SemWeb Best Practices and Deployment WG
16 Sep 2004

Administrivia

PROPOSED: accept http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Sep/0067.html as record of previous meeting

so RESOLVED

PROPOSED: next telecon 30 Sep 1400 UTC

<scribe> ACTION: Guus send e-mail about telecon attendance, as it's getting low

TomA: regrets for 30 Sep

<scribe> ACTION: Ralph post his attendance analysis ('good standing' record) to the list

RESOLVED next telecon 30 Sep 1400 UTC

<scribe> ACTION: Guus send email to Brian and Jeremy to create a local information page for FtF

<scribe> ACTION: Ralph create a WBS registration page for the FtF

Action Item Review

ACTION David Contact Ben in regard to coordinating RDF in XHTML TF
completed

ACTION Gary look at DAWG's request and post comments to mailing list
completed

ACTION Jeremy to review XSD FNO and SCD documents.
continue

ACTION Jeremy to add XSD FNO and SCD documents to TF reference list.
continue

ACTION Jeremy to check semantics on DAWG use of XSD in abstract query model.
continue

[NEW] ACTION Guus: ping Jeremy about XSD actions

Community Feedback

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Sep/0043.html SWBP Community Feedback [David 2004-09-13]

Guus: David distilled some comments from (outside) meetings he recently attended

Evan: partOf was on our list of patterns at one time

Guus: yes, Chris Welty wanted to do partOf, though perhaps to a greater detail than is suggested by David's item 2; I would like OEP to take this up

Evan: agree

<TomAdams> This was one of the conferences Dave was making comments after: http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2004/09/15/egov.html

Guus: doing something more concrete for lat/lon might be welcomed

Ralph: might also be done in APP TF if there is something existing that we could simply cite

Evan: thought we talked about this and decided not to go that route specifically for units & measures. Point 4 from David's mail sounds like exactly where examples are what's needed

Guus: Usability is another request for more examples

Evan: what does the 'geeky' comment mean?

Ralph: my sense was that this was a request for more basic materials; the problems addressed by our current notes are perhaps things that new adoptees of RDF&OWL are not yet facing

Guus: I also hear community feedback requesting help on linking metdata to multimedia

Ralph, TomA: tutorial page can serve to cite basic how-to materials also

TomA: also talked with some folk putting satellite data into RDF; they might be a source for more information and examples, particularly for non-textual metadata; this may be a generic use case

Web Architecture Draft

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Sep/0037.html Comments to Web Arch WD due 17 Sep [David 2004-09-10]

Ralph: perhaps Pat or Jos would like to craft a WG comment

<scribe> ACTION: Guus contact Pat and Jos about Web Arch comments

[Ralph: as the Web Arch comment deadline is tomorrow, the polite way to proceed if we were to ask for an extension is to send mail before the deadline saying we expect to comment soon]

ODM/UML Ontology Profile

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Sep/0044.html more on the status of the OMG ontology specification [Evan 2004-09-13]

Evan: the document that several e-mails have cited is a combined set of comments on the UML draft. No mapping has actually been produced yet; at least 3 submitter groups are working on mappings; "MOF Query Views and Transformations" . The next OMG meeting is in November [same week as our FtF]; would be useful to have input from SWBPD.

Guus: I want to study ODM in more depth, but my impression is that it would be useful for SWBP to comment on it

Evan: it may be that this group's concern might be more in the mappings but we should look at the metamodel too

Guus: I am willing to be one reviewer

<BenBooth> I would be willing to assist (UML experience)

ACTION Guus: ask the WG for a second reviewer for ODM

Guus: Ben's offer accepted

Evan: ask Gary Ng too. I looked over the models in June and was quite happy with them

BenB: happy to work with someone in an assistance role

<scribe> ACTION: BenB read ODM documents

RDF/TopicMaps

Guus: it would be nice to start this work in the next month

TF Updates

OEP

[no one present]

Port

Guus: comments requested on Alistair's update

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Sep/0041.html [PORT] ftf goals [Alistair 2004-09-13]

WordNet

[Aldo not present]

Vocab Management

TomB: telecon scheduled for tomorrow, 17-Sep 1400 UTC. Sent a questionnaire to TF; need more responses. I have been concerned about the scope of the TF; don't want to take on more than we can accomplish

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Sep/0006.html [VM] Scoping Draft with questions to TF members [TomB 2004-09-02]

TomB: I would like to recommend using Dublin Core practice to focus discussion
... e.g. Andy Powell just posted [to Dublin Core] a set of guidelines for assigning identifiers

<Tbaker> http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/term-identifier-guidelines/

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Sep/0060.html [VM] Guidelines for assigning identifiers to terms [TomB 2004-09-16]

TomB: Andy Powell's document covers many of the issues I'd like the VM TF to address
... I'm concerned about the size of the task and the current volume of the [TF] response

Guus: the chairs' guide, The Art of Consensus, turns out not to be a 'document' but a page with lots of links. This turns out to be very useful and a model that could be emulated.

TomB: having something recognized in a Best Practice note from W3C would be useful. For example, the Dublin Core namespace policy is very accessible and could be endorsed by SWBPD. I want to break out topics that the WG could own, selecting a range of practices, describing those practices w/advantages and disadvantages

Guus: I agree with Tom's approach -- focus on things that are out there

TomB: my approach was to break out a few topics for the TF members to comment on. My bias is to write short things that are understandable by non-experts; need some commitment from the TF participants. I may reduce the scope even more in order to get comments from the TF

Ralph: good to use the issues identified by deployment groups such as Dublin Core to drive our priorities

Guus: nudge people on the list to provide feedback

ACTION TomB: nudge VM TF participants to provide feedback

HTML TF

<Tbaker> Tom clarifies for the record that "endorsement" of things like DCMI Namespace Policy is not sought - rather recognition as one instance of good practice

ACTION Ralph: ask WG for feedback on requirement to embed RDF/XML markup in an XHTML document

[Ralph summarized Tuesday 7-Sep HTML TF telecon]

<TomAdams> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Sep/0071.html

Tutorial Page

TomA: received some suggested additions [0071.html]
... we had agreed to use www-archive
... is it bad form to repost something sent privately to me to that archive?

Ralph: yes, bad form; better to ask the sender to repost

ADTF

[no representative present]

<Fabien> The blog on applications and demos is slowly growing:

Guus: Task Forces should be able to use the Thursday WG telecon slot [on alternate weeks]