See also: IRC log
<RalphS> Previous: http://www.w3.org/2006/10/24-swd-minutes.html
<RalphS> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2006Oct/0054.html
TomB: roll call. encourage people to do self-intros
TomB: write a paragraph and post
... Motion to accept minutes from oct 24
... Seconded by Ralphs
... motion passed
Elisa: As of Monday, the OMG announced ontology definition metamodel is adopted spec
<Elisa> http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/2006-10-11 - ODM Specification
<RalphS> ACTION: Ralph consider a tutorial on scribe [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/31-swd-minutes.html#action01]
<RalphS> drop action 1
<scribe> ACTION: Elisa to post announcement to SWD list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/31-swd-minutes.html#action02]
<RalphS> ACTION: Ralph consider a tutorial on scribe conventions [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/17-swd-minutes.html#action01] [CONTINUES]
<RalphS> ACTION: [DONE] Ralph to link to chris' telecon notes from SWD homepage [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/17-swd-minutes.html#action02]
<RalphS> ACTION: Alistair give pointers to deployed SKOS systems. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/17-swd-minutes.html#action06] [CONTINUES]
<RalphS> ACTION: Daniel to link his use case to SKOS draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/24-swd-minutes.html#action01] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/31-swd-minutes.html#action06]
Daniel: I've talked with a couple
of the groups I mentioned last meeting
... it's a good opportunity; there interest in contributing to the development of a standard they can use to distribute their terminologies on the Web
... they'd use SKOS if it meets all their needs
... they're currently using OWL
... how should we proceed to develop this use case?
... the WG could give them a strawman and ask for feedback
Tom: what is the current state of their terminology?
Daniel: they are currently
expressing their relationships in OWL
... one group is using Protege frames but are planning to convert this to OWL
Elisa: I have another similar
opportunity; I have been asked by a group working on ISO 11179
to help them put this into OWL
... they already have a lot of it in UML
... and I have some tools to convert UML to OWL
... because their work is evolving we may have the opportunity to impact it
... Bruce Bargmeyer is my contact
Tom: ISO 11179 is pretty big; it has 6 parts
Elisa: parts 2 and 3 are relevant, part 3 is what I think is the focus
Daniel: this is connected to National Cancer Institute work and is a huge opportunity
Elisa: see XMDR www.xmdr.org and
look at latest UML and OWL versions
... though a bit out of sync with the document text
... they've recently sent me XMI stuff
-> http://www.xmdr.org/ eXtended MetaData Registry Project
Daniel: how much technical expertise is needed?
Elisa: XMI is an XML
serialiaztion of MOF, a subset of UML
... they've sent me both OWL and XMI; the OWL is OWL-lite
... also, Frank Olken is now at NSF; he was also involved in 11179
<dlrubin> Link to ISO/IEC 11179: http://metadata-standards.org/11179/
<TomB> Daniel: We use the use cases to drive evolution of SKOS - make sure it supports needs of other communities. Interest in 11179: is there stuff in there that should influence the evolution of SKOS?
TomB CABig - NCI
Cancer Bioinformatics Grid - metadata for clinical trials uses
11179 for terminologies for data-capture purposes.
Interoperability with SKOS would be great.
... Have ISO 11179 map to SKOS - make sure SKOS is compatible.
<dlrubin> scribnick: Daniel
Elisa: Any review on SKOS compatibility would be very helpful - even informal.
<dlrubin> Elisa: any help in making skos compatible with iso 11179 would be good
<dlrubin> ACTION: Elisa to keep us posted as SKOS/iso 11179 compatibility issue evolves [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/31-swd-minutes.html#action07]
<dlrubin> Ralph: there is already a working draft of skos
RalphS: Looking for Alistair informal presentation earlier this year...
<dlrubin> ...we should consider that to be the strawman
RalphS: our task is to finish the
... based on feedback from 11179 and others...
...the reason to to skos work in this WG, it's important to have OWL expertise involved
...it could appear that OWL and SKOS are trying to represent similar types of relationships
...we want to make sure there is enough expertise to understand what OWL subclassing and SKOS broader/narrower is doing
...people familar with OWL would be good to be involved in setting skos reqirements
Elisa: we are still a smal group. Will there be more OWL best practices people
Ralph: not necessarily. We have 15 people in the WG
...Mike is interested
...we may persuade him to stay involved
Elisa: Deb has been travelling a lot...
...conf call conflict with rif call
...there are many people in Best Practices in the rif group
Ralph: probably can't move the call later
Elisa: Conflict with RIF call - SWD could potentially have more participants involved in RIF.
<dlrubin> ACTION: Tom to discuss with Juus [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/31-swd-minutes.html#action08]
<TomB> Elisa: any day of the week at this time. Or move up one hour.
Elisa: any day of the week is fine, preferably after 7am.
Daniel: any day except Tues, preferably after 7am Pacific
<RalphS> (elisa:7am == 7am US Pacific Time == 1500 UTC now)
<ryager> I prefer to stay with the current time.
<TomB> Daniel: same - any other day of the week. No earlier than 7am.
Seanb: likes this current time
<TomB> Sean: likes this time. Could potentially change.
berrueta: likes this time
<TomB> Bernard: rearranged this week around this time.
Rachel: prefer the current time
<TomB> Rachel: prefer to stay with current.
TomB: anyone else able to report on RDF and XHTML tcon?
Ralph: Ben is traveling
... Nothing new to report since last week
tomb: We have finished the
... propose we close early today
<RalphS> Alistair on SKOS, RDFS, & OWL
TomB: meeting adjourned
<RalphS> SKOS discusssion