See also: IRC log
<Susie> http://esw.w3.org/topic/SweoIG/Meetings/2008-01-16_Conference_Call
paula, now it should be identifying you correctly
jeff put together some initial info for business case/presentation
so far draft has been produced, link sent via email
draft shall now be opened up so that people out of SWEO can comment
draft is produced in a "backwards" style: technology is a background, very few successful business cases are technology led
most uilt around idea of decreasing risks
Jeff Pollock speaking
the approach tries to show why SW can be used as a low-cost as opposed to hi-risk solution
SW is often pictured as strategic, long-terms solution, so this is somewaht addressed
Jeff continues: think about SW as a tactical rather than strategic choice...
Jeff: after technical founations, provide
justifications why and how to launch programmes (in the near future), rather
than relying on technologies from the past
... make people understand that when they invest into SW they invest into a
(technology) solution of the future
<danja> (sorry I'm late, dozed off after lunch)
Jeff: draft shall be now opened to comments to gauge consensus, etc. once that is reached, we can go for a PPT version of it
Kingsley: is the draft in ESW wiki?
Jeff: only to mailing list... so the thing needs to go into ESW wiki
<Kjetil> http://me.jtpollock.us/pubs/drafts/SWEO.SemWeb.BusinessCase.v1.doc # <- this one?
KIngsley: if in wiki, the doc might be easier to edit, collaborate (via a browser, rather than downloading)
Jeff: no preference for collab medium/format... doc should reside with the community
Susie: then it looks like wiki is the choice
<scribe> ACTION: Susie to put Jeff''s doc onto ESW wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/16-sweo-minutes.html#action01]
Susie: can edits be done before sweo concludes
at the end of January = how much can be edited by then?
... we should aim at a delivery around next week
Ivan: PPT is ssecondary, doc should be finished to the extent people are happy with it
Chris: offering help...it's good doc talks about capabilities, what SW enables, how it's done
Susie: also agrees that technological basis
might not be ideal for this kind of doc, so a good choice of approach
... we should get comments by next Wednesday, so that Jeff can move on to
slides
... would we be able to publish the doc itself (not only PPT)?
Jeff: would be very useful, so that there is more narrative, not just labels, bullet points
Leo: good doc, neutrally written... wonders what is the "white paper"-ish aspect of this doc = how is it gonna be published
Ivan: finished version on the wiki is fine, at
this moment, if more is needed, we can 'upgrade' to e.g. IG Note
... if slides are made, they should be done in a way that links them with
narrative (e.g. for re-use)
Susie: maybe preparing slides so that it contains chunks of the agreed narrative
Leo: data uploadded today
... core data sets up and running, few smaall technical problems - contacted
implementers
Susie: let me know when the issues are overcome, so that we can write it into blog
... there was some discussion re URI doc
Leo: a few emails from december, one this month... Danny also responded, but the recent emails somewhat returned back to old issues discussed at the w3c level
Danny: main of the latest email wasn't really relevant to the URI doc, only minor editorial change suggested
<leobard> danja: the editorial change you suggested is good
<leobard> danja: it is: "The standard Web transfer protocol, HTTP, should be used."
<leobard> to something like:
<leobard> "The standard Web transfer protocol, HTTP, can provide such a look-up
<leobard> mechanism".
Susie: URI doc is on track, waiting for
deadline for comments to pass to upgrade the doc
... encouraged people at W3 coordination mtg to look at it
Leo: deadline is next Monday for URI, what will happen after the revision round?
Ivan: depends on comments, so far comments /
issues are minor, almost on the editorial level
... with such points we can still go ahead and publish it as a Note, if
something controversial comes, we may have a problem
Susie: let's wait for the deadline (21/Jan) and see the what kind of comments we get
Ivan: no update, nothing received from GRDDL people to include
Susie: I will chase them
Ivan: no progress at this point
... received mail from Melli who should review the use cases by the end of
this weekend, Lee will do something similar
Melli: Lee and me would have a look at cases, identify categories of facets that seem to be coming out of materials
Danny: no more progress at this point
... some ideas to use talis technology, but still in progress, so more
information to come next week
Kjetil: continued to work
... project likely to continue, probably not concluding within this SWEO
<danja> ACTION: Danny to continue with RecommendedTutorials, with aim of having something to show within current SWEO lifetime [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/16-sweo-minutes.html#action02]
Benji: also needs more time for his project, still there is a possibility to conclude within SWEO
Kingsley: work is going on, some more inpute expected from german guys
Susie: now about a year old, data is a bit out
of date, so what about its validity?
... maybe it was good as an information input, but little reason to publish
it as a doc
proposed: scrap the idea of publishing enterprise survey
Susie: go to wiki and enter info on what SWEO should be interested in when going on into the future
<Susie> http://esw.w3.org/topic/SweoIG/TaskForces/Next_Steps
Susie: put yout thoughts there, it would influence what SWEO does, etc.
Bengee: Q re wiki page... maybe we should get some form of task force debriefing, to get an idea what worked,etc
Susie: maybe debriefing should be scheduled for last call, 30 Jan