IRC log of swbp on 2004-04-01

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:59:11 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #swbp
17:59:18 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #swbp
17:59:22 [Ralph]
zakim, this will be swbpd
17:59:22 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled near this time, Ralph
17:59:24 [Ralph]
zakim, this will be swbp
17:59:24 [Zakim]
ok, Ralph; I see SW_BPD()1:00PM scheduled to start in 1 minute
17:59:56 [Ralph]
Meeting: SemWeb Best Practices and Deployment WG
18:00:39 [Ralph]
-> agenda
18:00:41 [jacco]
hi ralph, before i forget, could you add to the mailing list? thanks
18:00:51 [Ralph]
18:00:54 [Tbaker]
Tbaker has joined #swbp
18:01:27 [jjc]
jjc has joined #swbp
18:02:00 [Ralph]
zakim, this is sw_bpd
18:02:02 [Zakim]
ok, Ralph; that matches SW_BPD()1:00PM
18:02:09 [Ralph]
zakim, who's on the call?
18:02:16 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ivan, ??P3, [UMD], Guus_Schreiber, ??P2, +, ??P8, Ralph
18:02:40 [Zakim]
18:02:46 [danbri]
zakim, danbri is temporarily Bristol
18:02:48 [Zakim]
18:02:54 [Zakim]
18:02:54 [jjc]
Zakim, who's on the call
18:03:00 [Zakim]
+Bristol; got it
18:03:00 [Guus]
zakim, ??p2 Marco
18:03:01 [danbri]
zakim, bristol holds danbri
18:03:02 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who's on the call', jjc
18:03:04 [Zakim]
I don't understand '??p2 Marco', Guus
18:03:05 [jjc]
Zakim, who's on the call?
18:03:06 [Zakim]
+danbri; got it
18:03:08 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ivan, ??P3, [UMD], Guus_Schreiber, ??P2, +, ??P8, Ralph, Bristol, Jeremy (muted), Pat_Hayes
18:03:10 [danbri]
zakim, bristol holds libby
18:03:15 [Zakim]
Bristol has danbri
18:03:17 [bwm]
bwm has joined #swbp
18:03:19 [Zakim]
+libby; got it
18:03:23 [Guus]
zakim ??p2 is Marco
18:03:33 [jjc]
Zakim, Jeremy is jjc
18:03:33 [Zakim]
+jjc; got it
18:03:37 [Ralph]
zakim, ??p2 is probably Marco
18:03:39 [Zakim]
+Marco?; got it
18:03:42 [Zakim]
18:03:46 [Natasha]
Natasha has joined #swbp
18:03:52 [Ralph]
Frank added, Jacco
18:03:58 [jacco]
18:04:02 [Ralph]
zakim, ??p18 is Natasha
18:04:04 [Guus]
zakim, ??p18
18:04:04 [Zakim]
+Natasha; got it
18:04:07 [Zakim]
I don't understand '??p18', Guus
18:04:32 [Zakim]
18:05:20 [Ralph]
+Alistair Miles
18:05:45 [Guus]
zakim, Ivan is Jacco
18:05:45 [Zakim]
+Jacco; got it
18:05:51 [Ralph]
zakim, umd has Aditya
18:05:51 [Zakim]
sorry, Ralph, I do not recognize a party named 'umd'
18:06:01 [Ralph]
zakim, [umd] has Aditya
18:06:01 [Zakim]
+Aditya; got it
18:06:37 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.723.aabb
18:06:51 [Ralph]
zakim, aabb is Deb
18:06:51 [Zakim]
+Deb; got it
18:07:35 [Tbaker]
Zakim doesn't see me?
18:07:36 [Ralph]
zakim, ??p8 is Tom_Baker
18:07:36 [Zakim]
+Tom_Baker; got it
18:08:35 [dlm]
danbri - i just looked at the irc - i do not know how to "share the op powers"
18:08:42 [Tbaker]
Hi libby!
18:08:44 [dlm]
if you tell me what to type i will type it
18:08:47 [Zakim]
18:09:10 [bwm_]
bwm_ has joined #swbp
18:09:19 [JosD]
JosD has joined #swbp
18:09:23 [Ralph]
zakim, marco is really Alistair
18:09:23 [Zakim]
+Alistair; got it
18:09:31 [Tbaker]
I posted an Introduction 20 minutes ago
18:09:46 [danbri]
zakim, mute bristol
18:09:46 [Zakim]
Bristol should now be muted
18:09:48 [Zakim]
18:09:50 [Ralph]
zakim, + is Marco
18:09:50 [Zakim]
+Marco; got it
18:10:28 [Ralph]
Scribe: Ralph
18:10:58 [Ralph]
Ralph has changed the topic to: SWBPD 1-April Telecon agenda
18:11:07 [Ralph]
Regrets: Jim H, Jeremy, Bernard
18:11:22 [jjc]
(not regrets from me)
18:11:31 [Ralph]
unregrets Jeremy, sorry
18:11:48 [Ralph]
PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the Cannes kickoff ftf:
18:11:48 [Ralph]
18:12:01 [danbri]
zakim, unmute danbri
18:12:01 [Zakim]
sorry, danbri, I do not see a party named 'danbri'
18:12:04 [danbri]
zakim, unmute bristol
18:12:04 [Zakim]
Bristol should no longer be muted
18:12:11 [Ralph]
Jeremy: action from DanBri was completed
18:12:25 [danbri]
(it was consultation of the SW CG re Note vs WD)
18:12:55 [Ralph]
ACTION DanBri ask SemWeb CG about constraints and advice re WD, Note, etc.
18:12:58 [Ralph]
-- completed
18:13:12 [Ralph]
RESOLVED: minutes accepted with correction
18:14:01 [Ralph]
Topic: Admin
18:14:25 [Ralph]
PROPOSED date & time for next telecon 15 April 1400 UTC
18:14:51 [Ralph]
Pat: this time clashes with Data Access WG
18:15:07 [golbeck]
golbeck has joined #swbp
18:15:41 [Ralph]
Jeremy: US West coast is under-represented on the call now
18:15:58 [ocorcho]
ocorcho has joined #swbp
18:15:59 [jjc]
No - japan is underrepresented
18:16:42 [Ralph]
s/US West coast/Japan/
18:17:36 [Ralph]
WITHDRAWN proposal for 1400 UTC on 15 April
18:18:38 [Ralph]
PROPOSED date & time for next telecon 15 April 1400 UTC
18:19:02 [Ralph]
... and Ralph will get working on his action to get straw poll done
18:19:24 [Ralph]
RESOLVED date & time for next telecon 15 April 1400 UTC
18:19:46 [Ralph]
ACTION Ralph talk with Guus and create a straw poll form for meeting times
18:19:51 [Ralph]
continued; to be done in next 7 days
18:20:00 [Ralph]
ACTION Guus to propose a format for TF description
18:20:07 [Ralph]
completed; on today's agenda
18:20:25 [Ralph]
ACTION JimH write description of WorldView TF
18:20:35 [Ralph]
18:20:45 [Ralph]
ACTION ChrisW write description of OPEN TF
18:20:47 [Ralph]
18:20:54 [Ralph]
ACTION aldo describe Wordnet TF
18:20:55 [Ralph]
18:20:59 [Ralph]
ACTION danbri get rdf-thes contacts from Guus
18:21:00 [Ralph]
18:21:10 [bwm_]
action to *get* contacts from Guus is not complete if Guus has not responded
18:21:11 [danbri]
(re RDF thes TF: I started a page , working on it...)
18:21:15 [Ralph]
ACTION aldo e-mail WordNet update to mailing list
18:21:26 [Ralph]
18:21:30 [Ralph]
ACTION guus read bernard's e-mail with draft TMAP msg
18:21:31 [Ralph]
18:21:36 [Ralph]
ACTION guus to finalize TMAP e-mail, notify cg, and send out msg
18:21:44 [Ralph]
18:22:31 [Ralph]
CG asked that the message include explicit language that this was not yet a formal request for liaison
18:24:07 [Ralph]
Jeremy: is it possible to have a representative from the ISO TC on our Task Force without it being a formal liaison?
18:24:41 [jjc]
Zakim, mute jjc
18:24:43 [Ralph]
Ralph: my opinion is that yes, it is possible for the Task Force to include ISO TC members without it being a formal liaison
18:24:43 [Zakim]
jjc should now be muted
18:25:08 [Ralph]
ACTION danC to send mail requesting feedback on RDF/XHTML & GRDDL to both lists
18:25:09 [Ralph]
18:25:16 [Ralph]
ACTION DanBri investigate publication of Turtle as SWIG note
18:25:17 [Ralph]
18:25:21 [Ralph]
ACTION ChrisW present his time ontology in the next telecon
18:25:23 [Ralph]
18:25:58 [Ralph]
Guus: IBM has charter questions, it will take some time for Chris to formally be a participant
18:25:59 [aldoG]
aldoG has joined #Swbp
18:26:05 [Ralph]
ACTION DanBri ask SemWeb CG about constraints and advice re WD, Note, etc.
18:26:07 [Ralph]
18:26:26 [Ralph]
Topic: Task Force Template
18:26:46 [Ralph]
-> draft task-force template [Guus 2004-03-31]
18:27:18 [Ralph]
DanBri: I have already started to wrap this in HTML for the WordNet TF
18:27:35 [danbri]
(it looks good btw, thanks)
18:27:39 [Ralph]
RESOLVED: template accepted
18:27:54 [Ralph]
Topic: Application and Demo TF
18:28:11 [aldoG]
well done Dan
18:28:21 [Ralph]
-> On a possible role for the applications and demos task force [Brian, 2004-03-25]
18:28:33 [Ralph]
Brian: my objective was to start some discussion
18:29:01 [Ralph]
... hoped this TF might act like previous Test Cases task forces
18:29:48 [Ralph]
Jos: test cases have my support
18:30:45 [DeborahM]
DeborahM has joined #swbp
18:31:05 [Ralph]
Guus: reaction from Knowledge Web perspective?
18:31:11 [Ralph]
Marco: too early to say
18:32:11 [Ralph]
... need a more clear definition before starting work; there are many topics from which to select
18:33:05 [Ralph]
Libby: I support the idea of showing code fragments
18:33:46 [Ralph]
Guus: would FOAF fit here?
18:33:50 [Ralph]
Libby: yes, possibly
18:34:08 [bwm_]
pat makes a good point
18:34:15 [Ralph]
Pat: the analogy with code is misleading; code does what it does, whereas ontologies do more
18:34:24 [jjc]
The Semantic Web should not be used for nuclear power stations ???
18:34:40 [danbri]
q+ to give an example (rss code snippet) was very handy
18:35:14 [Ralph]
Brian: important to have other task forces should sign up to provide illustrations
18:35:51 [Ralph]
Brian: while I floated the idea, I'm not yet signing up to coordinate the TF
18:35:56 [danbri]
18:36:31 [jjc]
Zakim, unmute jjc
18:36:31 [Zakim]
jjc should no longer be muted
18:36:51 [Ralph]
David: also support this, but also will have to limit my participation
18:37:16 [Ralph]
Jeremy: I am happy to sign up for XML Schema TF
18:37:41 [jjc]
Zakim, mute jjc
18:37:41 [Zakim]
jjc should now be muted
18:37:42 [Ralph]
Guus: I expect to sign up for Porting TF
18:38:06 [Ralph]
Libby: I am willing will to help coordinate ADTF for a while
18:39:05 [Ralph]
Brian: willing to help Libby flesh out a proposal
18:40:14 [Ralph]
zakim, Bristol also holds DanBri
18:40:14 [Zakim]
+DanBri; got it
18:40:25 [bwm_]
q+ to ask be excused
18:40:32 [Ralph]
Topic: World TF
18:40:51 [Ralph]
-> "World" TF description (informal) [JimH, 2004-03-25]
18:41:11 [Ralph]
Guus: first note is intended to be more business cases
18:41:23 [Ralph]
... second note is intended to help those who are confused in where to start
18:42:28 [Ralph]
Pat: I expect to be involved in this task force
18:43:10 [Ralph]
... I worry that the first note might have too much "drum beating" and not enough "practice"; that it might turn into an advertisement
18:43:22 [Ralph]
Guus: expect the document to be short; a maximum of 5 pages
18:44:09 [Ralph]
Mike: read Jim's summary, looks OK to me
18:44:20 [jjc]
Zakim, unmute jjc
18:44:20 [Zakim]
jjc should no longer be muted
18:44:22 [Ralph]
Deb: I also volunteered to Jim that I would help on this
18:44:32 [Ralph]
DavidN: I would especially like to help with the first document
18:45:19 [Ralph]
Pat: might be good to have more representation from others in the WG who have different views
18:45:38 [Ralph]
Jeremy: document 2 needs participation from the DL community
18:46:21 [Ralph]
Mike: I think I can represent the business perspective
18:46:32 [Ralph]
Deb: I consult with some startup companies and can represent the startup perspective
18:47:10 [Ralph]
David: we know something about the business perspective also
18:48:03 [Ralph]
Jos: happy to review, but won't be able to participate in this task force
18:48:15 [Ralph]
Jeremy: will also review
18:50:00 [Ralph]
Marco: France Telecom would like feedback
18:50:25 [Ralph]
... we are willing to try out a draft document within FT
18:51:20 [Ralph]
Topic: WordNet Task Force
18:51:41 [Ralph]
-> WordNet Task Force - work outline [Also 2004-03-23]
18:52:08 [Ralph]
Guus: see Aldo's recent msg
18:52:23 [Ralph]
... Aldo presents an important option
18:52:42 [Ralph]
... 2 choices of representation
18:53:07 [Ralph]
... (1) take the principal representation as-is and create an RDF Schema for it, without adding features
18:53:35 [Ralph]
... (2) do a translation and introduce some RDF constructs
18:53:45 [aldoG]
Above all, (1) does not try to "interpret" the original Wordnet schema in terms of ontologies
18:53:45 [Ralph]
DanBri: my translation only took the nouns
18:54:09 [Ralph]
... this allows markup that looks nice
18:54:25 [jjc]
Zakim, mute jjc
18:54:25 [Zakim]
jjc should now be muted
18:54:34 [aldoG]
(2) tries a mapping from the original schema to ontology data types (classes, individuals, properties, subClass, etc.)
18:54:52 [Ralph]
Guus: my personal opinion is that in principal if there is a representation we should translate it as literally as possible and leave interpretation to the user
18:54:57 [bwm_]
+1 to guus
18:55:06 [Ralph]
Pat: this issue is broader than just WordNet
18:55:22 [aldoG]
I agree with Pat: it applies also to thesauri
18:55:23 [danbri]
q+ to mention language in the new draft [THES] tf
18:55:37 [bwm_]
18:55:49 [Ralph]
Pat: agree with a translation that takes everything as an individual and makes the fewest assumptions
18:56:19 [libby]
18:56:32 [Zakim]
danbri, you wanted to mention language in the new draft [THES] tf
18:56:39 [aldoG]
the problem with (1) is that we actually renounce to derive useful ontologies from wordnets and thesauri, which is the current trend of research in both academic and industrial/organization contexts
18:57:08 [Ralph]
Libby: we followed the simple approach in calendaring
18:58:10 [Ralph]
Ralph: agree with starting simple
18:58:20 [Ralph]
... can we get participation from Princeton?
18:58:23 [aldoG]
(2) is not necessarily "complex". For instance, Dan Brickley has ported (a part of) WordNet using (2)
18:58:39 [jjc]
Zakim, unmute jjc
18:58:39 [Zakim]
jjc should no longer be muted
18:58:41 [Ralph]
ACTION: Guus ask Aldo if someone from Princeton is willing to participate
18:58:43 [danbri]
From (just drafted), "Document strategies for representing Thesaurus-like content using RDF/OWL --- Produce guidelines for transforming an existing thesaurus (or classification system, or similar concept-based taxonomy) into an RDF/OWL representation. Guidelines should describe strategies for converting into an RDF representation of thesaurus-like structures, as well as strategies for re-describing in RDF/OWL the conten
18:58:43 [danbri]
t originally conveyed in the Thesaurus."
18:58:55 [danbri]
18:58:57 [Ralph]
Pat: others have done major work on aligning Cyc with WordNet too
18:59:16 [aldoG]
Christiane Fellbaum is interested in following the work, but she cannot ensure a lot of attention
18:59:28 [Ralph]
[Jeremy reads Aldo's irc comment to the telecon]
18:59:53 [Ralph]
Guus: I don't agree with Aldo's "the problem with (1)..." -- these can be added later
19:00:07 [aldoG]
CYC2WN, as well as Sensus, SUMO2WN and DOLCE2WN (OntoWordNet), follow approach (2)
19:00:18 [Ralph]
Pat: re Aldo's (2), there are tradeoffs
19:00:58 [aldoG]
In fact in I propose to deliver (1), which is almost ready, and then move to (2)
19:01:18 [Ralph]
Jeremy: it is plausible to do this in two phases
19:01:45 [aditya]
aditya has joined #swbp
19:02:05 [Ralph]
Guus: re Christiane Fellbaum; if she could nod agreement that would be nice
19:02:26 [Tbaker]
Tbaker has joined #swbp
19:02:30 [Ralph]
... and even make the TF work part of their distribution
19:02:33 [aldoG]
Yes, I agreed with Jeremy (I have even proposed 3 phases, since (2) can be done in a 'simple', or in an "enriched" mode)
19:03:08 [danbri]
q+ re versioning experience
19:03:14 [Ralph]
Brian: a key test of commitment from the WordNet folk is maintenance as WordNet changes
19:03:15 [danbri]
q+ to feedback re versioning experience
19:03:15 [jjc]
Zakim, mute jjc
19:03:18 [Zakim]
jjc should now be muted
19:03:29 [Ralph]
Guus: this was part of my thoughts; make it part of their distribution
19:04:00 [Zakim]
19:04:02 [bwm_]
bwm_ has left #swbp
19:04:11 [jjc]
Zakim, unmute jjc
19:04:11 [Zakim]
jjc should no longer be muted
19:04:44 [aldoG]
Versioning is a major issue for every ontology production lifecycle ... we should also think on procedures to easily port new versions of wordnets and thesauri. Indeed, this issue has been very relevant in the fishery ontology project with UN-FAO ...
19:05:13 [danbri]
[the class-based approach has merit where you want to mix wordnet w/ other vocab, eg <Pig x:name="Porky"/>...]
19:05:15 [Ralph]
Jeremy: I don't hear any dissent on the first (simple) proposal
19:05:35 [danbri]
19:05:38 [Ralph]
ACTION: Guus talk with Aldo about WordNet and produce a short-term plan for option 1
19:05:39 [aldoG]
I will include the proposal to make the OWL port part of the distribution in the open letter to WN developers, also mentioning the alternatives
19:05:41 [Zakim]
danbri, you wanted to feedback re versioning experience
19:06:21 [Ralph]
DanBri: We made a namespace for WordNet version 1.6; it would be simple to make another namespace for subsequent versions
19:06:22 [aldoG]
Re: ACTION, OK with me
19:06:43 [Ralph]
DanBri: my original notion was to conflate all the versions in one namespace, but it seems that won't fly
19:06:50 [jjc]
Zakim, mute jjc
19:06:50 [Zakim]
jjc should now be muted
19:07:16 [Ralph]
DanBri: [would like to see] guidelines for converting thesaurii to RDF structures
19:07:32 [aldoG]
Only one namespace could be unacceptable for lexicographic people
19:07:37 [Ralph]
DanBri: WordNet could be examples in such a note
19:08:14 [Ralph]
Guus: most of the translations that have been done are not complete. I propose that any translation we do should be complete
19:08:29 [Ralph]
... e.g. only noun trees and only a few relationships
19:08:36 [Ralph]
... there are about 20 relationships
19:08:39 [aldoG]
Yes, Dan, (2) is a way of arriving to a common methodology to port terminological resources to SW
19:08:55 [Ralph]
Guus: we should do all the relationships under option 1
19:08:59 [jjc]
Zakim, unmute jjc
19:08:59 [Zakim]
jjc should no longer be muted
19:09:27 [Ralph]
Jeremy: that should be a goal, but don't overconstrain those doing the work in the TF
19:09:28 [jjc]
Zakim, mute jjc
19:09:28 [Zakim]
jjc should now be muted
19:09:33 [Ralph]
Guus: ok, a goal -- not a requirement
19:09:39 [Ralph]
Topic: OPEN TF
19:09:51 [Ralph]
MikeU: lots of discussion in the past few weeks
19:10:00 [aldoG]
In (1) it is very easy to do all the relationships. In (2), we'll need to distinguish among rels holding classes, individuals, words
19:10:21 [Ralph]
MikeU: agreements have been reached on metaclasses, when to use classes as instances
19:10:38 [Ralph]
... mixing part-of and subclass relationship had some discussion also
19:10:52 [danbri]
[aldoG, did you see the SKOS vocab aliman worked on? do you think that could be extended for use in describing w/net?]
19:11:08 [Ralph]
... consensus emerging to avoid judgemental calls and take specific issues, identify representation/modelling choices
19:11:20 [Ralph]
... explain consequences of the choices, without saying "bad" or "good"
19:11:52 [Ralph]
... in cases where we can agree that an outcome is probably a desirable one or not a desirable one we can say so
19:12:25 [aldoG]
[yes, Dan, I heard about SKOS, I'll go through it asap]
19:12:33 [Ralph]
MikeU:... next steps: agree to pick a single thing to try the non-judgemental approach
19:12:42 [Ralph]
... pick a candidate for a best practice
19:12:58 [Ralph]
... move forward on some simple low-hanging frui
19:13:08 [Ralph]
19:14:15 [Ralph]
Guus: would be good if this TF can produce a short note from a use case perspective
19:14:31 [Ralph]
MikeU: Deb wrote a paper a few years ago
19:14:43 [Ralph]
Deb: section called "tricks of the trade"
19:14:52 [Ralph]
... when do you model something as a concept or as an individual
19:14:57 [Ralph]
... when to use classes as instances
19:15:02 [Ralph]
... Classic
19:15:31 [Ralph]
... pointed out positive and negative implications of some choices
19:15:57 [Ralph]
... will propose a format for interchange; will need several iterations
19:16:12 [jjc]
q+ to talk about early publication as note
19:16:19 [Ralph]
... will look over Living With Classic paper to see what can be lifted
19:16:31 [Ralph]
... not likely to attempt metaclasses to start
19:17:04 [Ralph]
Natasha: classes for DC:Subject have been discussed -- this is actually a technical problem
19:17:20 [Ralph]
... propose to describe tradeoffs rather than say 'good' vs 'bad'
19:17:29 [Ralph]
Deb: this doesn't sound like a short one to me
19:18:13 [Ralph]
Guus: anyone who has tried to combine Dublin Core and OWL has been faced with this problem
19:18:13 [aldoG]
maybe we could also try to give some idea of alternative general choices concerning categories of content, like my LAB has done in the EU WonderWeb project, specially (public) deliverable 18
19:18:26 [Ralph]
Guus: support this (Dublin Core) topic as a note
19:18:55 [Ralph]
MikeU: we agree it is useful, concern about how long it might take
19:19:29 [Ralph]
Natasha: do 2 topics, one simple
19:19:56 [jacco]
deb: sounds like the GOF design pattern template ...
19:19:58 [Ralph]
Deb: a template for explaining tradeoffs
19:20:06 [aldoG]
obviously, alternatives of content should be given even within the Living with Classic case, or wrt Dublin Core, anyway very simple cases
19:20:35 [Ralph]
Deb: a format that would help point out consensus quickly will help
19:21:18 [Ralph]
Mike: useful for all TFs to look beneath the surface of email and notice that there often is a kernel of agreement
19:21:50 [Ralph]
ACTION: Natasha look at classes-as-values DC:Subject issue
19:21:57 [aldoG]
Having a GOF for trade-offs would be great
19:22:00 [Ralph]
Natasha: note that classes-as-instances is a different issue
19:22:45 [Ralph]
Deb: would like to change from OPEN to OEP
19:22:55 [Ralph]
Ontology Engineering Patterns
19:22:58 [aldoG]
Natasha, do you mean classes as concrete data types? therefore, the 'annotation' approach ...
19:23:23 [Ralph]
ACTION: Deb propose a simple pattern for OEP
19:23:43 [Ralph]
Deb: name change will facilitate search
19:24:07 [Ralph]
Guus: I only put on the agenda those TFs that were getting active discussion
19:24:26 [Ralph]
... from the Cannes notes, another TF I'd like to see get attention is PORT - Porting Thesaurii to the Web
19:25:01 [Ralph]
Alistair: I am working on thesaurii conversions right now
19:25:16 [Ralph]
Guus: I am working on this as well, expect to involve someone else from my lab
19:25:27 [golbeck]
i would like to be involved in port as well
19:25:33 [Ralph]
DanBri: I posted a draft today
19:25:59 [Ralph]
[Jennifer, are you on the phone with Aditya?]
19:26:06 [golbeck]
i'm on the phone at hom
19:26:07 [golbeck]
19:26:16 [Ralph]
oh, sorry, right
19:27:32 [Guus]
DanBri Alistair this paper might be of interest:
19:28:04 [aliman]
public-esw-thes has Stella Dextre-Clarke and Leonard Will from a team working on new british standards for thesauri
19:28:22 [aliman]
... doug tudhope from glamorgan
19:28:23 [jjc]
Zakim, unmute jjc
19:28:23 [Zakim]
jjc should no longer be muted
19:28:27 [Ralph]
DanBri: would the WG prefer to use an existing public-esw list or start a new one?
19:28:30 [aliman]
+ some others
19:28:35 [aditya]
yeah, im on the phone..sorry, had to step out for smthg urgent and missed the ADTF discussion:( but am discussing it w/ libby here on irc separately
19:28:45 [aliman]
(lots of good folks :)
19:29:02 [Ralph]
Guus: if a separate list, would like to have regular summaries sent to the WG list
19:29:05 [Ralph]
DanBri: agree
19:29:34 [Ralph]
Guus: XML Schema TF?
19:30:09 [Ralph]
Jeremy: not urgent, though New York is an opportunity to have informal talks
19:30:10 [Zakim]
19:30:11 [Zakim]
19:30:12 [Zakim]
19:30:13 [Zakim]
19:30:14 [davidn]
davidn has left #swbp
19:30:14 [Zakim]
19:30:14 [Ralph]
19:30:15 [Zakim]
19:30:16 [Zakim]
19:30:16 [Zakim]
19:30:29 [jjc]
ACTION: jjc, write TF desc for XML Sch
19:30:31 [Zakim]
19:30:40 [Ralph]
zakim, list participants
19:30:40 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Guus_Schreiber, Ralph, Pat_Hayes, danbri, libby, jjc, Marco?, Natasha, Brian_McBride, Jacco, Aditya, +1.650.723.aabb, Deb, Tom_Baker,
19:30:43 [Zakim]
... David_Norheim, JosD, Alistair, Jen_Golbeck, Marco, Mike_Uschold
19:30:48 [jjc]
Zakim, unmute jjc
19:30:48 [Zakim]
jjc was not muted, jjc
19:30:51 [Zakim]
19:31:06 [aldoG]
19:31:22 [ocorcho]
19:31:40 [ocorcho]
ocorcho has left #swbp
19:32:02 [Tbaker]
Tbaker has joined #swbp
19:32:11 [Tbaker]
Who is talking right now?
19:32:18 [golbeck]
golbeck has left #swbp
19:35:19 [Zakim]
19:35:20 [Zakim]
19:35:21 [Zakim]
19:35:22 [Zakim]
19:35:58 [Zakim]
19:48:54 [Natasha]
Natasha has left #swbp
19:51:04 [patH]
patH has left #swbp
19:57:11 [jjc]
jjc has left #swbp
20:18:21 [libby]
thanks ralph - I should be able to scribe next time, I think, give you a rest (I havn;t got a handsfree phone yet)
21:15:18 [Ralph]
rrsagent, bye
21:15:18 [RRSAgent]
I see 5 open action items:
21:15:18 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Guus ask Aldo if someone from Princeton is willing to participate [1]
21:15:18 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:15:18 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Guus talk with Aldo about WordNet and produce a short-term plan for option 1 [2]
21:15:18 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:15:18 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Natasha look at classes-as-values DC:Subject issue [3]
21:15:18 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:15:18 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Deb propose a simple pattern for OEP [4]
21:15:18 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:15:18 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: jjc, write TF desc for XML Sch [5]
21:15:18 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:15:34 [Zakim]
SW_BPD()1:00PM has ended