See also: IRC log, previous 2006-12-19
<RalphS> Guus: best new year wishes to everyone
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] [CONTINUES]
next scribe: Daniel
Guus: we have 8 WG participants registered as of today, with 4 observers
RalphS: TBL wants to create Boston SW Users
Group.
... since we are convening on Jan 22-23, opportunity to have "pre-launch"
event
... so has asked if we could participate on Mon or Tues evening in some
event
... could mean short presentations
... or just share hors d'oeuvres
Guus: no objections.
Diego: not Tues evening
Antoine: ok
RalphS: ok
Bernard: no
Alistair: ok
Jon: ok both days
RalphS: meet for hors d'oeuvres then shorter dinner.
Guus: can present.
RalphS: Will be Web access - will be in MIT office area. Near WG meeting room.
ACTION: RalphS inform group on evening event. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/09-swd-minutes.html#action02]
ACTION: [WITHDRAWN] Alistair to prepare issues list for January meeting [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/28-swd-minutes.html#action06]
ACTION: [DONE] Alistair will send the outstanding issues to the list and Jon will paste into the formatted page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/19-swd-minutes.html#action05]
ACTION: [DONE] Jon to create an issues page on the wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-swd-minutes.html#action07]
-> "Cookbook Issues page" [Jon]
Guus: I plan to propose an issues-management process next meeting
ACTION: [DONE] Sean to submit SKOS and rules issue using agreed issue format, directly into issues wiki page (waiting for Jon) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/05-swd-minutes.html#action04]
Guus:Sean's submission accepted
-> issues process ideas from Ralph
Ralph: there is another issue tracking tool that is
available to the WG
... I will send mail about it today or tomorrow
<Zakim> TomB, you wanted to ask where (in the wiki?) we will describe "issues process"
<TomB> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/Deliverables
Tom: do we want to capture the issues process in another wiki document?
Jon: I copied the Best Practice Recipes issues process from RIF
Ralph: the records of whatever process refinement we agree to after Guus' proposal next week warrant their own Wiki page IMHO
Guus: the substance of my proposal is whether to add potential-issues to the wiki before discussion or discuss first then add to the list
Daniel: I have received input with feedback for
one use case, partial input on a second and am awaiting 2 more
... expect a total of four use cases from me
<Antoine> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/RawUCs
Antoine: there is a wiki page that sums up the
use case descriptions
we've received
... the edited use case that Daniel submitted is included there
... with placeholders for others
... I have also cited other use cases that have been mentioned on the WG
list
... the idea is to check the correctness of these descriptions w.r.t. the
questionnaire then move them to another page
<Antoine> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/EditedUCs
Antoine: EditedUCs may be more usable for preparation of the document itself
Daniel: also the BirnLex UC [is ready for EditedUCs]
Antoine: I wanted the editors to take responsibility for moving items from RawUCs to EditedUCs
Guus: we want to have documents for the f2f
ready one week in advance
... is it feasible to have a raw SKOS UC document in that time?
Antoine: I intend to work on this in the coming
week
... prior to that I want to talk about the length of the descriptions
... the existing Use Case documents use shorter descriptions than the ones
submitted to us
... should we summarize in our SKOS UC document or would we prefer to keep
the full data?
Guus: my preference is to keep the full data
... might be nice to have in addition a short summary in terms of SKOS
requirements
... perhaps 2 paragraphs that summarize the key points
Antoine: I can contribute an icon class use case
Daniel: what are the tasks for the editors for this week?
Guus: I would like the UCR editors to create a document that includes all the submitted use cases
<TomB> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/EditedUCs
Ralph: I am quite happy leaving it to the UCR editors' discretion whether or how much to summarize a use case description
Daniel: is there a document started already?
Antoine: no, just wiki data
Guus: just a compilation of responses is fine for now
<Zakim> TomB, you wanted to suggest including full data that is edited (e.g., questions removed) to improve readability
Tom: there are some things in the raw data that could be
omitted just for readability
... e.g. repeating the questions verbatim
... editors can use discretion in dropping repetitive information
Daniel: I was thinking of an executive summary that captures what is important for SKOS
Guus: sounds good
-> "[SKOS] branding" [Alistair]
Alistair: the issue is presenting SKOS in a way
that is easier to understand
... previously we'd divided SKOS into 3 pieces and the old Web site reflects
that division
... I think it makes more sense now to present all of SKOS as one thing, not
divide into Core, Vocabulary
<aliman> http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/webstage/
Alistair: so I'm halfway through refactoring
the SKOS website
... to make a single introduction to the area
... any objections to my continuing with this or suggestions?
Guus: I had some access issues; should that page be public?
Alistair: yes, it should be public
-> which W3C mirror are you getting?
Ralph: the wereami page may help in diagnosing access problems to the W3C servers
RESOLVED: Alistair's refactoring of SKOS pages can proceed
-> "[RDFa] Documents ready for review" [Ben]
Guus: I volunteered to review these documents
ACTION: Guus to review RDFa documents [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/05-swd-minutes.html#action08] [CONTINUES]
RalphS: In BPD WG, we had two reviewers.
Guus: Same process here - two reviewers not involved, then group decides.
RalphS: Guus is one reviewer. So essentially Ben is asking for a second reviewer.
Guus: For publishing first working draft, need to assess - "is it suitable for discussion with public?" - only
RalphS: No minimal definitions. Only real requirement: pass publication rules. Is it reasonable for publication?
Guus: At some point, editors say "we think it
is ready". Two others send comments. There is a short discussion. Then chairs
propose a decision for WG as a whole and WG decides.
... Diff from Recommendation. For WG, only "sufficient info for which we want
feedback from public". Don't have to agree on everything. Must be of interest
to public.
... Would expect new primer version, and Use Case document, to be good
candidates.
Bernard: deadline?
Guus: pubn decision Jan 22-23 and review in the
coming week.
... need one week for process.
... people besides reviewers are welcome to comment.
ACTION: Daniel will review RDFa. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/09-swd-minutes.html#action08]
ACTION: [DONE] Jon will choose one of the three issues pages, create a proposed format, and then post to the list for discussion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/19-swd-minutes.html#action11]
-> Cookbook Issues Page [Jon]
Jon: I have to add a clarification to an issue that Diego posted
Guus: the chairs open [accept] an issue and
assign an owner
... is Diego willing to be the owner of issue COOKBOOK-I1.1?
Diego: accepted
ACTION: Diego progress issue COOKBOOK-I1.1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/09-swd-minutes.html#action10]
Guus: leave this for next week or f2f as we're out of time
[adjourn]