See also: IRC log
<RalphS> Previous: 2006-04-03 http://www.w3.org/2006/04/03-swbp-minutes
<scribe> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Apr/0061.html
RESOLUTION: to accept the minutes of the 3 April 2006 telecon:
PROPOSED upcoming telecons: 8 Mayj
Guus: There may be time between the start
of other WGs taking up leftover work from this WG. DWood and I
discussed limited continuation without formal approval, and agreed to
... It will be a limited activity extension, provided there is participation from WG members. Telecons only by need.
Ben: Thank you for volunteering to do this. It will be very helpful for our TF.
Elisa: I also appreciate your support.
Raphael: Busy with XG proposal. Should start very soon and be announced very soon.
<libby> ok that's fine
Guus: Libby, we might want to discuss your TF transition.
<libby> not done much on it lately though
<Zakim> RalphS, you wanted to proposed continuedbiweekly telecons
Ralh: Tom Baker and others are traveling this month, but i'm sure they'll be pleased.
Ralph: Reason for bridge period is to help docs in the pipeline. I think it would be useful to keep telecons in place. Much easier to cancel than to schedule ad hoc.
<benadida> I will be at WWW2006/AC meeting
Guus: May 22 is WWW2006. How many goingn to WWW2006?
DWood: I think we should do it, and those who can attend will.
<RalphS> I expect to be (remotely) attending the AC meeting on the 22nd, but will make an attempt to participate
Proposal: Telecon may 22 and every 2 weeks: June 5, June 19.
<raphael> Jacco and Raphael travel to WWWW too
RESOLUTION: Meetings May 8, May 22, June 5, June 19.
Defining N-ary Relations on the Semantic Web Note published
List of output documents:
<scribe> ACTION: Elisa to ask Sem. Integ. editors to revise prior to final mtg [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/03-swbp-minutes.html#action04] [CONTINUED]
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to sort out status of QCR note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/03-swbp-minutes.html#action05] [PENDING]
Guus: I need to talk to Alan Rector on this.
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph get N-ary Relation to WG Note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/03-swbp-minutes.html#action01] DONE
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph update ADTF link to point to DOAP Wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/03-swbp-minutes.html#action10] [DONE]
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph to find out who were previous reviewers of part-whole doc and see if they will re-review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/20-swbp-minutes.html#action08] [DROPPED]
Ralph: Confused about this. Had a review?
Guus: We had a first review.
Jacco: My action to review was on hold pending revision of the doc.
<scribe> ACTION: Jacco to review Part-Whole doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/03-swbp-minutes.html#action02] [DROPPED]
Ralph: Version referenced from WG home page is on Alan Rector's site, dated 15 Jan.
<Jacco> 2 weeks ago I only found a page date august 2005
Ralph: Do we want to get it on the WG plate?
<RalphS> ACTION: Ralph copy http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~rector/swbp/simple-part-whole/simple-part-whole-relations-v0-2.html to WG area [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/24-swbp-minutes.html#action07]
<RalphS> 15 Jan 2005
<RalphS> Ralph: and I will fix its style to cease claiming it is a Working Draft
<scribe> ACTION: 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] [DROPPED]
Guus: We already voted to publish that. I don't understand Jacco's review action.
Ralph: This was in limbo for a long time because of the lost bits on Chris Welty's hard drive crash.
<Jacco> Ralph, the version I see on http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/ is still august 2005
Ralph: This is confusing. OEP page points to Aug 11 2005draft, but WG home page (under Other Editors Drafts) points to Jan 2005 version.
Jacco: We discussed it during the F2F.
Ralph: We didn't find any new bits since the F2F.
Guus: OEP needs to find out where is the current version.
<scribe> ACTION: Elisa to find correct latest version of part-whole draft. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/24-swbp-minutes.html#action09]
Ralph: Last version checked into CVS was Aug 13 2005. W3C doesn't have a more recent version.
Guus: In the meantime I'm checking the QCR note. It just requires final review.
<RalphS> Ralph: the most recent version of Simple part-whole we have committed to W3C CVS was committed on 2005-08-13
Guus: The only thing I think needs to be done is people working on OWL 1.1 initiative have also proposed a syntax for QCRs.
QCR = Qualified Cardinality Constraints
Guus: So it would be good to get this published so that WG could take it as input.
<RalphS> OEP Home page points to -> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/QCR/ Qualified cardinality restrictions
<Elisa> zakim mute me
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to propose a version of QCR note for review by 8 May teleconf [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/24-swbp-minutes.html#action10]
<Elisa> zakim unmute me
Guus: I propose we get rid of the part-whole actions and replace them with Elisa's action to find latest version.
<Elisa> zakim mute me
<Elisa> thanks -- :)
<RalphS> Ralph: I will update the WG home page to cite the Aug 2005 version of part-whole, to avoid confusion with the Jan 2005 version
<scribe> ACTION: Evan to contact Feng about status of Time note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/03-swbp-minutes.html#action03] [DONE]
<Elisa> zakim unmute me
Guus: Who was second reviewer of Time note?
<scribe> ACTION: Elisa to figure out who was 2nd reviewer of Time note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/24-swbp-minutes.html#action12]
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to review OWL Time note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action09]
<scribe> new version of OWL Time:
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to ask Mark to compare his doc with our Recipe's [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/03-swbp-minutes.html#action07] NOTE [DONE]
<Elisa> zakim mute me
Guus: Proposed to use W3C URIs, and mark agreed. New draft available today.
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to discuss with other WN TF members about using W3 URI's in next draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/03-swbp-minutes.html#action06] DONE
<scribe> New draft (23 April):
Guus: Propose publishing new draft as 1st
WG draft, with one amendment: All URIs should work in W3C space.
... Mark needs to finish changing princeton URIs to W3C.
... Draft has had extensive discussion, and will continue being discussed.
<RalphS> (yes, the 23 April draft still has princeton.edu URIs from Appendix G onward)
Ralph: Jacco and Benjamin were reviewers.
Guus: There's a message from Benjamin saying he can live with all the changes.
Ralph: If we get mail confirmation from Benjamin then we're good to go.
Jacco: No problem with latest version.
<RalphS> Jacco: I haven't read the 23 April version but based on the mail discussion I have no problem
Guus: Propose we publish 23 April WD on two conditions: 1. Ralph and Mark make URIs work in W3C space; 2. Reviewers send explicit consent to the list.
<Elisa> The two original reviewers of the OWL time note were Libby and Jeremy according to the notes from the F2F meeting in Galway.
Ralph: I'll Check the URIs.
<libby> I reviewed it elisa
<libby> and so did jeremy I think
<Elisa> Yes -- and I believe your comments were addressed.
<libby> yeah I think so, not sure about jeremy's offhand
Jacco: I consent.
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to ask Benjamin if he agrees to the WG publishing 23 Apr version with the above provisos. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/24-swbp-minutes.html#action16]
RESOLUTION: We publish 23 April Wordnet draft on two conditions: 1. Mark and Ralph make URIs work in W3C space; 2. Reviewers send explicit consent to the list.
<Elisa> sorry -
Ben: I'll give reviewers credit in next draft.
<benadida> ^-- URL of latest draft
Ben: You need to use the Mozilla browser
at present, but this will be fixed by final draft.
... I think we've address all comments but need to check once more.
... Changes from last draft are not dramatic. They were to avoid contentious issues.
<RalphS> Ben: current version uses xmlspec DTD so client-side XSLT required; will be in HTML form when we publish
Ben: Want it re-reviewed.
Guus: Two reviewers would be okay. Previous reviewers would be fine.
<scribe> ACTION: DBooth to re-review RDFa draft by next teleconf (doc ready by Wed 26 Apr for review) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/24-swbp-minutes.html#action17]
Ben: Other volunteers to review?
Guus: Previous reviewer was Gary. Ask him if he'll review it again.
Ben: Plan is to make the normative doc a part of XHTML 2 spec.
<RalphS> Ralph: suggest asking Fabien to review RDFa also
Ralph: Also ask Fabien, since he's trying to implement it.
<scribe> ACTION: Ben to ask Gary (and Fabien) if they would review RDFa Primer doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/24-swbp-minutes.html#action18]
<Elisa> Guus and all -- I need to jump off to catch a plane. Thanks, and talk to you in a couple of weeks.
Ben: We're finding beginnings of bookmarklets highlighting RDFa marked up terms.
<scribe> ACTION: Ben to send examples of bookmarklets highlighting RDFa marked up terms to WG list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/24-swbp-minutes.html#action19]
<scribe> ACTION: Ben_Adida to find reviewers and put acknowledgements in [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/24-swbp-minutes.html#action20]
next draft [recorded in
Guus: Transition to outreach group?
Libby: Data is there for people to take and use. Demo's broken. Page of RDF and XSLT is there.
Guus: Close the TF?
Libby: Please do close it.
<libby> cheers guus
RESOLUTION: Close ADTF - Applications and Demos TF
Guus: There will be an XG on this -- perfect for continuing work on it.
Jacco: Wanted version ready May 5 for discussion in last teleconf. Do we need reviewers?
Guus: Best to approach previous reviewers (Guus and Mike Uschold).
<libby> cheers all!