See also: IRC log
RESOLVED to accept the minutes of the 20 Feb 2005 telecon
RESOLVED next meeting 20 March 2006
<guusschreiber> I can do the agenda
Guus and DavidW at risk; Ralph backup chair
Alistair: I have just written up a few issues;
flagging them as place-holders. These don't have to be resolved immediately.
See SKOS Core
Proposals and Issues. I have also hacked-up a validator for SKOS; see SKOS Core home page. A Chinese
translation of labels and comments has been contributed; it's a quite
meticulous bit of work. Last week at the face-to-face we had two very good
discussions about some of the SKOS open issues:
... 1. whether or not SKOS Core can be imported into an OWL ontology
... 2. the relationship between SKOS and OWL
If you have a SKOS thesaurus and and OWL ontology that cover the same area,
how do you assert relationships between the two? I don't consider either of
these vital to the immediate success of SKOS. The question of whether we
expect to get a third SKOS WD out in the lifetime of this WG is still open
DavidW: I suggest RFC 2119 MUST/MAY/SHOULD language; this defines useful keywords. Referencing this RFC and using those terms is consistent with other specs.
Alistair: If we do a third WD it won't have substantive changes to SKOS Core, mostly a new appendix on extension. Beyond May, resolution of issues on Issues and Proposals list. If proposal to do a SKOS Recommendation goes ahead, I would like to write a Use Cases and Requirements document. This would take a couple of months to do
Guus: there's progress on the Semantic Interoperability note; Mike sent a link to the new draft
ACTION: [DONE] Mike to put up latest version of the sem integration note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-swbp-minutes.html#action10]
-> [OEP] New Editor's Draft of Semantic Interoperability & Integration Note [Mike 2006-02-28]
Raphael: I will do my review during the week
ACTION: [PENDING] Raphael Georgios S, Fabien, Phil to review Semantic Integration note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action15]
ACTION: Guus remind Giorgos, Fabien, and Phil that their review of Semantic Interoperability editor's draft should now commence [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/06-swbp-minutes.html#action03]
ACTION: [PENDING] Guus to review OWL Time note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action09]
[PENDING] 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]
Guus: no progress report on part-whole note
ACTION: Guus check with Elisa and Deb on which remaining OEP notes are feasible to complete by 1 May [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/06-swbp-minutes.html#action05]
ACTION: [PENDING] Elisa/Chris 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]
DavidW: Aldo is asking for an additional reviewer
<Benjamin> I can review
ACTION: Benjamin review WordNet editor's draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/06-swbp-minutes.html#action07]
<RalphS:> Benjamin, Guus wonders if you can complete the review before the next telecon? (please :)
<Benjamin> sure I can ralph
Guus: my target is to publish the current editor's draft as a WD by 1 May
ACTION: [DONE] DavidW prod Evan for his comments on the XSCH Editor's Draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/20-swbp-minutes.html#action14]
ACTION: [DONE] 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]
Jeff: Evan's comments were mostly editorial; I added some to section 3.6
Ralph: I reported my quick review at the previous telecon. I am comfortable publishing
-> Jeff's response to Evan's comments
PROPOSE to publish http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw-20060127/ as a Working Group Note
Guus: did we give sufficient notice on the agenda of this motion?
Ralph: we sheduled this meeting last time with the expectation we would have the reviewer's comments
RESOLVED to publish http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw-20060127/ as a Working Group Note
ACTION: Ralph to publish http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw-20060127/ as a Working Group Note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/06-swbp-minutes.html#action10]
DavidW: any other documents from XSCH TF?
Jeff: no
RESOLVED: XSCH TF is closed with thanks to Jeremy and Jeff
ACTION: [PENDING] Tom find a place for the footnote on "simplest" recipe [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/20-swbp-minutes.html#action16]
Ralph: Tom wants to talk about this before making a change
-> [VM] Action to add 303-redirect reference [Tom 2006-03-05]
Ralph: re both rdfhtml and vmtf; the docs we want to publish are still in the pipeline, hope to be done within a few days. Re rdf/a, we discovered semantics of rdf lists, unordered lists are like rdf:bag, ordered lists are like rdf:seq, navigation list like rdf:alt so we proposed adding this to the rdf/a semantics, as syntactic sugar for constructing these, decided to proceed. HTML WG expected to have published new editor's draft for XHTML2 last week but not published yet. Authoritative spec of RDF/A will be there. There was productive discussion of rdf/a at HTML WG last week, mostly discussed marketing and educational activities now that we're settled on the design. Also from discussion last week it's clear there's a lot of interest in xhtml 1.1 module for rdf/a. .TF had this on the back burner. In recent discussions Steven Pemberton was opinion you can't do enough of rdf/a under constraints of xhtml 1.1 modullarisation. He's now changed his opinion, so task force resolved to take up this work item and actively look into xhtml 1.1 module for some subset of rdf/a. Mark Birbeck has action to do first draft. A couple of issues we're looking into. This is a new item we had expected to defer, but based on feedback from last week we're going to do more quickly.
Guus: timing?
Ralph: this tf is meeting weekly, Mark did not give ETA for his draft, but hope to have discussed how much of rdf/a can be put into xhtml 1.1 module within 2 weeks.
Guus: publication of html wg or swbp wg?
Ralph: still expectation that normative spec will come from html wg. html wg charter is up for renewal (along with swbp) not yet clear that rdf/a XHTML 1.1 module is not in html wg charter, but it can now be added to html wg charter.
ACTION: [PENDING] Ralph to publish RDF/A document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-swbp-minutes.html#action23]
Ralph: in case the wg is not aware, a rough draft of semantic web activity charter was sent to AC on friday 24th feb. That draft notes several questions for the A/C before the final version. One question is where should the rdf/a work continue? Expectation that it will continue, but 24/3 draft does not say where.
Dave: informal indications?
Ralph: encourage wg particpants to encourage their a/c reps to express opinion.
<Zakim> aliman, you wanted to talk about re bags etc
Alistair: everytime I've mentioned rdf:Bag or rdf:Seq people have said 'no!' How widely has the idea of including this in RDF/A been considered? I understand there are problems with these when merging RDF data so in SKOS we've decided to stay away from these
Ralph: concern noted. The HTML TF believes the RDF semantics are identical to the HTML semantics. RDF Collections do not have the semantics of being closed w.r.t. a single document, nor does HTML
DavidW: I concur with Alistair that there's been some nay-saying over the years but I also concur that RDF and HTML seem to be in agreement on whether these are closed w.r.t. a single document
Alistair: Bijan Parsia and Pat Hayes may have opinions on this
Libby: some discussion last Friday; summary is that we now have 40 items listed in DOAP on the page. This page has been quite successful. I took an action on Friday to update the description on the ADTF page
<libby> (relatively speaking :)
(no representative)
-> Minutes of 21 Feb editor's meeting [Steve Pepper 2006-02-21]
DavidW: are we comfortable that this TF can move along?
Guus: my expectation was that they would produce the document that we currently have and anything else is a bonus
DavidW: should we close the task force now then?
Guus: they're still working on more, so let's let them proceed
Ralph: we talked about each of the TFs on Friday; see those meeting records. Personally, I think RDFTM is a candidate for an Incubator Group
<Benjamin> I'd like to point to
<Benjamin> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Feb/0131.html
<Benjamin> I set up a poll forum
<Benjamin> no one has looked at it yet, so no comments on the value of our ressources on the tutorial page
DavidW: there has not been much input to Benjamin's form
<Benjamin> indeed David
-> Tutorials page quality assessment [Benjamin 2006-02-20]
DavidW: everyone please help Benjamin get feedback
<dwood> SWBPD Tutorials form
<Benjamin> pages _should_ all be linked (checked last week) so I figure 404 error is temporary
DavidW: I've gone through a few of the pages myself; more pages should be checked
<Benjamin> If you want to write down your opinion on the pages you checked feel free to
<dwood> will do
<Benjamin> either vote / post if there is something specific to say about a page
ACTION: [PENDING] RalphS will make a publication request for the SE Primer [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes.html#action24]
Ralph: we have Director's approval to publish
Raphael: two telecons ago the TF agreed that the Image Annotaton document is ready for WD if Mike Uschold does not object. Mike sent comments and I answered them today
<raphael> the answer of mike comments are ni http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Mar/0018.html and in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Mar/0019.html
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/MM/image_annotation.html
Raphael: what about the internal links in image_annotation and links to the second editor's draft
Ralph: where are the links to the second editor's draft?
<raphael> href="resources/interop.html"
Ralph: we won't be able to publish a Technical Report that references other editors drafts in any significant way
Raphael: two telecons ago the WG agreed to publish contingent on Mike's approval
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-swbp-minutes.html#action27 RESOLUTION: To move the MM doc to WD contingent on Mike's approval of changes.
-> [MM] Image Annotation for the Semantic web - Review [Mike]
DavidW: have we checked the copyright permission on all the images?
Raphael: only one image was a problem and we removed it. We have explicit permission on the others; these are archived in the WG mail archive. We have asked for another TF member to have write access to the TF pages; this person would update the pages after the WG closes
<dwood> The NASA image should be explicitly attributed to NASA in compliance with http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/copyright.html
Ralph: the preference at this time is to have the WG materials frozen when the WG closes and for new work to be done under the charter of an Incubator Group. If the Incubator Group proposal is submitted within the next month, I think it is highly probable that there will be an XG approved before the end of this WG
ACTION: Raphael confirm that the license message from NASA has been sent to the public WG list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/06-swbp-minutes.html#action14]
DavidW: even with the license email, the way I interpret the copyright statement we must explicitly attribute the image. Just add the words "we got this from NASA"; the NASA copyright says "NASA must be acknowleged as the source of this image"
ACTION: Raphael add NASA attribution text to the Image Annotation editor's draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/06-swbp-minutes.html#action15]
ACTION: Ralph work with Raphael to publish http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/MM/image_annotation.html as a Working Draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/06-swbp-minutes.html#action16]
DavidW: what are the plans to finish this to Note by 1 May?
Raphael: we do hope to get to Note by 1 May. There is still a lot of work to do on second document on vocabularies for annotating multimedia. The TF is not clear on how much we can do by the end of the WG; we have a telecon scheduled for next week to discuss. I won't guarantee that the second document will even be ready for review by the end of the WG
ACTION: David and Guus prepare a list of expected outcomes of SWBP for 20 March telecon [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/06-swbp-minutes.html#action17]
[adjourned]