See also: IRC log
RESOLVED to accept the minutes of the March 24 telecon
RESOLVED to accept the minutes of Boston ftf 4-5 March
RESOLVED next telecon 21 April 1700 UTC
NOT 1800 UTC
regrets for 21 April from Alan and DanBri
ACTION: chairs & ralph to organise straw poll on f2f location
continued, assigned to Guus
ACTION: Guus to organise straw poll on f2f location
Guus:There is also an offer from Stanford to
hold f2f
... Will include in the strawpoll: Stanford, Vancouver, Galway
ACTION: Ralph investigate what action may be taken when an interested participant has been unable to get a response from his AC Rep.
Ralph: was in a process of finding his out, but ISI has a new AC rep, so there may be progress on that issue
Action continued
ACTION: Guus to contact Aldo re whether he can attend next telecon [DONE]
Current status of the TF:
Aldo is writing a new version of the note on data model for WN
Princeton plans to add new relationships to WN 2.1, perhaps also change in top levels
<danbri> (I'd like to review it)
ISLE lexical entries: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Feb/0069.html
Aldo: are we in the position to add a liason action with ISLE
<danbri> (re pronunciation extensions, we have work at http://www.w3.org/Voice/ that we should connect with...)
Guus: time line is very important and estimate
of feasibility
... is this something you can resolve in 3-6 months?
Aldo: certainly possible
<danbri> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wnNounsyb_v7.owl 404s (link from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Feb/0066.html)
Guus: suggests to update the TF description to reflect the addition and we will discuss it at the next telecon
ACTION: Aldo to propose an update the TF description
DanBri: What is the relationship to the Wordnet in RDFS and OWL document that Brian began to draft last year. Is it obsoleted by Aldo's work?
<aldogan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Feb/0068.html
<Ralph> November f2f WNET discussion minutes
<danbri> all i can find is rdf/owl doc... http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wordnet_datamodel.owl
Aldo: the datamodel is still based on the one
Brian suggested
but it has changed a bit
Changes are described in the document
Some of the documentation is in the OWL file and should be moved to the
document directly
Guus: It will be good to have another TF telecon discussion on teh datamodel
<danbri> ah, found the big file: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wnNounsyn_v7.owl (via browsing directory)
ACTION: DavidW to draft the http-range-14 message [DONE]
David: would be interested to know what happened on the TAG side
<danbri> my sketch http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/httpclass/1
Ralph advised Dan Connolly that if TAG wanted to devise a forum to discuss the technical issues with us, we will be glad to do that
David: How much energy/time are we willing to spend on this?
<ChrisW> i agree with david
DanBri: I started a document on this topic (drafted as VM but without coordination w/ VM TF members) and to note that TAG minutes showed Tim as misunderstanding the WG resolution
Ralph: we need to distinguish whether our arguments are deployment-oriented (something in our charter) vs architecture-driven arguments
ACTION: Chairs to discuss the httpRange-14 issue at the coordination level
ACTION: Guus to review OWL metamodel
continued, trying to finish this week
ACTION: Deb to go over OWL metamodel and provide a summary
continued
... later in the meeting ...
Evan: semantics of business rules work in OMG
has potential overlap with ODM
... there is some coordination contention in OMG about how much consistency
is desired between that spec and ODM
... business rules work does not have a formal semantics
ACTION: Chris to provide input to DAWG based on deployment experience.
completed; see Chris's summary of his DAWG action
ACTION: Deb sort SOURCE issue discussion timing out with DanC how you like; copy in davidw
done
ACTION: jjc to review XML schema LC draft
continued; the draft is coming out shortly
ACTION: Jeff to review XML schema LC draft
continued; the draft is coming out shortly
SWBPD FAQ proposal: last time we agreed to do it
Last week we decided that FAQ will be part of the Tutorial work
<Ralph> Yes, Benjamin volunteers for FAQ in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Mar/0213.html
ACTION: Guus review of part-whole draft
completed: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Apr/0017.html
ACTION: Bill review of part-whole draft
completed: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Mar/0209.html
There was also a review by Natasha: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Mar/0219.html
Natasha: the current draft doesn't talk about any patterns at the instance level
Alan: there is a set of examples about
geography that I wanted to deal with separately
... have to be careful with expressing qualifiers
Natasha: I just wanted to point out to people that the relationships can be expressed just as a normal property
Alan:I welcome additions from Natasha
publication status of OEP Notes
Chris cleaning up some pubrules violations in the specified values note
Ralph: Classes as values is ready to go; sent for transition approval; might be published today
Chris: no further progress on other OEP notes
ACTION: jeff to coordinate editorial changes, formatting requirements, etc for XML schema dtypes [DONE]
ACTION: Ralph help Jeff and Jeremy with XML Schema Datatype publication request
TomB: DanBri drafted a small note "Some Things
that Hashless HTTP URIs Can Name"
... we wanted to cover things like this in the VM Note
... intend to schedule some TF telecons in next 2-3 weeks
DanBri: I'd like Task Force members to take a look at what I've started
Guus: can this be merged with the main document?
DanBri: the separate document may be a focal point for our interaction with TAG
TomB: the material might be 2-3 paragraphs in the main document, so it is appropriate to have it separate for now
ACTION: DanBri help write an rdf schema for the additional xhtml2 namespace elements [CONTINUES]
DanBri: I had assumed that this action would be triggered by a new XHTML2 Working Draft
Ralph: tf had a telecon earlier this week [minutes]
... both Mark Birbeck and Steven Pemberton attended
... update in the public record from them
... a new URI for an editor's draft (not on the w3.org site)
... not clear if we want to work from an editor's draft vs wait
<danbri> (http://www.w3.org/2005/03/28-editor-style.html btw defines Editor's Drafts; a new page)
ACTION: Gavin find out from his community and contacts if they have use cases [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Tom Baker ask DC colleagues if many use rdf inside html [DONE]
TomB: I got two responses that I summarized to
the WG list
... can get more feedback if necessary
ACTION: BenA set a time for the RDF-in-XHTML telecons [DONE]
ACTION: the rdf in html tf to discuss whether GRIDDL needs to work on XHTML2 documents [WITHDRAWN]
Guus: this seems a general goal of the TF, propose to withdraw
DanBri: it is important to have a way to
extract RDF from RDF/A
... this should be a part of the TF agenda
<danbri> (reason for fussing on this is that the qnames-in-attribute values aspect complicates things, as it raises the Q of whether GRDDLs are XSLT 1.0 or 2.0, how to deploy w/ both environments, etc etc.)
Guus: I asked Jeremy to give a talk on the
status of this work at WWW2005
... I am worried that there may not be a public WD by then
Ralph: we are putting a lot of pressure on the HTML WG to issue a new public WD
Guus: constructive comments from Steve Newcomb
Libby: I've been looking at the notes from Boston f2f and extracted the following:
<libby> [[
<libby> *
<libby> only applications and demos with their own [WWW]DOAP descriptions will be included
<libby> *
<libby> only freely downloadable apps and demos will be included unless they are products of a W3C member company
<libby> *
<libby> for the time being only RDF, RDFS and OWL applications will be included
<libby> ]]
Libby: have we made an official decision on these criteria?
Ralph: I thought the meeting gave the authority to the TF to decide the criteria
Libby: good, we'll send a note out then
Guus: Benjamin and Jeff volunteered to work on
this
... happy to have two people
... I'd like a simple procedure proposed for people to submit questions
... per Alan's suggestion in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Mar/0097.html
<JeffP> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Mar/0215.html
ACTION: Jeff to talk with Benjamin to propose a process for submission of FAQ questions
Jeff: telecon considered whether automated
software engineering experts were needed in the TF
... consensus of TF was that we do need such expertise
Guus: for an invited expert, we need a good
description of a person with the required expertise and an explanation of why
this expertise is not available among the W3C Membership
... main point is that the critical expertise is not present in the WG and
justification for why the recommended person works for an organization that
is not a W3C Member
Jeff: re status of draft: we're working on
Michael and David's comments
... example section is being restructured
... we would like more review of the existing examples in the draft
... Michael suggested that we need an example for section 3.3
... we would like the WG to supply an example for 3.3 else we will drop that
section
... we hope to have a document for review by 23 April
... proposed idea section will make the concept of ontology-driven
architecture more clear
... we have a workshop proposal on "Semantic Web Enabled Software
Engineering" for ISWC accepted, chaired by Evan
Guus: a report of that workshop would be a useful contribution to this group
<danbri> Alistair's PORT TF summary: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Apr/0015.html (i) SKOS core ready to go (ii) Tom has some issues (which he'll summarise) (iii) minor comments re Publishing thes doc.
DanBri: we have 3 documents that we hope to
publish at the same time
... all have been reviewed
... SKOS Core Guide appears to be ready to go
... SKOS Core Specifications had some comments from TomB
TomB: my comments were to be precise about the relationship between parts of the specification and the corresponding RDF schema
<danbri> (re status w.r.t. notion of Editor's Draft, we can now cite http://www.w3.org/2005/03/28-editor-style.html to explain what these are)
TomB: ... which version is authoritative?
... when changes are made, how to describe what the status of those changes
will be
... some additional citations needed for people to find explanations of the
different document types
... some more work needs to be done, but these are not issues that should
hold up publication
DanBri: 3rd doc is Quick Guide to Publishing a
Thesaurus on the Semantic Web
... some debate about whether to use the word "publish" or "convert"
... I think the 3 documents are basically ready to go
Guus: we need a proposal on the agenda to
approve these for publication
... I am willing to handle the publication proposal by mail if the TF
wishes
TomB: I expect to sit down with Alistair next week and we can review the draft then
Guus: we'll propose to consider publication of
the set of 3 documents at the next telecon
... TF can ask for earlier consideration by mail if you wish
DanBri: editors should note Style for Group-internal Drafts
Style for Group-internal Drafts (or, "How to avoid confusion with TR page documents") [Ian Jacobs 2005-04-07]