree
... we have unresolved issues ... but not sure where the differences are
....
guus: waste if this prevents us publishing
jeremy: i should talk with jeff
Jacco's action is DONE
<scribe> ACTION: jeremy to contact jeff re resolving the XSD issues [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action22]
jacco: jeremy's last proposal seemed like a reasonable soultion
dbooth: which proposal is most recent?
jeremy: we have dropped one of the three options
<RalphS> Re: [XSCH/ALL] straw poll options [Jeremy 2005-12-07]
jeremy: I favour the derived datatypes solution ... jeff is favouring the eq soultion with xxx theory ...
but I don't see how jeff's solution is actually different ...
3.5 VM - Vocabulary Management (TomB)
'HTTP Cookbook' editor's draft
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0117.html
<scribe> ACTION: dbooth and andreas harth to review 'HTTP cookbook' [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action23]
dbooth CONTINUED
ralph: the VMTF was hoping to get a preliminary review, to get a preliminary general: 'looks good' ...
dbooth: will try to do asap
<scribe> ACTION: TomBaker to add something on where we see the [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action24]
Vocabulary Management work going in the future.
aliman: I know that tom and andreas are in contact, andreas has sent tom some comments re the cookbook, awaiting public comments ...
<scribe> CONTINUED
Action on aharth to review cookbook is CONTINUED
<RalphS> [VM] 2005-12-06 Telecon report [TomB 2005-12-09]
guus: given the revised VMTF description we can consider action on tom & andreas DONE
3.6 HTML - Embedding RDF in HTML (Ben)
<scribe> ACTION: Jeremy write a formal description of the CURI [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action25]
proposal for WG consideration [recorded in
<scribe> DONE:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0184.html
<scribe> ACTION: DanBri to ask TF for sign-off on putting the draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action26]
xhtml vocab to the WG for review. [recorded in
[66]http://www.w3.org/2005/09/05-swbp-minutes.html#action09]
<scribe> CONTINUED
<scribe> ACTION: Ben produce schedule for getting RDF/A editor's [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action27]
drafts docs ready for WG review [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2005/11/04-swbp-minutes.html#action04]
<scribe> CONTINUED
<scribe> ACTION: ben to contact alistair on use of frag id's [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action28]
[recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2005/11/04-swbp-minutes.html#action02]
<scribe> CONTINUED
guus: conerned about progress, hope to get something out by jan
ralph: ben is working on three docs: rdf/a syntax doc, compact URI spec, RDF/A primer ...
TF is now hoping that the HTML WG will take control of RDF/A syntax and compact URI docs and incorporate into XHTML2.0 spec ...
the RDF/A primer is the only one still with SWBP-WG responsibility ...
TF hopes that when this WG reviews the Primer, then we can get consensus on the RDF/A proposal as a whole ...
HTML is already in favour.
Guus: to have the primer as only publication of this WG seems perfectly reasonable
<RalphS> I said "CURIE proposal" specifically, not "RDF/A proposal" for WG consensus, but the general consensus is applicable also
Guus: wondering whether the compact URI issue .should be an integrated part of the primer note ...
I would rather see this as a distinct section that could be plugged out ...
jeremy: informally you've used qnames as abbreviations for URIs, there are problems with some qnames, e.g. iptc URIs ...
compact URI proposal is attempting to retain convenience of qnames, but be more general ....
problem is: when we use qnames outside of an XML document, does it make sense to retain the restrictions on qname sytnax that come from XML?
ralph: syntactic constraints on qnames are ok for RDF/XML ... i.e. for classes and properties ... because there were no classes and properties before that ... so it was acceptible ...
but there are other applications that want an abbreviation for arbitrary resources, then the syntactic constraints on qnames don't work.
scribe: architectural question is: is it correct to use xmlns declarations for arbtirary resources, when what was intended was simply a string prefixing mechanism as in SPARQL ....
<Zakim> RalphS, you wanted to note that QNames work just fine for RDF Properties and Classes, but not for arbitrary resources and to cite b-node requirement
there were alternative ideas for b-nodes, but didn't feel as clean as b-node
guus: still should be separate section that can be skipped by people who just want basic intro to rdf/a
ralph: we'll take that on board
jeremy: in the datatypes note, we suggest that the XML schema component is a reasonable datatype URI ... and these cannot be abbreviated as qnames ...
so a user-defined datatype can be referred to using a CURI because of less restrictions ...
guus: at the moment, we'll wait for rdf/a primer, assume that plan is to get WG approval by end of jan ... means we need something by next telecon
<jeremy> Jeremy: the XSCD URIs for user defined datatypes cannot be abbreviated with qnames, because they end in a )
<jeremy> Jeremy: in XHTML2 the datatype attribute takes a compact URI value
<jeremy> Jeremy: if this were a qname, then arbitrary user defined datatypes could not be used in XHTML2
<RalphS> RDF/A Primer 1.0
guus: reviewers for rdf/a primer , assuming available by 9 jan, have a week to review it ...
<jeremy> Jeremy: if this were a URI then no compact mechanism would be provided for datatypes, discouraging their use
garyng volunteers
<scribe> ACTION: GaryNG and Dbooth to review RDF/A primer by 16 Jan [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action29]
3.7 ADTF - Applications and Demos (Libby)
3.8 RDFTM - RDF/Topic Maps Interoperability (Steve)
erratum: we already decided to publish the survey as WG Note
RALPH: are they planning any other editorial changes?
3.9 Tutorial Page
<RalphS> ACTION: Ralph check with Valentina on whether there are editorial changes to rdftm-survey, then start WG Note publication process if none [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action30]
ACTION Fabien send the mailing list the resources of
education materials from EU projects.
<BenjaminNguyen> resolved
<scribe> DONE
<BenjaminNguyen> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0147.html
<BenjaminNguyen> and acknowledged here : http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0156.html
ACTION* Benjamin to send an email to the mailing list
about positive and negative feedback.
<scribe> DONE
<RalphS> (my action ref -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0092.html [RDFTM, All] Note proposal - rdftm survey)
<BenjaminNguyen> resolved here : http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0157.html however
<BenjaminNguyen> no answers yet
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph cite relevant CG meeting records [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action31]
regarding SemWeb Education & Outreach discussions
[recorded in
<BenjaminNguyen> you can put an action up for me to provide an interactive web page
http://www.w3.org/2005/11/05-swbp-minutes.html#action04]
<scribe> CONTINUED
<BenjaminNguyen> in order to help people score the resources on Tutorial page
<BenjaminNguyen> but need people to check the pages !
<scribe> ACTION: benjamin to provide ineractive web page for Tutorials [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action32]
3.10 SE - Software Engineering
Steps to move Primer to Note:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0173.html
<scribe> ACTION: guus to ping SE TF re making the primer a Note, before 9 jan telcon [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action33]
3.11 MM - Multimedia Annotation
Status update by Jacco:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Dec/0048.html
<scribe> ACTION: Libby to review Image annotation editor's draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action34]
[recorded in
[61]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/17-swbp-minutes.html#action13]
jacco: I'm not expceting review from libby any more
<scribe> CONTINUED
guus: this means we only have one reviewer, need another?
jacco: new reviewer should do review of draft that includes mike's comments
mike: no major problems with draft
guus: we have no volunteer ...
... willing to do it, but not before xmas
... kick me out of the TF and I will review it
<scribe> ACTION: MN editors to work with Ralph on publication [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action35]
Giorgo: what about the patent issue?
Ralph: i don't believe there's a question ... jane hunter's status is resolved ...
guus: patent issue is not a problem
... can we have revised version for decision at next meeting
4. AOB
guus: OWL 1.1?
<jeremy> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jena-dev/message/19868
jeremy: received message re 'OWL 1.1' ... term used at OWL workshop after ISWC ... check that this isn't a W3C thing?
guus: we have talked at our f2f about some group that looks at revisitng RDF OWL core, currently no plans
gary: I was at OWLED, their intention is to go via member submission process re OWL 1.1
from aliman ... see http://lists.mindswap.org/pipermail/owl/ for discussions re OWL 1.1
ralph: direct answer to jeremy's question is: there is no formal W3C activity planned here
guus: thanks all esp aliman_scribe :)
we are adjourned.