1. ADMIN (10 min)

<TomB> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/ScribeDuty

guus: suggestion from daniel to start scribe rota

tomb: we have scribe convention doc

<scribe> ACTION: tomb and guus to look at proposal for assigning scribe duties [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/05-swd-minutes.html#action01]

2. SKOS REQUIREMENTS (30 min)

<scribe> ACTION: [DONE] Antoine and other editors to write up format. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/05-swd-minutes.html#action02]

antoine: we had a telecon to discuss the format, some small changes suggested
... what is the deadline?
... changes were, added preliminary section asking for contact information, also ask if they mind use case description being published on SWD website
... only change for format, other changes were in companion mail, put our three individual mail addresses, apologies for cross posting
... reference to some help for the contributors, daniel suggested we might put on the wiki an FAQ, could put answers re use case questionaire there
... also added link to example I put on the mailing list
... final point is the deadline, we realised we missed a deadline for the gathering process, sohuld ask contributors to send before certain date, contributions welcome prefereably before jan 1st
... does the WG have different advice?

guus: more in favour of jan 12
... more than a week before f2f, documents need to be available one week before, will make rough material available for f2f

antoine: no problems with late contributions?

sean: deadline of 1st jan realistically means 2? of december because into xmas hols

antoine: not aware to provide raw material for f2f
... ok with 12 jan

guus: we will have raw material for f2f

bernard: can i suggest 14?

guus: others have to think how to use raw material, turn into one document

antoine: we discussed that yesterday, if wg agrees to have these things on wiki in organised list, this will be how we propose use case to WG

guus: suggest to go on and send request out
... no reason to delay

antoine: ok, i have just changed mail taking into account new deadline, can send out tonight or tomorrow if no objectsion.

guus: others seem minor, at your descrietion as editors

antoine: ok lets go!
... also list of people to send this thing to? current skos list, this wg list, we all have certain people to send this questionaire to, shall we count on this WG to propagate?

guus: also semantic web interest group for life sciences, general semantic web interest groups, indicidual projects also, editors can take care of main w3c lists

alistair: also dublin core general

antoine: delegate sending to alistair?

guus: no, send to respective lists, cc this WG so we know who has received it. Members of this WG can also forward.
... division of labour?

antoine: discussed this yes, we know what to do.

<scribe> ACTION: [DONE] Jon, Daniel, Antoine figure out their individual roles as SKOS Requirements editors [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/05-swd-minutes.html#action03]

guus: how did you divide the labour?

antoine: agreed, jon mainly in charge of wiki asspect of gathering of use case, sort them out and attribute each use case to one of us, then do editing on invididual basis, then put on wiki with help of jon.

- SKOS issues list

guus: alistair you already prepared an issue list under SWBP, i sent around format for issues list in OWL
... at f2f like to agree on initial list of issues, and agree on process for managing issues as they come out of the requirements
... this will give us the work plan for how to move current skos specs to w3c recommendation
... role in issue process for chair to decide which issue to tackle next

<TomB> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/Deliverables - summary of Issues process

guus: ??? feature in spec ... we can close issues, can postpone issues if this WG cannot resolve the issue
... can keep on agenda for later WG
... the SKOS and rules issue brought up by sean is good example of what could be an issue

tomb: I put a summary of issues process up, suggest we use this

guus: suggest we keep an issue list in the wiki, an issues page where we list them all.
... issues best for rec track work, suggest to have separate issue lists for different deliverables

aliman: talking about skos specific issues list?

guus: yes. probably right also cookbook may have issues we need to record, found issues process very useful for working towards a goal, when issues list is done, you're done.
... make sure we raise issues, any member of WG and also people from outside can enter comments which we can handle using issues
... sean would you be able to submit your comment using the issue format?

sean: ok

guus: ... having issue list as wiki means everyone can own the list, but as chairs we will ensure stays up to date.

<benadida> I hope it's okay that I've already started using the wiki... not much, easy to rename, of course.

<scribe> ACTION: sean to submit SKOS and rules issue using agreed issue format, directly into issues wiki page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/05-swd-minutes.html#action04]

antoine: question about links between issues and requirements, and about requirements gathering process

<TomB> ACTION Tom and Guus: establish wiki format for issues list.

antoine: what is exactly link? does each issue have a motivating requirement? does sean need a motivating requirement before submitting issue?

guus: not a strict rule. expect us at f2f to go through requirements, look at things current SKOS specs cant handle, based on that raise an issue. those issues can also be raised on the current spec if others spot inconsistencies in current spec ...
... also links with other groups, e.g. if we have rules in there, what format should they be given we have rules WG in W3C?
... concerned with things we have to solve in current spec.
... in OWL most of our issues came up in use case analysis, also some came up as comments on spec.

Antoine: ok, i just put starting of requirements list on wiki, makes sense to keep requirements list where sean could e.g. put requirement and link issue to?

<TomB> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/CandidateReqList

guus: haven't decided whether rules are requirements for skos.

antoine: but we were thinking of sandbox for requirements, then WG could decide whether candidate requirements are accepted

aliman: how are requirements accepted by the WG?

guus: based on use cases we will set out requirements, one of discussions for f2f will be to decide on critical requirements for skos, in OWL we set out number of requirements which were hard, wg finished when hard requirements finished, then number of requirements we set as desirable...
... e.g. skos can go out without meeting them ... some room for judgment there. Also why we are collecting use cases, to have sufficient evidence to base judgmental decisions on.

antoine: in owl use cases doc have distinction between design goals, objectives and requirements?

guus: general requirements, then requirements based on use cases e.g. from multimedia use cases, not sure if we need similar distinction here, don't have opinion.

antoine: useful for use to decide if we start gathering things on wiki, these distinctions made sense in the owl doc, not sure if we should have them also for skos, discussion welcome

guus: not sure either at the moment
... propose we start process of collecting material, if someone sees a problem feel free to raise an issue, we will see if there is a need for general requirements
... e.g. taking the rules issue. if no use cases in which rules are particularly useful then don't have to take as an issue we must resolve.
... this is just an example, actually quite sure there are use cases where this is useful.
... very reluctant to accept requirements where there is no use case to deomnstrtae, but this is open to discussion

antoine: raise requirements not related to use case, then another step where we try to link requirement to use case, but not sure if analysis of use case will result in every requirement
... confident analysing use case will provide requirements ...

guus: in software engineering talk about functional and non-functional requirements, functional derive from use cases, non-functional are more general

aliman: any requirement that doesn't have a use case, should challenge submitter of requirement to at least provide hypothetical use case

guus: agree.

<scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Alistair to prepare issues list for January meeting [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/05-swd-minutes.html#action05]

<scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Elisa to keep us posted as SKOS/iso 11179 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/05-swd-minutes.html#action06]

1. ADMIN (10 min)

guus:PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 28 Nov telecon:
http://www.w3.org/2006/11/28-swd-minutes.html

tomb: second

guus:PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 28 Nov telecon: RESOLVED
- telecon times:
Next telecon will be 12 December, 1600 UTC
expect another telecon 19 dec, no telecon on 26 dec (holiday in many countries), next telecon on 2 jan.
then telecons on 9 an 16 jan, then f2f. so we have 5 telcons before f2f.

- Face-to-face on 22-23 January

<TomB> 1+ to say that Jan 2 is a quasi-holiday in Germany

guus: w3c is not yet up to date with organisation, no registration open yet, i'll ping ralph to ask.
... we have allocated room for 15 people on mon and tue, hope to have registration soon
... list number of hotel options, if you are somewhere in boston its easy to get public transportation
... buildling is close to T station?

ben: close to Kendal square stop on red line of T

guus: even if have hotel in downtown boston, can get to realtively easily?

ben: hotels in cambridge, either marriott or kendall square hotel, these are extremely convenient for MIT
... don't know pricing however, heard good thinks about kendall sq, also university park hotel, still walkable
... these three are good options

<benadida> Stata Center

ben: is the meeting at stata centre?

<Bern> http://www.w3.org/2007/01/MGMoverview.html

guus: yes, if you go to link to information page, see name of venue, will see room allocation schedule, at bottom will see list of hotels
... many possibilities for hotels listed there.

ben: royal semester hotel is not most convenient in terms of travel, that one and marlow near the galleria mall, getting to stata will be a bit painful

guus: if cold, walking to T is a nuisance

<benadida> Royal Sonesta and Marlowe (less recommended)

tomb: raised my hand to ask about jan 2 telcon date, my organisation is closed, others are closed, quasi holday, who else in that positoin? How many might not be able to attend on 2 Jan?

sean: can't attend 2 jan

guus: keep 2 jan as question mark for the moment, decide on the 19.
... because we are going to use wiki alot, then we need to make wiki more prominent on our home page, also if you click on wiki you need to get to start page where it is clear where all the content is.

<scribe> ACTION: guus and ralph to look at structure of SWD home page and wiki home page to make sure access is easy [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/05-swd-minutes.html#action07]

3. OTHER DELIVERABLES (15 min)

[deliverables numbers taken from charter

http://www.w3.org/2006/07/swdwg-charter]

- Deliverable 5: RDF in XHTML

ben: telcon yesterday, jon phipps lurking welcome, ??? interested in semantic wwiki application of rdfa, forging ahead with use cases and requirements for rdfa working on this on wiki
... i've asked everybody to cc SWD mailing list from RDFinXHTML list.
... still being uncertain about HTML WGs, charter has again changed, placement of RDFa has also change. but we will keep forging ahead so at least spec is in good shape before that gets figured out.
... now interest from ibm and lotus in application of rdfa, say more when ready to give more details, good news for the effort.

guus: appreciate efforts to keep whole WG informed

ben: testing out now on practical examples, FOAF CC BIBTEX... if there is favoured vocab you want to ask us about then send an emal.

guus: good to involve people not on telcon now, send request to mail list.
... wrt to rdfa, what are your goals for f2f?

ben: use cases & requirements should be ready foer review by end of calendar year, also should be in good shape to show latest version of primer, so use cases and primer documents should be ready for review at f2f.

guus: can we schedule decision to publish these docs at f2f?

ben: yes realistic

guus: need to assign reviewers not as direct editors

ben: need to reach out beyond group?

guus: I volunteer to review this, familiar with previous drafts. any other volunteer to review rdfA?
... ask at the next telcon, expecially people lurking, for reviewers.

<scribe> ACTION: guus to review RDFa documents [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/05-swd-minutes.html#action08]

<scribe> ACTION: guus/tomb to put item on f2f agenda to make publication decision for RDFa documents (use cases and primer) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/05-swd-minutes.html#action09]

guus: how long needed to make decision?
... about 6 slots of 1.5 hrs available, expect to use 3 slots for skos, so have 3 slots left, very rough planning

ben: expect to 1 hr discussions, 1 for use cases, 1 for longer term strategy

- Deliverable 2: Recipes for Publishing RDF Vocabularies

<scribe> ACTION: [DONE] Guus to send email to SW Interest Group re Recipes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/05-swd-minutes.html#action10]

guus: at previous telcon had 2 volunteers for editing this doc, jon and diego, think at next telcon need to schedule longer discussion how to move forward, need to think about what is needed.
... can you prepare a discussion for next time?

jon: some TODOs in the doc

guus: also need issues list for cookbook? for next week what needs to be done to complete this document. Good if you can summarise main thoughts prior to email.

tomb: point out linked to issues that have been raised from deliverables wiki page, including some issues raised under SWBPD

guus: know that e.g. ian davis from thalys had some experience with recipes, willing to comment, spoke to him at ISWC in Georgia, problem is he is involved in GRDDL, certainly willing to comment
... has background to give useful comments

- Deliverable 3: Principles for Managing RDF Vocabularies (namespaces, change management, versioning)

<scribe> ACTION: [DONE] Tom to consider call for participation for VM on model of [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/28-swd-minutes.html#action09]

4. AOB (5 min)

no, thanks all for attending telcon, we are adjourned