See also: IRC log
<RalphS> Previous: 2006-01-23 http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes
<scribe> Scribe: DBooth
<dwood> Minutes from 12 Dec: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0014.html
<dwood> Minutes from 9 Jan: http://www.w3.org/2006/01/09-swbp-minutes
DWood: We didn't record accepting some of our previous minutes.
<dwood> Minutes from 23 Jan: http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes
<RalphS> 2005-12-12 record in HTML form
RESOLUTION: Accept minutes of 12 Dec, 9 Jan and 23 Jan.
<dwood> PROPOSED next meeting 20 February 2006
<RalphS> 20 Feb is a US Holiday
RESOLUTION: next meeting 20 February 2006
<RalphS> (I expect I will attend on the holiday if the WG meets then)
<Zakim> TBaker, you wanted to propose Cookbook for Working Draft
DWood: Other agenda for today?
Ben: RDF/A Primer
<benadida> yes!
<TBaker> thank you!
Alistair: DBooth had action to request clarification from
TAG on the issue, and I had a VM TF action to ask whether 302 redirects
are okay, so I drafted something boiling it down to whether hTTP
responses are assertions. That also seemed like what was underlying a
lot of discussion on the thread and whether it is okay to use a URI to
name a person. I thought the httpRange-14 decision was to the effect
that HTTP response is an assertion.
... Pat Hayes said he doesn't think this is a good idea to ask, that
this is still a research question. DWood also commented.
<RalphS> +1 to Pat Hayes' arguments being well worth reading
<dwood> ackk dbooth
<RalphS> DBooth: my view has shifted as a result of the email discussion
<RalphS> ... I had felt that AWWW said that what the RDF/A Primer is doing should not be done
<RalphS> ... but after reading Pat Hayes' and Jeremy's remarks I see there is a different interpretation of the TAG's writings
<RalphS> ... I don't think it would be advisable to force the question right now
<RalphS> DavidW: is there a different question that is worth asking the TAG?
Ralph: I had been skeptical about whether it's worth asking the TAG to resolve anything, because I didn't feel it was likely they would answer quickly, so i'm confortable not pushing them on this.
DWood: How about a purely SemWeb interpretation of the rang-14 issue?
Ralph: Not sure that's the best use of our time in the WG. But publishing the docs that we are publishing (RDF/A Primer, Apache Config Cookbook), both docs can touch on this question. i hope there will be several venues in which this issue is discussed (including this WG), but having an objective to resolve this in the next few months may be reaching too far.
<Zakim> aliman, you wanted to say something about webarch
Alistair: When I first read the TAG's httpRange-14 decision, the way I read it, I thought that the implied position was that an HTTP response is effectively an assertion, and I think quite a few other people read it that way as well. It could be useful to ask the question of the TAG. They could then say no, that isn't what we mean.
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to say I think we can sidestep the issue
<RalphS> DBooth: it's reasonable to send a question to the TAG
<RalphS> ... with regard to our documents we can side-step the issue
<RalphS> ... as it really comes down to the particular usage of an ontology; whether that particular usage runs into the issue
Ralph: I'm okay with posing the question to the TAG. Don't know howw much background we need to supply on it.
<RalphS> DBooth: my interpretation now is that an HTTP response is an assertion but that assertion is different from what I originally expected
<RalphS> ... and perhaps also different from what Alistair expected
<RalphS> ... I don't want the TAG to think the WG is asking a question because we are waiting for a response but rather note that we ran into the question and found confusion in the area
<Guus> suggest that DavidB takes this action
<RalphS> Ralph: "we noted some ambiguity ..."
<RalphS> ACTION: DBooth to draft a new message to the TAG noting the ambiguity remaining in httpRange-14 and HTTP responses [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-swbp-minutes.html#action01]
Elisa: No tools for QVT to validate. Delayed to April hoping for tools. Can drop Jeremy's action.
<scribe> ACTION: [DROPPED] jeremy to review OWL chapter of ODM [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-swbp-minutes.html#action02]
Elisa: I did review the WSDL 2.0 --> RDF mapping review verbally.
<scribe> ACTION: [DONE] Elisa to review WSDL 2.0 RDF Mapping [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-swbp-minutes.html#action03]
<scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Guus to arrange telecon between himself, Alistair and PFWG (rephrased as: "Guus to finish action of 2.4 within 1 week in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes.html#action02 ") [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/17-swbp-minutes.html#action07]
<aliman> guus did you just say you sent a mail to pfwg to arrange a telecon?
<Guus> wrt Action PFWG: it was rephrased as: "[NEW] ACTION: Guus to finish action of 2.4 within 1 week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes.html#action02]"
Alistair: Nothing to report
Ralph: Still expecting to do another WD of SKOS?
Alistair: Undecided.
Elisa: Had a call last week. Chris and Allen working with Ralph. Action is now mine to work with Ralph to put it into CVS.
<scribe> ACTION: Elisa to work with Ralph to make part-whole doc ready for publication (Elisa took over this action from Chris and Alan) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes.html#action11] [CONTINUED]
<RalphS> Elisa's report on action status for OEP actions
<Guus> and i took the original action text for the agenda as it was clearer
Elisa: Still outstanding: Deb needs to be sure all
comments are captured from Galway mtg.
... (on integration note).
<RalphS> (hmm, actually, 0027 doesn't have the detail I'd thought)
<RalphS> [ALL/OEP] Minutes of 2006-01-30 Telecon [Elisa 2006-02-06]
Deborah McGuinness sent an update to the January 30 OEP telecon minutes sent by Elisa
Elisa: QCR note is being reconstructed after Chris's hard drive crash. Should be fine.
<RalphS> (0042 has more action status detail)
Guus: Voted on both notes alreadY?
Elisa: Not sure. One minor change needed on QCR from Alan.
<scribe> ACTION: Deb to contact Chris and get status [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes.html#action08] [DONE]
<scribe> ACTION: Deb to report the plan of OEP [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/09-swbp-minutes.html#action03] [DONE]
<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] [PENDING]
<scribe> ACTION: Chris to move QCR todo's to the changes section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action12] [PENDING]
Mike: Had a meeting where we made a detailed plan for the Note. I updated a new draft, much more detailed. Missing code examples. Chris Benzel will fill in code examples. Deb McGuiness will add an example at the end of the note.
Raphael: Still the version of 3 Nov. Is there a new URI for the latest version?
<aliman> what's the URI for the sem integration note?
<scribe> ACTION: Mike to put up latest version of the sem integration note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-swbp-minutes.html#action10]
Mike: You could review structure now or wait for complete draft.
<RalphS> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/ points to http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SemInt/ (currently dated 3 Nov 2005)
<scribe> ACTION: Raphael Georgios S, Fabien, Phil to review Semantic Integration note [http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action15] [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-swbp-minutes.html#action11]
<scribe> ACTION: Evan to send note to Feng on discussion of semantics in time ontology note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action13] [CONTINUED]
Elisa: Evan pointed out an issue with the domain language.
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to review OWL Time note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action09] [CONTINUED]
<RalphS> action#17 is to get part-whole ready for publication
Elisa: Regarding part/whole note, Chris is reconstructing
it from hard drive crash.
... N-ary relations note is waiting on a new ordering pattern from Pat
Hayes. Currently ordering of flight segments is implicit. Pat has the
action to fix this; not sure of how to get it into the note.
... Discussion of additional potential notes. Chris has asked for a
Fluents note.
<RalphS> "Chris is working on a Fluents note, " -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Feb/0042.html
Elisa: Been talking about units of measure, what will happen to OEP. Suggestion was to ask OEP to be rechartered. Chris might participate at a lower level. No conclusion but we thought it is a good idea for it to move forward.
<RalphS> ACTION: Ralph add link to minutes of f2f on WG home page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-swbp-minutes.html#action14]
Guus: We only approved the Part/Whole note at the Galway F2F.
<RalphS> ACTION: Ralph check for link to minutes of March 2005 f2f on WG home page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-swbp-minutes.html#action15]
Guus: Mark has made a new version. Handles all comments so far. Want reviewers.
<RalphS> RDF/OWL Representation of WordNet $Id: 06-swbp-irc.txt,v 1.83 2006/02/06 19:36:11 swick Exp $
Guus: Main addition: Added intro for how to use it.
<scribe> ACTION: Jacco to do second review of WordNet doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-swbp-minutes.html#action16]
<RalphS> action- 16
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to ask Brian to review Wordnet doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-swbp-minutes.html#action17]
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to bring issue wrt URI space for ontologies to the SWCG [recorded in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0144.html] [DONE]
<dwood> The editors hence propose publishing:
<dwood> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw-20060127/
<dwood> as a WG Note.
<Guus> URI for my WNET action: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Feb/0043.html
PROPOSED to move WD to WG Note:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0161.html
Ralph: Who reviewed?
Guus: Evan and Ralph reviewed.
Ralph: I'd have to re-read this before I can state an opinion.
<RalphS> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw-20060127/
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph and Evan to provide reviews of Schema note http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw-20060127/ by next meeting [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-swbp-minutes.html#action19]
<TBaker> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0180.html - see Section 3, "Response to reviews"
<RalphS> [VM] Telecon Tuesday (today) 15:00 UTC
Tom: Discussed suggestions made by reviewers. Want to propose the draft for publication as WD.
<TBaker> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/http-examples/2006-01-18/
Tom: I believe we addressed major points made by reviewers.
<dwood> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0180.html
DWood: Reviewers were Andreas and DBooth.
<aliman> no amendments are being proposed
Guus: I propose we put this on agenda for next time.
<RalphS> DBooth: are we proposing to remove some words regarding httpRange-14 from the cookbook?
<RalphS> ... the intent of my action was to propose some words on how to select which type of URI to use, which I think is still relevant
<RalphS> ... I recall doing some work on these words but might not have posted to the list
<RalphS> ... I think words can be written that avoid controversy
<Zakim> aliman, you wanted to mention scope
<RalphS> DBooth: I think it is relevant to say something about what kind of URI to use
<RalphS> Alistair: the TF summarized the scope of the document [reads Introduction]
<RalphS> ... the document scope is primarily for existing vocabularies
<RalphS> ... though Ralph did include a few words about choosing names
<RalphS> ... if David wants to propose some new text I'd be glad to look
<RalphS> DavidW: DBooth is free to propose words, the TF decides whether or not to include the proposed words before asking the WG to publish
<RalphS> Alistair: in that case, I ask the WG to publish the draft as-is and we consider any proposed new words in a future update
<RalphS> DBooth: I'm comfortable with that. It sounds as though the TF carefully bounded its scope to avoid the question of picking URIs but I feel this is such an obvious question that it should be covered
<Zakim> RalphS, you wanted to ask DBooth if these additional words should hold a first WD
<RalphS> Tom: can we take the resolution to advance the cookbook to Working Draft on the next telecon, please
Tom: I'd like to advance this to WD on 20 Feb. Would like any proposed text before 14 Feb.
<scribe> ACTION: DBooth to re-review Apache Cookbook document by 14 Feb [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-swbp-minutes.html#action20]
<scribe> ACTION: Tom to ask Andreas to re-review Cookbook document by 14 Feb in light of changes already made. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-swbp-minutes.html#action21]
Ben: Lots of discussion regarding WebArch issues. On mailing list 2 wks ago I made a mistake and forgot to include a section that Mark had written. Lots of positive feedback on them. Wanted to check withh the WG that we're still okay to go to WD.
<Guus> we have voted, so it is basicaly editor's discretion
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to say I'm okay going okay with first WD
Guus: We already voted on it.
... No problem in going forward with it.
<scribe> ACTION: [DONE] ben to contact alistair on use of frag id's [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-swbp-minutes.html#action22]
CONFIRMED: Document is ready to publish as a WD.
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph to publish RDF/A document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-swbp-minutes.html#action23]
(skipped)
(skippeed)
<scribe> 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] [DONE]
(skipped)
<scribe> ACTION: RalphS will make a publication request for the SE Primer [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes.html#action24] [PENDING]
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph cite relevant CG meeting records [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes.html#action23] [PENDING]
Jacco: Want to move the MM doc to public WD. Reviewers: Mike and Guus.
DWood: Has Jane Hunter contributed?
Jacco: She contributed a first draft of example. I asked her to revise it and have not heard back.
<raphael> "Image annotation on the Semantic Web", latest version available at http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/MM/image_annotation.html (v1.142)
<Zakim> RalphS, you wanted to ask about Jane Hunter's contribution
Jacco: Chris Catton also promised to send a use case soon-ish.
Ralph: Jane Hunter has not completed the invited expert materials.
Jacco: She told me she had.
Ralph: There's a form she needs to complete.
Jacco: I think her name can be removed from the list of
contributors.
... I'll forward Ralph her email about this.
<dwood> Jacco, Please note that in Section 5.4, s/Apollo 7 Saturn shuttle launch/Apollo 7 Saturn rocket launch/
<scribe> ACTION: Mike to re-review MM doc to see if his concerns are addressed by end of this week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-swbp-minutes.html#action27]
PROPOSED: To move the MM doc to WD contingent on Mike's approval of changes.
"Image annotation on the Semantic Web", latest version available at http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/MM/image_annotation.html (v1.142)
Mike: it isn't linked from the BP web page.
RESOLUTION: To move the MM doc to WD contingent on Mike's approval of changes.
Ralph: Do we have permission to use all the NASA and other images?
<Zakim> RalphS, you wanted to ask a copyright question
Jacco: Yes.
<chalaschek> yes the nasa image is ok
<aliman> bye
Change Log:
$Log: 06-swbp-minutes.html,v $ Revision 1.8 2006/02/22 19:48:58 swick Silliness; turn the previous commit comment into hypertext. Revision 1.7 2006/02/22 19:47:47 swick Add participants who were present per the irc log but who were omitted from the attendance list. Revision 1.6 2006/02/07 17:27:57 swick Add Phil's regrets, as requested by DBooth. Revision 1.5 2006/02/07 17:25:30 swick Add Deb's update as mentioned in followup email.