See also: IRC log
1. Approval of last telecon minutes from 10 April
for publication, see [a]
2. Primer on Delivery Context Ontology and its
relationship to client and server-side APIs,
see [b], plus thanks to Jose for his work
2. Personalization (Rich), see [c]
3. RWC Charter and work item on location API, see [d]
4. Face to face planning based upon questionnaire
results, see [e]
5. Review of open actions, see [f]
6. Any other business
any objections to publishing last week's minutes?
<Rotan> none here
No objections so
Resolution: publish minutes of 10 April 2008
Thanks to Jose for his work on editing. we are now featured on the W3C home page.
<Rotan> Will primer address management of the ontology as it grows? I have a wee problem with an issue mentioned in 1.1.1 that might cause trouble managing a distributed ontology process in the future.
The next step is a primer explaining the ontology and relating it to client and server-side APIs.
<Rotan> Requirement to have a "unique value" for properties.
<Rotan> How would uniqueness be guaranteed if different groups were to take responsibility for different domains of the ontology?
Sure, Jose says he wants to modularize the ontology for the next draft.
<Rotan> So we should consider management of that process.
<Rotan> Primer should explain the ontology, its role, and its future direction.
<Rotan> In DD we don't have that problem because vocabularies will be in their own namespace.
<Rotan> Permitted for properties in different vocabs to overlap.
<Rotan> But eventually all vocabs will reference the "ontology".
<Rotan> Even if that ontology is created in a distributed manner.
Jose agrees with the aims of the primer.
Jose: the primer is needed to explain the role of the ontology and the relation to the core vocabulary published by the DDWG
<Rotan> +1 to Jose
Dave asks in Jose is willing to act as editor for the Primer?
<Rotan> Could primer use DDWG vocab as an example, showing mapping of DDRCV properties to items in UWA Ontology?
Jose: yes, but I am looking for someone else to help, perhaps Rotan?
<Rotan> I can help, yes.
<Rotan> Jose take editorship lead.
Dave asks what kind of timescale we can expect a first editors draft and what input Jose and Rotan are looking for?
<Rotan> Wondering how much/little about ontology concepts would need to be explained, and how much we could merely reference to external sources of expertise.
<scribe> ACTION: Jose to work with Rotan on preparing a Primer for the ontology [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-uwawg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-89 - Work with Rotan on preparing a Primer for the ontology [on Jose Manuel Cantera Fonseca - due 2008-04-24].
Dave invites Rich to give a status report
Rich met with ISO, IMS, EU for All, and Fluid
Dave: welcomes Carlos and invites him to give a few words of introduction (Carlos Velasco from Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology)
Dave asks Rich on what he sees as the next steps for work on personalization.
Dave confirms that the current charter covers user preferences and adaptation as part of work on the delivery context.
Rich says he is currently very busy as editor on 3 documents and will be able to get back to us with concrete next steps in May.
Dave asks Carlos if he has any suggestions for things we could be doing.
Carlos: need to synchronise with what ISO are doing.
<Rich> LIP = Learner Information Package
<Rich> also known as personal preferences as part of Access For All standards
<Rich> ISO has their version of these specifications in SC36
You pick resources to see if they are adaptable or whether there are alternative resources.
It is not just passing preferences, it is ensuring that on the server we can do the appropriate selection/adaptation based upon existance of the associated metadata
Rich is interested in what has been done or is planned for rich descriptions of applications as opposed to devices, since both are needed for effective personalization.
Dave notes that this is related to the plans for work on model-based user interfaces and a W3C Incubator Group he is trying to set up with Charlie Wiecha, Jose and Fabio Paterno. The idea is to look at use cases, requirements and practical solutions, based upon many years of research on model-based UI design.
<carlosV> For interface personalization, we may take a look at ANSI/V2. I think it is also transferred to ISO
Rich asks about the liaison with the OMA.
<Rich> what is his name?
<Rotan> Bennett Marks
Dave notes that Bennett Marks acts as the OMA liaison to the W3C HCG see the HCG archive
Dave introduces the activity proposal and explains that it includes a work item for a location API stimulated by a submission from Google
Jose: unconvinced of the need for a specific API for location and that the need could be addressed by a generic means to expose location through the ontology.
Dave thinks that there are a number of complications. Here is a link to my slides for the talk I am giving on geolocation in the mobile web from the W3C track at WWW2008
<Rotan> Must also acknowledge comment from Art that some people don't want a dependency on DCCI.
<Rotan> Perhaps we could bless some work on a location API that would be DCCI-friendly but not depend on it?
Dave quickly runs through some of the points in his slides.
Perhaps we need to enrich the ontology to cover some of the additional considerations
In respect to Art's comments, this is one reason for why we need the Primer for the ontology to explain the relationship between the ontology and DCCI and other possible APIs.
<Rotan> If we tell Art that the primer would answer the issues, we'll need to give an agressive timeline for delivery of the Primer.
Dave thinks we need to be aware of demonstrating a real market need for any work we do.
<Rotan> Have Google evidence for such a need?
We shall see, but their google maps for mobile devices seems relevant.
We also need to look at the work of the IETF GeoPriv WG
<Rotan> Just because there's a Google Labs gadget out there doesn't mean there's evidence of demand, though it would seem natural to make such an assumption. Hard figures would be more convincing.
The same applies to the DCCI and the DC Ontology, no?
<Rotan> For the ontology, requests from the CT community and OMA suggest there is a demand.
<Rotan> Not so sure about the market stats for DCCI though.
<Rotan> Would be interested in knowing how many people have downloaded/installed the Google app. How many projects have integrated it into a SatNav device.
It seems that we should continue work on the DC Ontology, and show that it provides a superior solution, and see how the market responds.
<Rotan> Nokia might have info on market interest in DCCI (or similar, since they've expanded on it a bit).
<Rotan> Let's define some criteria for deciding that the ontology has been taken up. For example, that it is actually used in commercial/OS solutions, which have referenceable customers.
We need to show the benefits of the DCCI and DC Ontology, which is something we have been a bit slow to do.
<Rotan> That's what I call a convincing piece of evidence.
<Rotan> Without such proof of utility, we could rightly be accused of creating technology for the sake of creating technology.
Indeed which is why we need to address this issue soon.
Dave encourages people who have yet to do so to fill out the questionnaire. You have until the end of Friday.
We have several volunteers for hosting and the next step is to fix the dates and select the host.
We should be able to do this via email over the next week.
<carlosV> We are happy to host, as I said in the questionnaire. Shall I send an email
Thanks for the offer, I think the next step is for me to post a summary of the results and we can then discuss this via email on the WG list.
Dave will be in Beijing next week for the AC meeting and WWW2008 conference and won't be able to chair. The next call will be on 1 May 2008.
scribe: end of meeting ...