17:46:00 RRSAgent has joined #swbp 17:46:00 logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-irc 17:46:05 Meeting: SWBPD WG 17:46:31 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0096.html 17:55:25 SW_BPD()1:00PM has now started 17:55:27 raphael has joined #swbp 17:55:33 +Phil_Tetlow 17:55:34 hi RalphS 17:57:48 FabGandon has joined #swbp 17:58:25 guus has joined #swbp 17:58:46 vassilis has joined #swbp 17:58:55 +Ralph 17:58:57 GaryNg has joined #swbp 17:59:27 libby has joined #swbp 17:59:36 +[Sophia] 17:59:39 zakim, [Sophia] is FabGandon 17:59:39 +FabGandon; got it 17:59:51 Zakim, mute FabGandon 17:59:51 FabGandon should now be muted 18:00:03 you're welcome 18:00:07 +??P7 18:00:18 zakim, ??p7 is Raphael 18:00:18 +Raphael; got it 18:00:32 +??P5 18:00:41 zakim, ??p5 is DBooth 18:00:41 +DBooth; got it 18:00:43 +Giorgos_Stamou 18:00:47 dbooth has joined #swbp 18:00:56 Regrets: ChrisH, BenjaminN 18:01:14 +[IPcaller] 18:01:40 zakim, ipcaller is Guus 18:01:40 +Guus; got it 18:01:45 +Ben_Adida 18:01:51 benadida has joined #swbp 18:02:04 JeffP has joined #swbp 18:02:10 zakim, mute me 18:02:10 Ben_Adida should now be muted 18:02:15 +Libby_Miller 18:02:27 zakim, Giorgos_Stamou is really Vassilis 18:02:27 +Vassilis; got it 18:02:30 +Gary_Ng 18:03:08 +??P12 18:03:26 zakim, ??p12 is JeffP 18:03:26 +JeffP; got it 18:04:01 +Jacco_van_Ossenbruggen 18:04:34 zakim, who is here? 18:04:34 On the phone I see Phil_Tetlow, Ralph, FabGandon (muted), Raphael, DBooth, Vassilis, Guus, Ben_Adida (muted), Libby_Miller, Gary_Ng, JeffP, Jacco_van_Ossenbruggen 18:04:38 On IRC I see JeffP, benadida, dbooth, libby, GaryNg, vassilis, guus, FabGandon, raphael, RRSAgent, Zakim, RalphS 18:05:11 +??P14 18:05:21 zakim, ??p14 is Deb 18:05:21 +Deb; got it 18:05:37 jeremy has joined #swbp 18:05:37 aliman has joined #swbp 18:05:58 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Ben_Adida (muted) 18:06:13 zakim, unmute me 18:06:13 Ben_Adida should no longer be muted 18:06:23 Jacco has joined #swbp 18:06:24 +??P15 18:06:26 +Alistair_Miles (was ??P15) 18:06:40 zakim, alistair is really me 18:06:40 +aliman; got it 18:06:43 ScribeNick: benadida 18:06:49 zakim, mute me 18:06:49 Jacco_van_Ossenbruggen should now be muted 18:06:50 zakim, mute me 18:06:50 Ben_Adida should now be muted 18:07:07 zakim, unmute me 18:07:07 Ben_Adida should no longer be muted 18:07:08 zakim, mute me 18:07:08 Gary_Ng should now be muted 18:07:22 zakim, mute me 18:07:22 Ben_Adida should now be muted 18:07:41 TBaker has joined #swbp 18:08:08 regrets: ChristianH, Benjamin N 18:08:27 +[IPcaller] 18:08:30 take up agenda item 1 18:08:45 Topic: Admin 18:08:46 zakim, mute me 18:08:46 Vassilis should now be muted 18:09:19 Guus: the WG will be extended by 3 months? 18:09:24 RalphS: yes, it is now official 18:09:58 Guus: WG has been extended until May 1st. Coordination Group will draft new charter for semantic web activity 18:09:59 Chair: Guus 18:10:21 ... the chairs hope that participants will hang on for 3 months. 18:10:25 Meeting: Semantic Web Best Practices 18:10:43 ... thus, propose meeting for February 6 18:10:43 GiorgosStamou has joined #swbp 18:11:05 RalphS: poll about a F2F end of feb, beg of March (around TP) 18:11:22 ... we have space Thursday March 2 or Friday March 3 18:12:07 in a formal poll on this, I would have to abstain ... 18:12:21 Guus: there is no requirement to be there (too close to the date) 18:12:36 RalphS: can we poll individually 18:12:47 zakim, who's on the call? 18:12:48 On the phone I see Phil_Tetlow, Ralph, FabGandon (muted), Raphael, DBooth, Vassilis (muted), Guus, Ben_Adida (muted), Libby_Miller, Gary_Ng (muted), JeffP, Jacco_van_Ossenbruggen 18:12:50 I was planning to go to tech plenary, think swbp f2f would be useful 18:12:51 ... (muted), Deb, aliman, jeremy (muted) 18:13:02 zakim, unmute me 18:13:02 Vassilis should no longer be muted 18:13:02 Phil: yes, both days 18:13:08 Ralph: yes, both days 18:13:18 Fabien: yes, both days 18:13:27 ack raphael 18:13:28 zakim, unmute me 18:13:29 Jacco_van_Ossenbruggen should no longer be muted 18:13:34 zakim, unmute me 18:13:34 Ben_Adida should no longer be muted 18:13:40 Raphael: no, per Jacco 18:13:42 Jacco: no 18:13:51 zakim, mute me 18:13:51 Jacco_van_Ossenbruggen should now be muted 18:13:57 DBooth: probably both days, prefer Friday 18:15:02 Vassilis: may stay through Thursday 18:15:10 Guus: no 18:15:16 zakim, mute me 18:15:16 Vassilis should now be muted 18:15:19 Ben: unlikely 18:15:24 zakim, mute me 18:15:24 Ben_Adida should now be muted 18:15:28 Libby: yes, both days 18:15:28 zakim, unmute me 18:15:28 Gary_Ng should no longer be muted 18:15:36 Gary: no 18:15:57 zakim, mute me 18:15:57 Gary_Ng should now be muted 18:16:16 Jeff: unsure, am planning to attend 18:16:48 RalphS: task forces that have critical mass to meet, let me know 18:17:19 Deb: no 18:17:28 Alistair: yes, both days 18:17:39 Jeremy: likely both days 18:18:01 I think it will possible for me to be on Thursday 18:18:02 +Giorgos_Stamou 18:18:18 RalphS: I'm willing to chair the meeting 18:18:27 Guus: I can help via telecon 18:18:30 I cannot speak 18:18:33 Guus: I may be able to participate through irc but not in person 18:18:35 as always... 18:18:40 I'm home 18:19:03 Agenda: amendments? 18:19:17 Guus: none 18:19:48 ACTION: DBooth to propose TAG clarification questions around httpRange-14 18:19:51 -Phil_Tetlow 18:20:02 GaryNg has joined #swbp 18:20:24 Alistair: took action to draft questions for the TAG, though this overlaps with DBooth's action 18:20:54 zakim, unmute me 18:20:54 Ben_Adida should no longer be muted 18:21:05 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0076.html [VM] TAG clarification on 302 vs 303, PURLS and more... [Alistair] 18:21:11 zakim, mute me 18:21:11 Ben_Adida should now be muted 18:21:20 Agenda: DAWG 18:21:24 +Phil_Tetlow 18:21:40 s/DBooth to propose/DBooth to review Alistair's proposed/ 18:21:43 Guus: there was a DAWG telecon, moving to proposed REC 18:21:53 Topic: 2.3 ODM Review 18:22:14 Jeremy: still planning to do a review 18:22:27 ... unclear whether this is the appropriate doc to review 18:22:35 ... continue the action one more time 18:23:12 Topic: 2.4 Protocol and Formats WG request 18:23:28 ACTION: Guus to finish action of 2.4 within 1 week 18:23:46 Topic: 2.5 Other 18:23:59 ACTION: Elisa to review WSDL 2.0 RDF Mapping: 18:24:03 continues 18:24:46 s/continues/CONTINUED/ 18:24:46 Guus: status of part-whole ontology. Should we make this part of OEP discussion? 18:25:21 ... would be good if OEP TF could track this 18:26:05 RalphS: can Deb take an action to respond to Jacek? 18:26:30 +??P18 18:26:32 Guus: there is a response already 18:26:34 +Tom_Baker (was ??P18) 18:27:02 jrvosse has joined #swbp 18:27:11 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0090.html evidence for Jacek that Alan did reply 18:27:17 (Alan's reply not in WG mail archive) 18:28:09 (discussion between Deb and Guus as to whether this action item is finalized) 18:28:58 RalphS: another email shows a window of opportunity: there's move to last call beginning of March. 18:29:17 ... but no further action seems necessary except to bring conversation back to mail archive 18:29:39 Topic: 3.1 PORT - Porting Thesaurii to RDF and OWL (Alistair) 18:30:07 Alistair: no progress to report at this point. 18:30:26 Guus: the next phase (after May 1) will have a SKOS component 18:30:38 Alistair: we want to determine need for 3rd WD 18:30:53 Topic: 3.2 OEP - Ontology Engineering and Patterns (Deb/Chris) 18:31:02 Deb: all action items continued 18:31:05 Alistair: TF is considering whether it wants to do a 3rd round of SKOS WDs 18:31:15 ACTION: Deb to report the plan of OEP [recorded in 18:31:22 continued 18:31:31 ACTION: chris to get revised draft of QCR off alan, 18:31:37 continued 18:31:39 I have an action with others to review Semantic 18:31:39 Integration note 18:31:45 ACTION: Chris to move QCR note to W3C pace 18:31:47 continued 18:32:01 is the Semantic Inegration Note ready to review ? 18:32:16 ACTION: Guus to incorporate Alistair's comments into revised 18:33:00 continued 18:33:04 Guus: some actions in the draft are dependent on one another. 18:33:44 ... need some clarification on this action 18:33:53 ... not sure what the current draft is 18:34:40 ACTION: Deb to contact Chris and get status 18:34:52 Guus: an OEP telecon would be very good 18:34:55 Deb: trying to schedule that 18:35:07 zakim, unmute me 18:35:07 Ben_Adida should no longer be muted 18:35:23 zakim, mute me 18:35:23 Ben_Adida should now be muted 18:35:28 ACTION: Chris to move todo's to the changes section 18:35:30 continued 18:35:36 What about the Semantic Integration? 18:35:38 ACTION: Raphael Georgios S, Fabien, Phil to review Semantic 18:35:55 Is there any document ready for review? 18:36:11 Fabien: still waiting for the version to review 18:36:17 continued 18:36:21 Zakim, mute FabGandon 18:36:21 FabGandon should now be muted 18:36:29 ACTION: Chris and Alan to work with Ralph to make [recorded 18:36:29 Fabien: we exchanged email with Mike Uschold and are awaiting the final version of the Semantic Integration note to review 18:36:36 continued 18:36:45 ACTION: Evan to send note to Feng on discussion of semantics 18:37:09 continued 18:37:16 ACTION: Guus to review OWL Time note [recorded in [recorded 18:37:17 continued 18:37:25 Topic: 3.3 WordNet (Aldo) 18:37:31 ACTION: Guus to bring issue wrt URI space for ontologies 18:37:36 (missed some comments from Guus here) 18:37:46 Guus: making some progress 18:37:51 continued 18:37:55 ACTION: mark van assem to produce revised draft of wordnet 18:37:57 continued 18:38:08 Topic: 3.4 XSCH - XML Schema Datatypes (Jeremy) 18:38:44 Jeremy: had our call, talked about the issue 18:38:54 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw 18:38:59 ... current document reflects agreement 18:39:21 ... change is very limited 18:39:29 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw/#sec-use-amapping 18:39:56 Given that [SPARQL] is still in development, the exact relationship between SPARQL semantics and RDF Semantics is unclear. In particular, in one reading of the current [SPARQL] working draft, the mapping from the typed literal, as a syntactic object, to its corresponding value, is done as part of the operation of the = operator in the above query, rather than as part of say a D-interpretation from [RDF Semantics]. 18:40:43 ACTION: [PENDING] jeremy to contact jeff re resolving the 18:41:08 Jeremy: one more day with editors, then move to WG Note 18:41:16 ... changes are very limited 18:41:42 ... do we need another round of review? 18:42:27 RalphS: Jeremy was summarizing the discussion he had with Jeff 18:42:34 ... raising a question - what happens next? 18:42:40 then ^move to^editors are ready to propose WG Note 18:43:35 Guus: if we have consensus on this last issue (presented at F2F), then there is consensus within WG to publish 18:43:55 RalphS: we'll have to check back with reviewers 18:44:10 Guus: yes, but if that problem is resolved, then I'm confident that it's ready to go. 18:44:39 ACTION: Jeremy to email WG on agreement 18:45:01 Jeremy: I'll provide adequate technical details 18:45:08 zakim, unmute me 18:45:08 Ben_Adida should no longer be muted 18:45:17 zakim, mute me 18:45:17 Ben_Adida should now be muted 18:45:26 zakim, unmute me 18:45:26 Ben_Adida should no longer be muted 18:45:29 s/agreement/agreement he and JeffP reached in XSCH/ 18:45:40 ACTION: [PENDING] jeremy to contact jeff re resolving the 18:45:41 done 18:45:44 zakim, mute me 18:45:44 Ben_Adida should now be muted 18:45:50 Topic: 3.5 VM - Vocabulary Management (TomB) 18:45:50 zakim, please unmute me 18:45:50 sorry, TBaker, I do not see a party named 'TBaker' 18:46:01 zakim, unmute me 18:46:01 sorry, TBaker, I do not see a party named 'TBaker' 18:46:30 zakim, unmute me 18:46:35 Ben_Adida should no longer be muted 18:46:42 zakim, nick tbaker is Tom_Baker 18:46:42 ok, RalphS, I now associate TBaker with Tom_Baker 18:46:44 zakim, mute me 18:46:44 Ben_Adida should now be muted 18:47:01 Alistair: what do we do about purls? purl.org recipe? Do we take them out? 18:47:06 ... do we put them in an appendix 18:47:21 ... during telecon, agreement on moving it to appendix, not sure whether 302's are okay yet. 18:47:31 ... I took an action to ask TAG about 302's for classes and properties 18:47:57 ... other issues regarding readability of the cookbook 18:48:09 ... made some superficial changes (diagrams, small text changes) 18:48:17 Guus: seems to me this doc is ready to go for public review 18:48:35 Alistair: yes, except for one thing 18:48:44 ... there's a bug in the recipes recently discovered 18:49:11 ... default content during content negotiation is RDF 18:49:38 ... thus, if you click on the ontology in a browser, browser requests HTML, and all is well 18:49:46 ... however, IE does not request HTML content 18:49:55 ... thus, clickability doesn't work in IE 18:50:03 is that a bug or a feature? 18:50:13 ... 2 options: 1) change default content type to HTML 18:50:27 ... consequence, every RDF toolkit must request RDF content 18:50:43 zakim, unmute me 18:50:43 Ben_Adida should no longer be muted 18:50:59 q+ to comment on alistair's question 18:51:15 Alistair: 2) leave recipes as they are, and don't get clickability in IE 18:51:17 zakim, mute me 18:51:17 Ben_Adida should now be muted 18:51:37 Alistair: it's a problem with the recipe, not sure if it's an IE bug or not 18:51:46 jeremy, you wanted to comment on alistair's question 18:51:50 -FabGandon 18:52:09 Jeremy: it seems it is good practice to send Accept headers. Question is not whether IE should change (it probably should) 18:52:39 ... no good pointing finger at MS in this instance, because this "bug" is shared by semantic web applications, which don't send Accept headers either. 18:52:48 ... it's more realistic to expect semweb apps to do the right thing 18:52:58 +1 to Jeremy's comment 18:52:59 q+ to comment about default behavior 18:53:37 Alistair: if there's consensus around Jeremy's suggestion, we can move forward with that. 18:54:02 RalphS: agree with Jeremy that all clients should send Accept headers 18:54:14 ... but for purposes of the cookbook, should we suggest a default behavior? 18:54:29 q+ to second Jeremy's position: HTML is more appropriate for naive users/behavior than RDF 18:54:50 ... TF can debate this, whether there should be a recommendation, or whether each ontology owner can decide 18:55:04 Guus: you can also wait for public comments on this 18:55:46 ... I would be strongly in favor of publishing this in the next month 18:56:01 Alistair: it is our plan to publish within a month, given resolution on this issue 18:56:07 Alistair: I /me ack me 18:56:09 ... so 1 month is realistic 18:56:12 RalphS, you wanted to comment about default behavior 18:56:24 q+ to ask if publishing soon would allow response to public feedback? 18:56:36 dbooth, you wanted to second Jeremy's position: HTML is more appropriate for naive users/behavior than RDF 18:57:01 DBooth: Jeremy gave a rationale of installed base for HTML by default. I would also add that HTML is a good response for a naive dereference 18:57:16 +1 to dbooth 18:57:26 ... A semweb is much more likely to knonw what it's doing, thus it is more likely to be able to send the right accept headers 18:57:43 ... it is in line with the previous comment, just a different rationale for the same recommendation 18:57:48 jeremy, you wanted to ask if publishing soon would allow response to public feedback? 18:57:59 Jeremy: is the plan to publish soon and republish if we get feedback? 18:58:13 ... I would be happy to vote on this now 18:58:34 RalphS: I would take the same position 18:58:59 Guus: I would prefer to have this be on the agenda, so next meeting? 18:59:14 zakim, unmute me 18:59:14 Ben_Adida should no longer be muted 18:59:15 s/same position/position to publish soon and expect to update before 1 May/ 18:59:48 +1 on ralph's schedule 18:59:51 Guus: this should be on the VM TF telecon to move the issue to WG telecon 18:59:55 guus has joined #swbp 19:00:03 RalphS concurs 19:00:10 q| 19:00:31 I would like the VMTF to plan to be ready to ask for publication approval on 6 Feb 19:00:45 Topic: 3.6 HTML - Embedding RDF in HTML (Ben) 19:00:59 -Tom_Baker 19:01:00 Ben: we received comment from GaryNG, DBooth, and Pat Hayes 19:01:07 ... we've responded to all substantive points 19:01:26 ... haven't yet made all edits to the document but have agreed on how we will do those eidts 19:01:31 s/eidts/edits/ 19:01:49 PRPOSED to publish the revised version of the RDF/A Primer as Working Draft 19:01:51 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2006-01-15-rdfa-primer 19:02:22 q+ to add contingency 19:02:38 Ben: the only editorial changes we need are to make it conform to WG format 19:03:00 zakim, unmute me 19:03:00 Gary_Ng should no longer be muted 19:03:09 ... may need to add a link to Gary and David's comments 19:03:30 Gary: happy with proposed resolutions to comments and to proceed with publishing 19:03:41 DBooth: also happy to proceed to publication 19:04:01 zakim, mute me 19:04:04 Gary_Ng should now be muted 19:04:11 PROPOSED to publish the revised version of the RDF/A Primer as Working Draft with minor editorial changes 19:04:21 second 19:04:36 PROPOSED to publish the revised version of the RDF/A Primer http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2006-01-15-rdfa-primer as Working Draft with minor editorial changes 19:04:42 RESOVED to publish the revised version of the RDF/A Primer http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2006-01-15-rdfa-primer as Working Draft with minor editorial changes 19:04:47 RESOlVED to publish the revised version of the RDF/A Primer http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2006-01-15-rdfa-primer as Working Draft with minor editorial changes 19:05:28 [CONTINUES] ACTION: ben to contact alistair on use of frag id's [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action28] 19:06:11 PROPOSE to withdraw 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] 19:06:14 [WITHDRAWN] 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] 19:06:22 q+ to ask quickly what the frag id question is? 19:06:33 [DONE] ACTION: DanBri to ask TF for sign-off on putting the draft xhtml vocab to the WG for review. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action26] 19:06:54 Ben: task of completing the draft vocab for publishing is still on-going 19:07:07 Topic: 3.7 ADTF - Applications and Demos (Libby) 19:07:11 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0104.html 19:07:24 aliman, you wanted to ask quickly what the frag id question is? 19:07:30 zakim, mute me 19:07:30 Ben_Adida should now be muted 19:08:14 RalphS: the path from the WG homepage to the data collected by the TF goes to the wiki 19:08:34 ... is that still the best place for it to go? At what point will the other DB be the right place to end up? 19:09:01 ... what's the relationship between that wiki and swordfish.rdfweb.org/ 19:09:25 Libby: it would be good to move this off the wiki into another document 19:09:48 Topic: 3.8 RDFTM - RDF/Topic Maps Interoperability (Steve) 19:09:54 ACTION: Ralph check with Valentina on whether there are 19:09:55 done 19:10:04 RalphS: I have an action to get that document published 19:10:41 continued 19:10:55 ACTION: Ralph cite relevant CG meeting records 19:11:21 continued 19:12:13 Topic: 3.10 SE - Software Engineering 19:12:40 Phil: Jeremy looked at the note one final time, his comments have been incorporated. 19:12:51 ... we're looking for last comments to go to fully-fledged note 19:13:06 I confirm 19:13:14 RalphS: I think we did that last meeting, so if Jeremy confirms that his comments have been taken into account, then it's done 19:13:29 ... so this is the final draft? 19:13:39 ACTION: RalphS will make a publication request for the SE Primer 19:13:53 Topic: 3.11 MM - Multimedia Annotation 19:14:06 ACTION: Guus to review Image annotation editor's draft 19:14:19 Phil: the SE editor's draft has all intended edits 19:14:29 zakim, unmute me 19:14:29 Ben_Adida should no longer be muted 19:14:35 zakim, unmute me 19:14:35 Jacco_van_Ossenbruggen should no longer be muted 19:14:38 Guus: what is the timeline for a publication request 19:14:47 Guus comments addressed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0106.html 19:14:55 Fine 19:15:13 will do 19:15:14 Guus: send to the WG an update on state of document with explicit request for vote, it will be on agenda 19:15:22 -Phil_Tetlow 19:16:09 Guus: we should discuss forming of an incubator group on these issues. (missing some comments here) 19:16:20 OK thanks 19:16:53 RalphS: I believe that Giorgos and EricM have discussed this a bit. There is an inclination for an incubator group for continuing that work. 19:17:34 Excellent 19:17:43 this week 19:17:53 when is it possible for you? 19:17:57 Next MM TF telecon, this thursday, at 17h00 Amsterdam time 19:18:06 ACTION: Guus to review Image annotation editor's draft 19:18:07 done 19:18:15