10 Mar 2011


See also: IRC log


Jeff Waters and Don McGarry
Jeff Waters


<scribe> Scribe: Jeff Waters

<scribe> ScribeNick: jeffw

Update on Status of Draft Working Group Charter

jeffw: Hello all, thanks for attending this meeting of the Decisions Incubator. We have a fun few remaining meetings to finish our final report, package up our ontology patterns, and recommend transition to a working group.
... I repackaged the draft charter into a more modern template. To see an example of a recent Working Group Charter, see http://www.w3.org/2008/01/media-annotations-wg.html
... Aaron thanks for your email on our discussion of the security issues that we can add to the report, I will follow-up with you later today.
... Piotr, thanks for your contributions in your recent email and I will include in our final report.
... (I took notes off-line and am now updating the chat for purposes of providing a record for our minutes)
... The Decisions incubator participants previously indicated their unanimous interest in transitioning the Decisions incubator to a Decisions working group. The first step for considering this was to draft a working group charter.
... A sample charter was sent along with the agenda for our last meeting and we discussed it then. An important feature of the charter was the inclusion of motivating use cases, covering common needs including making selections/purchases on the web, documenting collaborative web decisions e.g. standards working groups, capturing expertise of good decision-makers, representing historical decisions/options/metrics, and the ability to support emergency man
... The charter format I used was an older format, so I restructured the content into the more modern template. I'm still cleaning that up and I will send out today or tomorrow via email. Please review.
... The next steps are these: Please consider vetting the concept of the working group and use cases with those who have standards or decision expertise, those who might be interested in participating, and with your AC rep.
... Then after our next meeting, I will forward along to W3C staff with the request to be informed of how best to request permission to proceed with the transition.
... Does that make sense?

Aaron: Yes, this is a good opportunity for our organization for example to show applications for the Small Business Innovation Research Grants.

piotr_nowara: I will reachout on my own. For example, there is a gentleman from Canada who spotted my website on decisions ontology and others.

jeffw: Sounds good. I'm hoping the use cases that we included in the draft charter can help explain the benefits to a wide audience who might not otherwise recognize immediately that this applies to them and is not isolated to decision support systems.
... If it makes sense, I will include these use cases on the wiki so if you do reachout via email, you can include a link to them, which may be helpful. And I will include the information task flow use case and the security use case.
... At our next meeting, we'll report out who we talked to and what we learned to get good feedback on the charter concepts and also who else might be interested in participating.

Tasks and Schedule for Final Report

jeffw: We need to draft the final report over next week and into the following so we can review at our next meeting in two weeks. Then we'll finalize and approve at our final meeting.
... Is the outline of the final report on the main page of our wiki appropriate? Are we missing anything? Should we condense anything?

eblomqvi: I think we might be able to merge some sections, maybe use cases and requirements. For the others, we have some pieces already and we can start putting them in. I don't think we missed anything.

Aaron: I think it covers all the pieces, but did we want a section on Security or will we cover that as a thread throughout the report.

jeffw: That's a really good point, Aaron, I think we need a section on Security and you would be a good person to lead that. Also I should have a use case covering that.

piotr_nowara: I agree with the others. A list of competency questions with a respective decision format would be good. Maybe those would appear in a Frequently Asked Questions section, a list of what can be described in our format.

eblomqvi: I think that's covered in some of our use cases, the competency questions, and we can extend. Also wouldn't this be in the requirements section and then the formats realize a certain set?

jeffw: Good points. I think we already begin to define the competency questions with each use case to help drive the requirements, then the formats are designed to support those requirements, and then we actually have perhaps a missing section that would be Test Cases where we would show a set of SPARQL queries that can be used against our format to represent those competency questions and show we can derive the answers.
... (But I'm not advocating at the moment the inclusion of the Test Cases section, because I don't think we'll have time for that.)
... So I was thinking that Aaron would be a good one to start on the Security section, Eva State-of-the-art and Approach, oh I think that's a missing section?

eblomqvi: Yes, I suppose we haven't really talked about what we did, so we do need to cover the approach.

jeffw: And Piotr, you can cover the description of your approach with your ontology work. And Eva and others can help with the alignment of these contributions, because Piotr has his work and I was advocating the XML format, but these need to be described as not just isolated, independent efforts but rather as examples of where we might go as a working group and how they support and align with each other.
... That's all we have time for today. Please start writing and I will do the same, and by late next week, we should have up on the wiki draft sections so we can keep our schedule.
... Thanks everyone for participating!

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2011/03/10 16:34:26 $

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 "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: Aaron ScribeNick eblomqvi jeffw 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_24_Agenda
Got date from IRC log name: 10 Mar 2011
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/03/10-decision-xg-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]