Tuesday, November 25th 2008

Permalink 11:30:28 am, Categories: Meeting summaries

Meeting Summary 13 October 2008

The main substantive topic of conversation today concerned the issue of whether it was right to use foaf:depiction as an annotation property in a descriptor set class (in POWDER-S) as described by Andrea. The answer is no, it isn't! Hence, it has been resolved that we will define our own term wdrs:logo. The problem does not occur with dcterms:description since, unlike FOAF, dc does not define a domain of owl:Thing for its properties. The group also noted the substantial comments received today from Michael Schneider. These will be answered in the coming days. Finally, the group had a brief discussion about plans for the transition to CR. Preparation for this is due to be completed before the face to face meeting next week at TPAC and the end of CR should fall around the end of November.
Phil ARCHER 1 comment

Friday, October 3rd 2008

Permalink 08:18:31 am, Categories: Meeting summaries

Meeting Summary 29 September 2008

No meeting this week - but we're working through the Last Call comments and should be able to resolve most, if not all, outstanding issues this coming Monday (fingers crossed).
Permalink 08:16:26 am, Categories: Meeting summaries

Meeting Summary 22 September 2008

The meeting began with a quick review of the Outreach event at Yahoo! and the status of work on implementations (Jena extension to handle POWDER-S seems to be done and two POWDER implementations are well under way). The group's attention must now turn to getting ready to declare its work finished by the time of its next and final) face to face meeting at TPAC next month. The group began to work through the last call comments received. Various members took action items to draft responses with a couple of issues still outstanding (all flagged in the various documents). These are whether or not we will support the inclusion of FOAF/DC Terms info directly in a POWDER doc as well as more complex RDF descriptions in the descriptors. The group is generally minded to drop support for this but arguments are being made to retain them. The issue is likely to be resolved within the next week. Likewise, the issue of whether a POWDER author should be a dcterms:creator or a foaf:maker has still not been entirely resolved. Having decided to make a POWDER doc an instance of an OWL ontology, foaf:maker (which has a domain of owl:Thing) becomes problematic. The semantic heads are thinking this through and, again, we should have this resolved within the next 7 days. Meanwhile, there have been comments on the Primer and work is continuing on the XSLT.

Monday, September 22nd 2008

Permalink 10:56:22 am, Categories: News

Outreach Event Report September 2008

POWDER Outreach Event More of What You Want When You Want It Anne Toth of Yahoo! introduces the eventThis was the third and (probably) final outreach event organised by the POWDER Working Group. Hosted by Yahoo!, who have long been interested in the concepts around machine-readable trustmarks through this working group and the Quatro Project which is part of the EU's Safer Internet Programme, the event had a healthy WG member/guest ratio. As with previous occasions, the event was held under the Chatham House Rule which means that reporting is restricted, however, it is safe to say that our guests included TRUSTe, Mpower Media, the MPAA, Secure Path, AT&T, Cable in the Classroom, the Center for Media Literacy, Comcast and more. The working group's output and ideas were well received with several expressions of support. The discussion, naturally, focussed on the issue of trust. Can a machine trust a machine? As POWDER makes clear, the answer to that is no. Trust is a judgement of one person by another – what POWDER does is to facilitate that human judgement. A near-complete view of the event's participants Several organisations in the room made it clear that they are actively looking at implementing POWDER in one way or another, either as a full-blown service or as a test bed. Various group members discussed their own implementation plans and, whilst no one would suggest that there is anything other than a great deal of work yet to do, future adoption of the protocol seems set for a good start. As for adoption by the big search engines - it's clear that if and when there is sufficient POWDER data of sufficient quality (i.e. without spam), then they will be pleased to use it. Any future effect of POWDER on things like position in search results will emerge rather than be announced.
Phil ARCHER 1 comment
Permalink 10:53:19 am, Categories: Meeting summaries

Meeting Summary 8 September 2008

The group is getting ready for the next outreach event at Yahoo in a week's time so there's a focus on making things work at the moment. The XML Schemas are being installed in the correct locations and it should be possible to use a validating XML parser to validate any POWDER doc before the outreach event. Meanwhile, there's a validator well under way as well as a POWDER processor; and work is beginning on the POWDER to POWDER-S XSLT. It's not clear at this stage what progress has been made with the work in Athens. Work has started in two other group members' (large) companies and so there should be plenty of implementation experience building over the next couple of months. The group discussed comments received from Peter Patel-Schneider. A full response will be composed this week and discussed internally before being sent - the good news is that the comments do not appear to highlight significant or unanswerable problems with the Formal Semantics document. Other comments received were discussed and, again, full responses will be sent soon. The group took one resolution this week. Work on the POWDER Processor highlighted the lack of clarity over whether the displaytext and displayicon could appear more than once in a DR. Since a DR may have any number of descriptor sets, and OWL (POWDER-S ) doesn't restrict cardinality of properties it's clear that multiple strings and icons may be presented to a user agent. Since it is not clear how a given UA would handle this situation, the Description Resources document will be amended to advise DR authors only to provide one string and one image to display.

<< Previous Page :: Next Page >>