24 Feb 2011


See also: IRC log


Jeff Waters and Don McGarry
Jeff Waters


<scribe> Scribe: Jeff Waters

<scribe> ScribeNick:jeffw

Hello All

jeffw: I'm getting a busy signal when I try to call in. Anyone else having trouble?

<piotr_nowara> I'm also unable to call in. "passcode is not valid"

<piotr_nowara> something's wrong

jeffw: Sorry, no worries, I'm on
... Thanks, Aaron for the paragraphs that you sent
... Thanks to everyone for calling in or chatting in.
... Just a bit of introductory status, we have about 3 meetings, about 6 weeks before our incubator is formally done. So what we need to do to finish up is the final report, and whatever our work on
... (summarized the working group charter)

eblomqvi: What do you mean by "Test Cases"?

jeffw: Perhaps sparql queries to show that the decision format works against the use cases.

eblomqvi: I was thinking maybe it means "validators" to show that people are using our format correctly?

jeffw: Yes
... I think that's a good example of a useful Testing utility.
... (summarizes use cases)
... Any we missed?
... Are these meaningful?

eblomqvi: Yes, interesting, maybe some are overlapping and we could shorten some a bit. One thing we talked about in incubator was the decision process, the collaborative decisions are here but not so much about the process, how long it takes, etc.
... Maybe it should be its own scenario.
... I think it looks like a good starting point.

jeffw: Eva, could you mention compilation and integration of ontology pattern parts?

eblomqvi: I've been collecting things and looking at your XML format and together with the other files you had to see if we could create an example, because we have a tool to reengineer and refactor different kinds of data into rdf and owl.
... This would be nice to show interoperability between xml and owl to find a translation between these formats. This is a bit more difficult than anticipated, but I will work more on it and it would be nice to have a way to do this and some thoughts on tools that could help with this translation.
... I will keep working a bit on that and might need some help on the details of the xml format.
... But I also want to pull the ontology components together and have an overall draft format.

jeffw: Thanks Eva,

Aaron: I've contributed some initial paragraphs about the security portion of our report. Why security? Because some parts need to be kept private or classified and also there is the concept that this can help prevent information overload for example where emergency events depend on bandwidth, battery life, etc. so a security model or something more general is important.
... So we can tie some of this into the use cases, so some people get different versions of the decision based on levels of clearance.

jeffw: Yes, and security can help secure people's privacy and be seen from that perspective.

Aaron: Yes and people will be more willing to adopt.

<piotr_nowara> http://code.google.com/p/decision-ontology/

Piotr: I updated my decision ontology and I would like feedback on examples and I would like to do more detailed documentation.

jeffw: Great, thanks.

<piotr_nowara> http://decision-ontology.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/decision_example_02.owl

jeffw: Here are some descriptive notes that I couldn't easily capture during the "live" meeting.

<eblomqvi> jeff, by the way, I've added a section for the state-of-the-art section of the report in the wiki, and started adding some basics on semantic web standards and ontologies... I'll proceed with something on linked data and tools

jeffw: The draft Working Group Charter was sent to everyone via email. The Charter includes sections on 1) Mission, 1.1) Usage Scenarios, 1.2) Compatibility (XML, RDF, SPARQL, OWL)
... (Eva, thanks, that sounds great. State-of-the-art will be wonderful.)
... Anything we can do to flesh out the final report will be useful when it comes to educating folks on the work of the incubator, since this helps provide the background and justification for transition to a working group.
... Also, I was thinking that in addition to translating the XML to OWL, it is also the case that in OWL we can represent things we can't in XML, so we should already have aspects of decisions and the domain information that
... are waiting, over in OWL format, for whatever comes over from the XML side of the house.
... So the domain ontology (context) as well as the decision ontology (context) will be over on the OWL side of the house. The XML format is more for the raw data input.
... I think there is some usefulness in describing that distinction in our final report. Does that make sense?

<eblomqvi> makes perfect sense!

jeffw: Maybe we could set up a time that is convenient to you to Skype perhaps on Monday or Tuesday via email? We could then discuss some internal organization to get our final deliverables drafted.

<eblomqvi> sorry, have to go now... unfortunately Monday I'm not here, but Tuesday afternoon (CET) should work, lett's e-mail

jeffw: Great! Bye.

<eblomqvi> bye

jeffw: back to summarizing parts of the meeting that I couldn't easily capture "live".
... The draft Decisions Working Group charter has a section 2 on Scope & Deliverables. There is a Section 3 on Relationships to Other Efforts and a Section 4 on Participation that largely echos the normal W3C process and patent policy.
... Regarding the schedule and milestones, the current draft suggests that if the Working group started up by say May, then we would have a public working draft of Use Cases by 2011 December, a draft tech specification by 2012 March, a Last Call Working Draft by 2010 Sep, and a Recommendation by 2012 December.
... The deliverables as currently drafted would be four documents, "Use Cases and Requirements", a W3C Recommendation with technical specifications of a decision format, a W3C Recommendation on using this decision format in combination with RDF/OWL and Linked Open Datasets, and a set of Test Cases.
... The draft charter usage scenarios may be the most important piece of the charter for explaining to folks the benefits of the work. Let's consider these usage scenarios for a moment.
... (1) The first usage scenario illustrates a user selecting among a set of options based on metrics utilizing a linked open dataset. In this example, selecting a city to visit. The scenario suggests the benefits of being able to use the linked open dataset for decision-making, and a tool that can build/utilize the format to assess the options, and generate the standard decision format which can then be utilized in a variety of calendar, timeline, soc
... The user can also reuse other decision components from users making similar decisions, like reusing metrics from a friend to understand better their decision process.
... (2) The second usage scenario shows the benefit of the standard decision format for capturing expertise of experienced, valued decision-makers for the benefits of both the organization and the user.

(3) The third scenario discusses how the modularized decision format can support collaborative decision-making and capture decision information which otherwise is lost in a sea of emails and meeting minutes.

(4) The fourth scenario suggests a standardized decision format would be useful for historians to capture and describe important decisions and have that work product be utilized in a variety of decision display tools that would understand the standard format and to share with other historians and the public.

(5) The fifth scenario suggests that a standardized format would be useful for preparation for key decisions that need to be made during an emergency, such as selection of evacuation routes, and how the automated collection of information from linked open datasets can help with timely assessments so decision-makers can rapidly respond to improve emergency management.

jeffw: So the goal with this draft charter is to have all of our incubator participants review, make any recommended changes, so that we can finalize the draft and proceed to submit to the W3C for their consideration in their normal process.
... Thanks everyone for attending.

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2011/02/24 16:40:00 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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)

Found Scribe: Jeff Waters
Found ScribeNick: jeffw

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: Aaron Piotr ScribeNick eblomqvi jeffw jim__ mike piotr_nowara
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
        <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
        <dbooth> Present+ amy

Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/decision/wiki/Decision_Mtg_23_Agenda
Got date from IRC log name: 24 Feb 2011
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/02/24-decision-xg-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]