See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 29 September 2009
<scribe> scribenick: mhausenblas
<hhalpin> for /tag cvs, I imagine JAR might have to run it by the rest of TAG, but I imagine that will be OK.
<scribe> ACTION: Jonathan to figure out where in the W3C space the draft report should go (check back with TAG) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/29-awwsw-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-22 - Figure out where in the W3C space the draft report should go (check back with TAG) [on Jonathan Rees - due 2009-10-06].
<hhalpin> thats me
<hhalpin> It appears that http owl has matured a bit since last I looked at it...
<hhalpin> of course, for an actual spec we need to probably just say "this is a class for any resource"
<dbooth> harry: I would prefer with my energy to look at owl diagram. My only concern is to align it with IRW and see what the diffs are. Might need to think of the best names for some of these things even if they're not directly in a spec. An OWL ontology is most needed. It would be nice to have n3 rules added on top. There's a tension between modeling
<dbooth> ... every liittle thing and being useful.
<hhalpin> So we expand it?
<hhalpin> more distinctions jar?
<dbooth> dbooth: The cafeteria approach is the opposite of consolidating.
<hhalpin> (my opinion it's because the IETF specs are internally a bit incoherent)
<dbooth> jar: I want to get closure on an ontology of resources as they appear in rfc 2616. That seems like a baby step.
<dbooth> ... but how does that relate to AWWW?
Michael: we should stop discussing and start working on the draft:
1. agree on structure
2. assign responsibilities for sections
<dbooth> hhalpin: To get the best of both worlds, you could say "this term in http is needed in a minimal ont, and that's how it relates to AWWW".
<hhalpin> does that make sense?
<hhalpin> http in RDF issues
<hhalpin> and other things.
<hhalpin> it's just a style of doing a review.
<hhalpin> I would like to make sure when reviewing we do it with a practical aim in mind.
<dbooth> michael: We should stop discussion and start working on the draft.
<dbooth> dbooth: The tension is that one either interprets what the specs say, to produce a smaller more useful ont, or one follows what they *say*, and that leads to a plethora of classes that are harder to make useful.
<hhalpin> so when reviewing I'll divide ontology into terms that should be kept in some future "resouce ontology" and other terms that should be punted to other groups.
<hhalpin> ACTION: hhalpin to review IRW and HTTP Ont OWL. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/29-awwsw-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-23 - Review IRW and HTTP Ont OWL. [on Harry Halpin - due 2009-10-06].
<hhalpin> Yes, but what they actually say is incoherent David.
<hhalpin> That's my opinion.
<hhalpin> +1 on exposing incoherency
<dbooth> I think we have little choice but to take the committee approach.
<hhalpin> So, we have a subsection that is coherent.
<hhalpin> That's my ideas.
<hhalpin> I have lots of stuff for 1. Motivation I could add in.
<hhalpin> from the ESWC paper etc.
<hhalpin> of the terms.
<hhalpin> I imagine the reviews of the ontology will help here.
<hhalpin> I've got a few for those.
<hhalpin> I'll volunteer to throw a few use-cases in there.
<dbooth> dbooth: I suggest the motivation section contain some questions that the ontology and interpretations may answer.
<hhalpin> So note that I'm not taking an action on Motivations section :)
<dbooth> jar: motivation section should model things like the google home page. Another side is the application side: why you want to model these things.
<dbooth> michael: What about related work section? Needs attention too.
<hhalpin> already there.
<jar> IAO should be listed
<dbooth> jar: IAO is OBI spinoff.
<dbooth> ACTION: Michael to work on motivation section first, then work on related work section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/29-awwsw-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-24 - Work on motivation section first, then work on related work section [on Michael Hausenblas - due 2009-10-06].
<dbooth> dbooth: Please add ftrr:IR from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-awwsw/2008Apr/att-0040/test8.n3.txt and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-awwsw/2008Apr/0046.html
<hhalpin> (I am thinking we had this conversation re ftrr:IR a while back didn't we?)
<hhalpin> (do we really want to go back to that?)
<hhalpin> we can again!
<hhalpin> but its just we all know where this leads :)
<hhalpin> I think David could take an action explaining the issues with ftrr.
<hhalpin> his explanation is good
<dbooth> what issues?
<hhalpin> and if we have it in the wiki then we can point people to it, as it is a major source of confusion.
<hhalpin> that it doesn't work easily as an ontology term
Michael: propose that each section is drafted till next meeting (subsections, etc.)
<hhalpin> i.e. the model distinction
<scribe> ACTION: [NEW] dbooth to compare jar's ont at [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/29-awwsw-minutes.html#action04]
<scribe> ACTION: [NEW] Michael to work on outline of draft report [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/29-awwsw-minutes.html#action05]
<hhalpin> take care, gonna run!
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/OBO/OBI/ Found ScribeNick: mhausenblas Inferring Scribes: mhausenblas Present: Jonathan_Rees Michael_Hausenblas David_Booth Harry_Halpin Found Date: 29 Sep 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/09/29-awwsw-minutes.html People with action items: hhalpin jonathan michael WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]