SweoIG/Meetings/2006-11-14 F2F/Minutes

Meeting: SWEO Face-to-Face Date: 2006-Nov-14 and 2006-Nov-15 Chair: Susie Stephens Scribe: Lee Feigenbaum Attendees: Ivan Herman (W3C), Karen Myers (W3C), Susie Stephens (Oracle), Lee Feigenbaum (IBM), Wing Yung (IBM), David Rooks (Segala), Frank Chum (Chevron), Sandro Hawke (W3C), Jeff Schiffel (phone, Boeing), Alan Ruttenberg (independent guest), Jaidev (Oracle)

Susie Stephens: Welcome to SWEO. Very important time for W3C to be starting SW education and outreach group. Recent article in NY Times, CEO of MySQL AB discussing semantic web concepts w/o awareness of SW -- points to this being a great time to do work to accelerate adoption of SW.

Agenda: Getting Acquainted

Introductions: personal and organizational interests in the Semantic Web.

Personal interest closely tied to Oracle's interest. Joined Oracle in 2002 in Oracle Life Sciences -- met with customers who requested RDF support in Oracle database. Provided support for RDF followed by support for OWL. Going forward, interested in relational-to-RDF mappings. Also: what other Oracle products (e.g. middleware) could benefit from semantic capabilities?

I am Oracle's contact point for W3C for SW activities. I coordinate the SWHCLSIG BioRDF task force in addition to chairing SWEO.

Ivan Herman: W3C Semantic Web Activity lead and staff contact for SWEO IG. Before June, I was head of W3C offices. Spent a lot of time travelling and giving presentations and tutorials on SW. I've come across all of the problems in delivering the SW message during these travels.

Karen Myers: I work with marketing and communications with the W3C. Have been doing marketing/communications for technology for many years. Experience testing messages, putting forward new concepts/technologies to technical and business decision makers. Official role is development officer for W3C (member relations, member recruitment into groups, encourage new companies to join).

Lee Feigenbaum: <talking so not scribing> -- please see my intro email - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sweo-ig/2006Oct/0024.html

Wing Yung: I work with Lee; personally, I'm interested in the SW as a set of technologies to bring together the data in the world which is not currently easily accessible.

Dave Rooks: I work wtih Segala -- accessibility and testing company in Ireland & UK. Recently compeleted W3C work towards accessibility content labels. Have developed Firefox plugin to allow users to search based on accessibility requirements.

Frank Chum: I work with Chevron. Have an AI background, always interested in search. 25 years ago I was working with semantic databases and other semantic technologies. Previously piloted SW techs for supply chain integration at a retail firm. Now looking into SW applicability in handling of toxic/hazardous materials. Many legislation requirements for disclosing / tracking / etc. and I think that SW technologies may be useful in this sort of knowledge management area.

Sandro Hawke: I work with W3C. My interest in SW comes from database-in-the-sky approach. Mostly interested in communications applications. Was W3C staff contact for OWL WG and now for RIF WG: my interest is rules as a way to map ontology data. I don't expect to be participating a lot in SWEO. **Ivan, I would like to be on the SWEO mailing list.**

SS: Another companies are very interested in participating in SWEOP but still arranging internal logistics to join. Small group now but there will be more people joining shortly.

Agenda: Introduction to SWEO

SS: As an interest group (rather than a working group), we have flexibility to diverge somewhat from our charter as our interests dictate.

SS reads through SWEO scope, SWEO deliverables*

IH: Some of the resources which are SWEO deliverables are not starting from scratch (e.g. W3C ESW wiki already contains tools list)

FC: "Reaching out to industry" -- is that specific to life sciences industry?

IH&SS: No; there's nothing about SWEO which is specific to life sciences.

SS: End date of SWEO is February, 2008 -- this is a hard stop. So we have about 16 months to put together our materials.

IH: Could propose -- perhaps in a year -- to extend the charter, but it's too early to say anything about that now.

SS: SWEO should interact with other W3C groups including the SW Health Care & Life Sciences interest group, the Device Independence WG, the Mobile Web Initiative (MWI).

IH: We should probably have among our use cases something from the mobile-device world. We don't currently have any mobile-device/movile-web members, but BT might (SS: probably) join.

Other possible interest from the mobile-web area is Nokia (no bandwidth for SWEO), Vodaphone, Korea telecom, and China telecom.

SS: I'm pinging various potential members, but if you have ideas yourself either let me know or contact them directly.

We also might talk with non-W3C groups: for example, SICOP - a federal US government council with a focus on semantic interoperability.

IH: W3C is exploring the value of an eGovernment contact; that might be an area that would be interested in SWEO work.

SS: I have a contact at the EPA who has expressed interest in working with us at the appropriate time.

SWEO weekly telecons at 11:00 AM EST on Wednesdays.

We'll decide when it makes sense to have more face-to-face meetings; perhaps every 6-9 months or so.

SWEO will split its work into short task forces (2-4 months). Output from TFs is often in the form of materials such as W3C Notes. It's important for this group to get collateral out there and be very visible.

Currently SWEO members are W3C members -- it may make sense at some point to use the W3C invited expert status to invite non-W3C-members to participate for production of specific collateral materials.

ACTION: Susie to contact Danny Ayers and David Cearley (Gartner), and Helen C. (Agfa) and Alan R. to clarify participatation status.

(short break)

Agenda: Semantic Web Technology

IH: <presents slides available at http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/CorePresentations/State_of_SW>

Part of the messaging problem in some areas is that the RDF specification documents (other than the primer) are highly technically demanding. The primer, on the other hand, is a good document.

SS: TimBL at ISWC spoke of reification as a mistake. Is reification in the primer?

IH: I'm not sure.

LF: I think so, but wouldn't swear to it.

IH: Reificaiton and RDF collections/sequences do not have well-specified semantics.

SH: The feeling I get is that the primer contains a fair amount of material which is now considered junk / not in favor. When presenting this material to people, it's important to make sure they do not dwell on these old, deprecated features.

SS: Is there value in seeing if we can produce an updated / polished primer-type document?

Jeff Schiffel: I'm in Wichita and work for Boeing. <joins on the phone>

SS: Could we represent the list of RDF tools itself in RDF?

IH: The list is on the Wiki which is Moin Moin wiki which does not easily have a way to present and produce RDF data. Perhaps we could the Semantic Mediawiki work?

LF: When I talk about SPARQL, I like to emphasize three properties of it that separate it from other query languages:

 + distributed data -- SPARQL can query multiple sources of data
 identified by URI within a single query
 + ragged data -- SPARQL has an "OPTIONAL" keyword which allows a
 query to handle heterogeneous data within a single query
 + unpredictable data -- SPARQL queries can explore the relationships
 (predicates) within unfamiliar data (a la being able to use SQL to
 query for what columns are in a table with a particular primary key)

<lunch>

SH: When people use RDF as a database serialization/interchange format, where does the "semantic" in Semantic Web come in?

IH: I think we're too late to change the umbrella term.

SS: People have started using "semantic technologies" instead of "semantic web technologies"

IH: I think the Web part is important to the overall Semantic Web message.

SH: There is a bit of a split between "semantic web" as a research topic (vis a vis funding, grants, etc.) and semantic web as a space in which products exist. Should we be careful as to who claims this term?

SS: In the database world the term "database" is used both by researchers and products. I view the layer cake as having products at the bottom and research as you go up.

SH: Are we striving to get people to share their (RDF) data or are we trying to get people to build their corporate intranet using RDF?

SS: I think that the latter is a good first step, after which we can try to demonstrate the value of exposing the RDF data itself.

IH: From my point of view, I'd like to have the last section of my presentations -- on use cases and applications -- be much more developed and convincing than what I have now. I'd like to know what each application does and what does semantic web technologies bring to each application?

FC: Are any of these patentable? Do big companies mine these for patents?

IH: We hope that the core SW technologies are not patentable at this point. The other aspect that will come up is businesses wishing not to divulge use cases because they involve business strategic secrets. The best way to get some public use cases may be to pursue internally within your own company so that you can determine what information can be made public.

SS: I would think that the model that large companies commonly use to write up success stories might be a good model for SWEO to use in approaching companies to gather use cases.

IH: Those writeups are often too vague to include details on how semantic web technologies solve problems that would have been difficult to solve otherwise.

SS: In Oracle, we take an approach where we contact the source with a set of questions (value? ROI? ...) to be answered. If they cannot answer (for example) 70% of the question then it is not a good example.

KM: My work deals with technical people who are also managers making decisions based on standards and what standards will solve business problems. We need a much cleaner snapshot of the SW technologies.

The decision-makers at the CIO/CTO need a crisp, polished presentation which tells a continual story: what is it? what does it solve for me? how much does it cost in money and other resources?

WY: Are there a set of documents that accomplish these messaging tasks very well?

KM: Yes; in my role as a "consultant" for SWEO I would like to provide that sort of help.

ACTION: Karen to provide examples of successful messaging materials.

Alan Ruttenberg: My experience with SW began with BioPAX -- pathway database in OWL. My SWEO involvement is in part looking in advance of the new OWL WG and to help educate upfront with respect to OWL.

<Group: there is almost an expectation that when semantic web comes up someone or someones are critical of it. This might come from the association of SW with AI and with the hype to which AI has never lived up.>

IH: This summer I put effort into creating a Semantic Web FAQ. Most of the answers there came from my own head with some help from Sandro, Karen, Ian, and others. But perhaps SWEO can rework this to help here.

LF: It's important to often answer the same question with 2 or 3 or more answers, depending on the audience.

KM: Yes, "click here if you are an IT professional", "click here if you are a line of business user", etc.

IH: When eve discussing simple questions such as "what is RDF?" even people at the same technical level do not have a single answer. It's multifaceted.

SH: As a reader of a FAQ, I like to see answers which acknowledge different interpretations and opinions.

KM: That's probably appropriate for a somewhat technical audience, but not for answers for a CIO/CTO level audience.

KM: Search, business intelligence, and data mining are other points of confusion which people ask about when presented with semantic web ideas.

KM: I think that a more robust Semantic Web Messaging audit is in order, perhaps for one of the SWEO task forces.

<break>

Agenda: Task Force Prioritization

SS: Some possible areas that we could focus on for task forces are:

Resource gathering -- what's out there in terms of tools and software and educational materials? Focuses on the collation of information into one central space (and in the process finding out what people are doing).

Collateral creation -- this can have different focuses (e.g. educational or business use cases or demos)

Who are our target audiences? There may be many target audiences. Examples: CTO/CIOs, lines of business, developers, Web 2.0 hackers, influencers (media, analysts)

What will the technology focus be? Search? Data integration? Reasoning? Rules?

What industries will we focus on and with what messaging? e.g. oil and gas, financial services, ...

What geographical areas will we focus on?

Should we have a vertical focus? (e.g. R&D, ERP, CRM)

Should we focus on ROI?

One possibility is a matrix-style approach (industries vs. applications and target audiences)

IH: We need to be careful not to do more than, say, three task forces at a time. The group is relatively small and we can't spread ourselves too thin.

SS: An alternative way to approach this is to play to our strengths. (e.g. oil and gas industry (Frank))

IH: Regarding demos: I'd be very careful with that as we have a limited number of people and doing demos well requires quite a lot of work. We should avoid unrealistic goals.

AR: One audience that hasn't been mentioned are people learning about computer science. Ideally, we'd like them to graduate knowing the SW vision--

JS: I agree with that; especially as IT starts moving more and more towards new graduates. engineering technologies have a very long cycle and are often a generation or two behind. The new stuff comes out of the universities and we should size on that.

AR: Consider things like the Google Summer of Code. Perhaps connect students with member organizations.

SS: I'm not aware of the mechanisms by which we can influence many universities at once (without having to approach them one by one). I also think it is hard to change curricula.

IH: In the UK, for example, the universities consider the courses the property of the university (IP-wise). This may be a practical difficulty.

AR: At MIT in January, for example, there's a Tim Berners-Lee plus Jim Hendler course.

JS: It's definitely a tough nut to crack; if we start in the graduate schools as research initiatives it will filter down to undergrads.

WY: Perhaps we could put together an organized set of tutorials and other materials and call it a "course" which we could distribute as such.

KM: Perhaps we could put together a workshop targeted at students and educate them to go spread the vision at a grass roots level.

SS: The O'Reilly boot camp / hackathon model might be something to copy.

AR: I think that the first thing to get straight is what this all means to *us*.

KM: I see message auditing and agreement on what we think the message is.

AR: "shared understanding"

ACTION: IvanH to contact the guy he knows in Norway re: oil&gas

eGov we'll leave pending for now (no contacts). HCLS we'll ignore for now (covered by SW HCLS IG).

KM: Entertainment: there has been some interest in semantics from Disney Interactive.

Retail: we have the Nat'l Ass'n of Convenience Store. They are also tied to the oil & gas industry (tangentially at least).

Telecom: Vodaphone. Nokia does not have bandwidth.

AR: We've come up with a lot of inside-the-company approaches. I'm wondering if we'll lose the "connected" aspect of SW benefits. Are we too inward facing?

KM: I'm not so sure. Financial services have CRM (customer-facing) interests, for example.

IH: What about the legal industry? Our only contact right now is a company in Spain.

KM: Law firms tend to be slower technology adopters. It's very fragmented. I think there's an opportunity in the services industry providers. Put legal along with the content providers, perhaps.

ACTION: IvanH to contact people at Southampton re: EU projects about environmental issues

Day 2

Agenda: Summary from Day One

SS: We agreed yesterday that these would be good SWEO activities:

+ Better understand current market position + Identify core messaging that works + Apply core messaging to target industries, application areas (data integration, search, regulatory comliance), audiences + Gather existing resources, e.g. demos, tutorials, books + Recruit additional people to SWEO, e.g. vendors, enterprises, universities (Susie, with help from anyone else interested) + Focus on Web developers and enterprises + Brain storm incorporating semantic web into undergraduate and graduate training

FC: How will new/joining members of SWEO get involved with the work of the task forces?

SS: Via the mailing list and weekly teleconferences; using minutes to catch up on past meetings and decisions.

SS: Task forces -- 2-6 months (4 month max?) to produce a deliverable for SWEO and then move on to the next thing. If desirable, individual task forces can have separate (additional) telecons.

Task force email conventions suggest placing a tag that identifies the task force within square brackets at the beginning of email subjects. For example:

 [OIL] Use Cases

SWEO Wiki for sharing documents and for collecting task force information.

IH: Be careful with Wiki: there is a danger that a huge amount of small pages may be created which make it difficult to navigate and find information.

SS: The W3C wiki system allows Wiki pages to be categorized (as, for example, "SWEO Doc"). These categories can later be used for finding information.

WY: Are we still considering looking into some of the semantic Wikis out there?

IH: We should look into them but we don't have experience setting them up.

WY: We could look into what's involved.

IH: There is a group working on a semantic version of MediaWiki such that you can tag information and get data out as RDF.

ACTION: Wing to investigate installation and use of Semantic MediaWiki.

Agenda: Good W3C Meeting Habits

SS:

 1) Minutes: It's very important that minutes are taken at all W3C
 meetings and calls.

 2) Introductions: People should know who each other are on calls;
 start calls with new participants introducing themselves

 3) Regular participation: Signing up to be part of SWEO activities
 leads to an expectation of fairly regular participation. W3C
 maintains "good standing" status for those who participate
 regularly.

IH:

 4) IRC: W3C uses IRC in parallel with the telephone for telcos.
 Minutes are taken on IRC. More information at:
 http://www.w3.org/Project/IRC/

 W3C has homegrown IRC bots (Zakim and RRSAgent) which help run the
 telecons. 
  Zakim teleconference system: http://www.w3.org/2002/01/UsingZakim
  Zakim IRC bot: http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot.html
  RRSAgent IRC bot: http://www.w3.org/2002/03/RRSAgent
  Tips for taking minutes: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/minutes.html

 After meetings, I will clean up the autogenerated minutes and write
 them to W3C web space.

SS:

 There are different ways of accessing IRC. I use WebIRC. [lee: see
 above w3c links for alternative IRC client programs]

IH: The mailing list is controlled, but the archives of mailing-list communications is public.

DR: How does action tracking work?

IH: For the time being, minute taking includes recording action items.

LF: Will we have any sort of formal decision making process for examining deliverables produced by task forces?

SS: I imagine we will take things as they come, but we will seek to get community review and overall SWEO review and approval. Perhaps we will share deliverables with the Semantic Web Interest Group.

IH: Yes, I think getting consensus on deliverables is important. Some documents might becomes published W3C Interest Group Notes to help gain visibility and attention. If we do this, we may and probably will receive comments from the public. Perhaps we will then establish a separate public mailing list for such comments.

SS: It would be nice to maintain a SWEO FAQ on the wiki to help people familiarize themselves with the activities of the IG.

IH: And I will maintain the homepage similarly. The IG homepage is actually a b2evolution blog which we can use as a tool soemday for appropriate announcements. We're still unsure how we'll use that.

Agenda: Identify Work to be Done

SS: Better understand current market position

We'd like to find out what people not involved in the semantic web think about it. (only for universities? AI only? etc.)

LF: Does that include a message audit of what's already being said about the semantic web?

SS: I see it as a bit different; we'd like to know what the people already talking about the SW are saying, but also we'd like to know what other technical people who are not involved at all with SW think about it.

FC: Perhaps this is something that Gartner could help us with?

Chevron has a subscription to Gartner -- we can do an inquiry and ask their analyst to answer. I'm not sure how public that information is once its been gathered.

SS: Another option might be to see if Oracle has already done this sort of polling or surveys on the SW.

IH: I'd imagine that vendors who have put moeny into semantic web will have done this sort of research.

LF: Any research that we might be able to gather from vendors will be on the enterprise side of the fence; determining the Web developer feeling is a different task.

IH: How can we gauge opinion of the Web developer community?

SS: There seem to be two approaches -- "spying" on select mailing lists and forums, or perhaps tageted contacts (e.g. Timo Hannay at Nature Publishing) to see they're feel.

IH: Danny Ayers may be a very good person who is a good starting point to explore the Web developer and blogosphere communities.

LF: Eyal Oren (ActiveRDF developer) might be a good person on the boundary between Web developers and SW community to gauge feelings.

IH: Another possibility might be Brian Suda, who is involved in both microformats and GRDDL.

ACTION: Susie to contact Danny Ayers ACTION: Susie to contact Timo Hannay ACTION: Lee to contact Eyal Oren (ActiveRDF) ACTION: Susie to contact Brian Suda ACTION: Susie to contact Ian Davis (Talis) ACTION: Susie to contact Amsterdam UVA

SS: Try to identify primary, secondary, and tertiary tasks:

Primary (whole SWEO group together):

 Better understand current market position and identify core
 messaging

 Gather existing resources, e.g. demos, tutorials, books,
 applications

 Recruit additioanl people to SWEO e.g. vendors, enterprises,
 universities

Secondary (split into task forces):

 Apply core messaging to target industries, application areas,
 audiences (web developers/enterprises)

Tertiary:

 Brain storm incorporating semantic web into undergraduate and
 graduate training

Analysts:

ACTION: Karen to contact Gartner ACTION: Susie, Wing, and Karen to contact FOrrester ACTION: Susie to contact IDC ACTION: Susie to contact TopQuadrant ACTION: Susie to contact Mill Davis

Vendors:

ACTION: Lee and Wing to contact IBM ACTION: Susie to contact Oracle ACTION: Susie to contact Siderean ACTION: Kingsley (Idehen) to contact OpenLink ACTION: Susie to contact HP (Brian McBride and ...?) ACTION: Lee to contact Sun - Henry Story ACTION: Susie to contact Sun - Eduardo ? ACTION: Susie to contact Altova (IH to find AC rep) ACTION: Susie to contact Apple (IH to find AC rep) ACTION: Susie to contact Asemantics (IH to find AC rep) ACTION: Susie to contact Digital Harbor International (IH to find AC rep) ACTION: Susie to contact iLog ACTION: Susie to contact Inferware ACTION: Susie to contact Ontology Works (IH to find AC rep) ACTION: Susie to contact Opera (IH to find AC rep) ACTION: Susie to contact Profium ACTION: Susie to contact Sandpiper ACTION: Susie to contact Siderean ACTION: Susie to contact Talis ACTION: Susie to contact webMethods (IH to find AC rep)

W3C companies (understand usage and views of SW):

ACTION: John Davies to contact BT ACTION: Frank to contact Chevron ACTION: Jeff S to conact Boeing ACTION: Susie to contact AstraZeneca ACTION: Susie to contact BBC ACTION: Susie to contact CitiGroup (Ivan to find AC rep) ACTION: Susie to contact Elmundo (IH to find AC rep) ACTION: Susie to contact Deutsche Telekom (IH to find AC rep) ACTION: Susie to contact Ericsson (IH to find AC rep) ACTION: Susie to contact Fair Isaac (IH to find AC rep) ACTION: Susie to contact Google (TV Raman) ACTION: David R to contact Hutchinson ACTION: Susie to contact ETRI (IH to find AC rep) ACTION: Susie to contact Merck ACTION: Susie to contact Nokia ACTION: Susie to contact Fujitsu (IH to find AC rep) ACTION: Susie to contact Ordnance Survey ACTION: Susie to contact Pfizer ACTION: Susie to contact Partners ACTION: Susie to contact Siemens (IH to find AC rep) ACTION: Susie to contact Yahoo! ACTION: Susie to contact ASTRI (IH to find AC rep)

Non-W3C Companies:

ACTION: Susie to contact Huawei ACTION: Susie to contact China Mobile (IH to provide contact)

LF: So what do we ask all these companies?

SS: Perhaps two different questionnaires: one for enterprises and one vendors?

For non-vendor enterprises:

 Does your organization using Semantic Web technologies now (e.g. no
 usage, research, pilot, production)?

 What sources of information influenced your decision?

 What were the perceived advantages and disadvantages of SW
 technologies?

 Please provide a brief description of the nature of any SW projects.

IH: We should run this past Ian Jacobs before using it.

IH: Do we really want to separate questionnaires by vendor/non-vendor?

SS: I think so; we'd like to find out what made vendors feel that the market is mature enough.

 Do you use Semantic Web technologies internally? (e.g. no usage,
 research, pilot, production)

 Do you use Semantic Web technpologies in your products?

 How do customers perceive your usage of the Semantic Web?

 What sources of information influenced your decisions?

 What were the perceived advantages and disadvantages of the SW
 projects?

 Please provide a brief description of the nature of any
 implementations.

<lunch>

IH: Can we discuss time limits on actions? First we should probably draft the mail and send it to the SWEO list and to Ian.

ACTION: Susie send draft of questionnaires to SWEO list and to Ian (by Nov-22)

ACTION: Ivan: Identify all missing contacts

SS&IH: Timetable:

Lee distributes [these] minutes Nov 15 (Lee)
Send email to SWEO list and to Ian regarding questionnaires and

polling by Nov 22 (Susie)

By Nov. 22 Ivan to identify all contacts (Ivan)
Response from Ian by approx. Dec. 1 (Ian)
Send out mails by Dec. 15 (Susie and others)
Feedback by Jan. 15 (various)
Compiled results by Jan. 30 (Wing and Jeff)

SS: We also need to approach analysts for informal conversations that will feed back into our results. Target for that is middle of December.

Similarly, target for contacting Web developers contacts is middle December.

IH: There are some non-w3c sites that list resources (Dave Beckett's resource page linked off our wiki page, Chris Bizer's list of software tools), this is something we should be aware of. Ivan had some difficulty categorizing tools on our list. Elias Torres collecting RDFa/GRDDL tools.

For textbooks I tried to be selective and include only SW-related books. Might be good to cross-check this. Also, my coverages is limited to English, French, German, and Hungarian. No coverage for other languages (e.g. Italian) currently.

Tutorials - SWBPD group had a list of tutorials. Ralph or Chris could give more information on how this list was managed and if there are plans to maintain it.

Demos and applications - there are quite a lot of demos out of ISWC (e.g. SemWeb challenge). I am afraid of listing things which are university projects, cute projects, but which do not get maintained and disappear after a while. I'd prefer to see applications which are more stable.

LF: Should we be gathering comprehensive lists or "best of" lists?

IH: Best-of lists are difficult for legal reasons, controversy reasons, selection reasons, and maintenance reasons. Comprehensive lists are probably a better first step for SWEO.

SS: For demos, perhaps having a more stable representation of the demos with screenshots and a brief description in addition to a link to the possibly-working demo would be a good idea.

IH: It's more realistic for the people who created the demos to actually create stable snapshots of it. We could setup a wiki setup for this and advertise them to developers to add their demos in a long-living way.

I think that for demos and tutorials the SWBPD group started to create lists but they got lost and could not be reconstructed.

ACTION: Ivan to dig up SWBPD work for tutorial lists and application lists and determine current status

IH: I would welcome people looking at the tools and books list with careful scrutiny towards organization.

ACTION: Dave to review Ivan's list of books by December 1

NOT-YET-AN-ACTION: Danny A to review list of tools for completeness and categorization

ACTION: Frank to investigate/review SW books in Chinese by December 1

ACTION: Wing to review tools list for completeness and categorization by Dec. 1

DR: Do we want the demo list to be a Wiki page? Are we concerned that low quality demonstrations would demote SW technologies rather than promote them?

LF: That's a good point; I think we can use a Wiki setup to gather demos and see what we end up with. If necessary we can move the demos that we would send around and promote to a Web page under stricter control.

ACTION: Lee investigate Dave Beckett's reference of tools and books etc.

Action Items