Scribe: Ken Laskey
1:Ken to continue action 3 (from 3 October meeting) to
come up with member-only way to view evolving draft.
Ken created section on Member page for report drafts and discussed this in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-xg-urw3/2007Oct/0000.html.
An email thread followed that indicated a preference to continue work on the wiki and Giorgos Stoilos noted a tool (http://burns.w3.org/cgi-bin/wiki_tr) used by the RIF WG for generating HTML from the wiki. It turns out the tool is not generally available or supported, and Ken said he was uncomfortable using an undocumented tool with uncertain support.
Mike said it should be up to the editing team on how to generate a report in a way that got things done with the least extra effort.
Mitch thinks it is safer to have discussions on wiki and extract to HTML. Paulo agreed, saying we can have wiki for people to write and editing team will focus on HTML document.
Ken noted W3C tools for doing diffs between HTML files. These and other tools along with current status is at http://www.w3.org/2004/12/wg-tools.html.
In summary, the editing team is responsible for the the final report in HTML. The specifics of the process used for generating the report is up to the editing team as long as there is transparency in how things are done, a process for submitting comments against report drafts, and we ensure that all comments are adjudicated fairly. It is also important to have configuration management for the drafts so we can reliably track comments back to the text and see what actions were taken.
This action closed.
ACTION: Giorgos, please look more into wiki to HTML tool and make recommendation on use.
Paulo to take continuing action on Action 4.: Paulo to insert
his more detailed specifics in discussion section of discovery use
Action continuing and combined with previous action 4 and 5.
ACTION: Editing Team continue from last meeting Actions 2, 4, and 5: insert more detailed specifics in discussion section of discovery use case; work on appropriately connecting Discovery use case to uncertainty ontology; start identifying "methodologies" for addressing the issue of annotating the use cases.
Peter and Mitch to provide email and/or lead to later discussion on how
probabilistic and fuzzy could be combined.
Mitch reported on email exchange with Peter. Capture at http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/urw3/wiki/OpenIssues. They were looking for ways to annotate with uncertainty and then user would perform own analysis using these annotations.Kathy said there is discussion in literature and conferences on theories for combining, but Mitch said he was unsatisfied with current suggestions.
Ken noted that XG scope is to come up with what are likely annotations and may have second set of what needs to be captured to show analysis that leads to conclusions using annotations.
Mitch said the uncertainty ontology should be extended to show domain
(fuzzy, probabalistic, ...) and needed info for each domain.
Kathy thinks Mitch and Peter's scenario is very helpful in laying out issues to be addressed; thanks to Mitch and Peter for doing this. Kathy would make some changes to the scenario. What is called fuzzy there should, she thinks, be modeled as a utility function. Kathy will add something to the scenario addressing her comment and putting in something she thinks can be modeled with fuzzy.ACTION: Kathy to comment on discussion and extend.
Action 4: Paulo, Trevor and Mitch to work on appropriately connecting Discovery use case to uncertainty ontology.
Continued and added to new action 2.
Action 5: Paulo, Trevor and Mitch to start identifying "methodologies" for addressing the issue of annotating the use cases.
Continued and added to new action 2. Note, combining with action 2 takes place of action 4.
6: Vipul to expand one of the HCLS use cases with
types of uncertainty
exhibited (using uncertainty ontology as guide)
ACTION: Vipul to expand one of the HCLS use cases with types of uncertainty exhibited (using uncertainty ontology as guide) [continue 17 October action 6]
7: Peter to work on the extraction use case.
ACTION: Peter to work on the extraction use case. [continue 17 October action 7]