17:01:00 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #swbp
17:01:00 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-swbp-irc
17:01:07 <Ralph> Meeting: SemWeb Best Practices & Deployment WG
17:01:10 <Zakim> +David_Wood
17:01:10 <Ralph> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jun/0041.html
17:01:24 <Ralph> Regrets: Brian, Deb, Jeff, Libby, TomB, Jeremy
17:01:31 <Zakim> +Ralph
17:01:57 <Ralph> zakim, ??p0 is DBooth
17:01:57 <Zakim> +DBooth; got it
17:01:58 <DavidW> Late:  Deb McGuinness, Jeff Pan
17:01:58 <DavidW> IRC only:  Benjamin N
17:02:05 <Zakim> +??P3
17:02:08 <Zakim> +Alistair_Miles (was ??P3)
17:02:19 <BenjaminNguyen> I'll be phoning in if I have anything long to say David.
17:02:21 <JeffP> JeffP has joined #swbp
17:02:45 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes previous meeting 2005-05-19
17:02:51 <Ralph> Chair: DavidW
17:03:09 <Zakim> +??P4
17:03:13 <dbooth> dbooth has joined #swbp
17:03:42 <Ralph> zakim, ??p4 is Jeff
17:03:42 <Zakim> +Jeff; got it
17:03:49 <Ralph> regrets- Jeff
17:05:33 <Zakim> +??P5
17:05:36 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35495/telecontime/results meeting time straw poll results
17:05:44 <Ralph> zakim, ??p5 is Mike
17:05:44 <Zakim> +Mike; got it
17:06:32 <Zakim> +Elisa_Kendall
17:07:09 <Ralph> zakim, take up agendum 1
17:07:09 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Admin" taken up [from Ralph]
17:07:13 <Ralph> zakim, who's on the call?
17:07:13 <Zakim> On the phone I see DBooth, David_Wood, Ralph, Alistair_Miles, Jeff, Mike, Elisa_Kendall
17:07:20 <Ralph> PROPOSED to accept http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes as the minutes of the 19 May telecon
17:07:59 <aliman> I can see the telecon times poll result
17:08:05 <Ralph> so RESOLVED
17:08:12 <Ralph> Scribe: Ralph
17:08:39 <Ralph> ACTION: Guus to start a straw poll on new meeting day; Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday -- all at 1700 UTC
17:08:43 <Ralph> -- done
17:08:47 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35495/telecontime/ straw poll on telecon time
17:09:10 <aliman> monday 1700 UTC fine for me
17:09:14 <Ralph> Mike: I'm happy with Monday 1700 UTC
17:09:19 <Ralph> Elisa: works for me too
17:09:24 <Ralph> PROPOSED to move the WG telecon time to Mondays 1700 UTC (1800 UTC in the non-DST period)
17:09:25 <BenjaminNguyen> I didn't vote, all is fine
17:09:38 <Ralph> so RESOLVED
17:09:56 <Ralph> ACTION: Ralph post this resolution to the list
17:10:04 <Ralph> PROPOSED next telecons: Monday 27 June 1700 UTC and continue bi-weekly as usual
17:10:23 <Ralph> so RESOLVED
17:11:14 <Ralph> ACTION: Ralph to start a poll on Thu/Fri 3-4 Nov vs. Fri/Sat 4-5 Nov vs. Fri/Sat 11-12 Nov. (noting the 11-12 dates conflict with OWL workshop)
17:11:18 <Ralph> -- done
17:11:20 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes.html#action01 Straw pool on Galway ftf dates
17:12:08 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35495/swbp051101/ Galway f2f dates poll
17:12:13 <Zakim> +Phil_Tetlow
17:12:45 <DavidW> Poll results:  http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35495/swbp051101/results
17:13:04 <Ralph> 15 responses
17:13:28 <Ralph> shows weak preference for the Fri&Sat before ISWC
17:13:42 <aliman> i don't mind about f2f dates
17:14:00 <Ralph> Elisa: Evan and I have a workshop on the 6th and Evan preferred to have a day break in between
17:14:46 <Ralph> Ralph: I move the Fri-Sat choice
17:14:53 <Ralph> ... 4-5 Nov
17:15:24 <Ralph> RESOLVED: next face-to-face in Galway Fri-Sat 4-5 November 2005
17:16:20 <Ralph> Jeff: there is an ODBase conference on ontologies 31 Oct to 4 Nov in Cypress
17:17:08 <Ralph> ... not sure if it affects me directly, though we submitted some papers
17:18:08 <Ralph> zakim, next agendum
17:18:10 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Liaison" taken up [from Ralph]
17:18:24 <Ralph> Topic: 2.1 Proposed resolution httpRange-14
17:18:33 <Ralph> ACTION: DavidW to identify the 4 httpRange-14 options
17:18:36 <Ralph> -- done
17:18:39 <Ralph> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jun/0051.html httpRange-14 Options
17:19:38 <Ralph> ACTION: Chairs to discuss the httpRange-14 issue at the coordination level
17:20:20 <Ralph> Alistair: recall Dan Brickley's note "What HTTP: URIs can Name"
17:20:29 <Natasha> Natasha has joined #swbp
17:20:30 <Zakim> +??P8
17:20:47 <Ralph> zakim, ??p8 is Natasha
17:20:48 <Zakim> +Natasha; got it
17:20:56 <aliman> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/httpclass/1
17:21:11 <ChrisW> ChrisW has joined #swbp
17:21:17 <ChrisW> sorry i'm late
17:21:22 <ChrisW> I'll be there in about 5 mins
17:22:40 <Ralph> Ralph: the response thus far from the TAG is that they can't move on this issue without further technical input
17:23:09 <Christo> Christo has joined #swbp
17:24:14 <dbooth> Ralph: Path of least resistance would be to endorse Tim's solution, then decide what to do about well-known vocabs that do not follow that.
17:25:04 <Ralph> DavidW: technically the question of server side processing can't be avoided
17:25:07 <dbooth> DavidW: Need to addresss the issue of server-side processing at the same time though, as many see it as intertwined.
17:25:30 <Ralph> Topic: 2.2 XML Schema Last Call
17:25:36 <Zakim> +Chris_Welty
17:25:38 <Ralph> ACTION: Jeff to review XML schema LC draft
17:25:52 <Ralph> Jeff: I've read the draft and don't have any additional comments to post
17:25:56 <Ralph> -- done
17:26:24 <Ralph> Phil: is there a deadline on the httpRange-14 issue?
17:27:35 <Ralph> David: we've been talking about httpRange-14 for a while, no pressing deadline
17:27:54 <Ralph> Jeff: XML Schema WG might not be aware of our requirements for schema datatypes
17:28:19 <Ralph> ... Jeremy has been talking with them about this
17:28:35 <ChrisW> zakim, Chris_Welty is me
17:28:35 <Zakim> +ChrisW; got it
17:29:45 <dbooth> Ralph: If we want the spec to change materially, we should point to an implementation that fails to do something important because it is missing a feature.  Otherwise unlikkely to get changes enacted.
17:30:03 <dbooth> s/unlikkely/unlikely/
17:30:57 <dbooth> Jeff: Is there time for us to make more noise on this?
17:31:27 <dbooth> Ralph: Last Call ended in April, so either they're dealing with a long list of issues or they think they're done.  I don't know which.
17:32:20 <Ralph> ACTION: DavidW ask about the XML Schema Component Designators LC status at the SemWeb CG meeting
17:32:30 <dbooth2> dbooth2 has joined #swbp
17:33:00 <Ralph> Topic: 2.2 OMG: ODM review
17:33:28 <Ralph> Elisa: I'll send a pointer to the latest document revision
17:33:41 <Ralph> ... we've incorporated most of the feedback received
17:33:52 <Ralph> ... more feedback is still welcom
17:34:00 <Ralph> ... expect one more round on the document between now and August
17:34:22 <Ralph> ... expect to use MOF Query View Tranformation to represent all the mappings
17:34:42 <Ralph> ... look forward to an OMG vote in December
17:35:16 <Ralph> ... current draft does incorporate NIST feedback
17:35:20 <ChrisW> zakim, who is here?
17:35:20 <Zakim> On the phone I see DBooth, David_Wood, Ralph, Alistair_Miles, Jeff, Mike, Elisa_Kendall, Phil_Tetlow, Natasha, ChrisW
17:35:22 <Zakim> On IRC I see dbooth2, ChrisW, Natasha, JeffP, RRSAgent, DavidW, BenjaminNguyen, aliman, Zakim, Ralph
17:36:24 <Ralph> zakim, next agendum
17:36:24 <Zakim> agendum 3. "TF Updates" taken up [from Ralph]
17:36:32 <Ralph> Topic: 3.1 PORT
17:36:50 <Ralph> Alistair: comments on SKOS Core have started to trickle in
17:36:56 <aliman> http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/proposals
17:37:20 <Ralph> Alistair: we now have two open proposals; (1) bug fix, (2) some changes in documentation properties
17:37:52 <Ralph> ... re: documentation properties, makes sense to have a single root property and use dc:audience
17:38:15 <Ralph> ... continuing to discuss DanBri's idea to have a property to relate SKOS concepts to OWL individuals
17:38:34 <Ralph> ... we've been asked about how to extend SKOS Core
17:39:02 <Ralph> ... we expected to describe this at a later date, either in a separate note or in the Core Guide itself
17:39:09 <Ralph> ... my current thought is a separate note
17:39:27 <Ralph> ... also questions on how to relate SKOS Core to XML Applications
17:39:39 <Ralph> ... in particular, how to write an XSD for SKOS Core
17:40:20 <Ralph> ... OWL has an alternate XML syntax; does it get used?
17:40:28 <Ralph> David: yes, I've seen the alternate OWL XML syntax used
17:40:48 <Ralph> Alistair: NewsML is revising their schema
17:41:45 <Ralph> ... will be hard to use the RDF/XML syntax in these applications
17:41:51 <Ralph> ... I may start to float some ideas
17:42:45 <Ralph> DBooth: regarding a new XML syntax, are you thinking of one that is already in use or design a new one?
17:43:08 <Ralph> Alistair: I'm thinking of designing a new syntax that is XML Schema constrained but GRDDL-able
17:44:34 <Ralph> DBooth: do you expect an XLST transform to be part of the design?
17:44:39 <Ralph> Alistair: yes
17:47:03 <Ralph> Ralph: I'm think that design of a new syntax that is as extensible as RDF/XML yet XML Schema validatable is a lot of work
17:47:14 <Ralph> Alistair: I'm encouraged by the direction of RDF/A
17:47:44 <Ralph> Topic: 3.2 OEP
17:48:08 <Ralph> Chris: Specified Values became a WG Note on 17 May
17:48:18 <Ralph> ... still working on n-ary relations document
17:48:33 <Ralph> ... talking about publishing a vocabulary to support n-ary relations note
17:48:53 <Ralph> ... so people who want interoperability between RDF and higher-arity systems have a way to do automatic translation
17:49:05 <Ralph> ... simple part-whole note still pending
17:49:24 <Ralph> ... Jerry Hobbs is now participating and we're talking about turning the OWL Time document into a Note
17:49:35 <Ralph> ... may have something by the end of the month
17:50:05 <Ralph> ... Evan says he has some initial work not yet posted on units & measures
17:50:22 <Ralph> s/& measures/of measure/
17:51:24 <Ralph> ... "argument number" property was included in the n-ary relations vocabulary to support translation to other formats
17:52:02 <Zakim> -Alistair_Miles
17:52:05 <Ralph> ... some people felt this vocabulary to support translations to other languages was out of scope for the note
17:52:30 <Ralph> DavidW: can you satisfy both camps by using this vocabulary in a non-normative example?
17:53:32 <Ralph> Chris: anyone wanting to translate RDF to a higher-arity system would need such a vocabulary
17:53:51 <Ralph> Phil: I would like to see this included, as it's important to many
17:54:13 <Ralph> Chris: the question is about scope; the OEP Note is about particular patterns, not about translation to other languages
17:54:19 <ChrisW> zakim, who is here?
17:54:19 <Zakim> On the phone I see DBooth, David_Wood, Ralph, Jeff, Mike, Elisa_Kendall, Phil_Tetlow, Natasha, ChrisW
17:54:21 <Zakim> On IRC I see dbooth, ChrisW, Natasha, JeffP, RRSAgent, DavidW, BenjaminNguyen, Zakim, Ralph
17:54:37 <Ralph> DavidW: Best Practices gets to be practical about dealing with issues that are important
17:55:22 <Ralph> Phil: ordered n-ary patterns are an identifiable pattern
17:55:43 <Ralph> Natasha: I felt this was out of scope because the Note is not about mapping
17:56:01 <Ralph> ... argument numbers won't satisfy UML mapping
17:56:28 <Ralph> ... would need an additional vocabulary for mapping to languages that represent n-ary relations in other ways [than argument numbers]
17:57:39 <dbooth> Ralph: It's useful to have examples that help explain this.  Need to have a vocabulary with examples.  The boundary here is whether the WG proposes a specific vocabulary or provides examples.
17:58:18 <Ralph> Natasha: there were two parts to the vocabulary and I felt the specific parts dealing with the mapping were out of scope
17:58:30 <Ralph> Phil: ordered n-ary relations are a valid specialization
17:59:19 <Ralph> Chris: if we decided it is out of scope for this Note, we could write a separate note
17:59:41 <Zakim> -DBooth
17:59:43 <Ralph> ... so the question is whether to expand the N-ary relations note or write a separate Note
18:00:08 <Christo> Christo has joined #swbp
18:00:21 <Ralph> Mike: would it make sense to use the vocabulary in the examples of the first note and later write a separate note about the vocabulary?
18:01:36 <Ralph> Natasha: I had two concerns; whether a mapping vocabulary belonged in the N-ary relations note and the systems not covered by the current vocabulary
18:02:18 <Ralph> Natasha: we might want to tackle other things such as association classes as well
18:02:44 <Ralph> Mike: I recommend including [only] things that are needed to explain the current N-ary relations note
18:03:08 <Ralph> Ralph: keep it simple
18:03:38 <Ralph> Chris: the vocabulary is there for n-ary relations.  Separating it into another document may make it harder to find.
18:04:05 <Ralph> ... saying how to represent higher-arity relations in RDF is part of this Note
18:05:06 <Ralph> Mike: could also write an appendix of what this might look like and the appendix might evenutally expand to a new document
18:05:26 <Ralph> Chris: I'd rather not take that approach
18:06:18 <Ralph> Mike: if the material exists, it makes sense to have it all in one place
18:06:45 <Ralph> Chris: I wouldn't want a half thought-out appendix suggesting a fuller version would follow later
18:08:57 <Ralph> Ralph: but the partial solution is partial only in that it doesn't cover other cases, as Natasha cites, but you're comfortable for the cases it does cover, right?
18:08:59 <Ralph> Chris: yes
18:09:15 <Ralph> Phil: I feel a separate note is better
18:09:36 <Ralph> Topic: 3.3 WordNet
18:09:45 <Ralph> ACTION: Aldo to propose an update the Wordnet TF description
18:10:03 <Ralph> Topic: 3.4 XML Schema Datatypes
18:10:31 <Ralph> Topic: 3.5 Vocabulary Management
18:11:33 <Ralph> Topic 3.6
18:11:40 <Ralph> Topic: 3.6 RDF-in-XHTML
18:11:50 <Christo> ACTION: Gavin find out from his community and contacts if they have
18:11:50 <Christo>       use cases
18:12:37 <CHrisW-scribe> new WD revealed more about their WG process 
18:12:53 <CHrisW-scribe> Ralph: ...
18:13:02 <CHrisW-scribe> ... good news is ther eis a WD
18:13:24 <CHrisW-scribe> ... not sufficient progress from last spec
18:13:45 <CHrisW-scribe> ... no telecon for a while, telecon attendance low
18:14:13 <CHrisW-scribe> DavidW: should we get SWPB volunteers to review draft?
18:14:28 <CHrisW-scribe> Ralph: we need help, sure
18:14:48 <CHrisW-scribe> ... problem with b-nodes.  Thought the authors would have additional attributes for b-nodes
18:15:01 <CHrisW-scribe> ... something analagous to id attr in rdf
18:15:35 <CHrisW-scribe> ... WG seems to prefer xptr schem for b=node
18:15:57 <CHrisW-scribe> ... which scheme will win -which is more natural for HTML authors
18:16:12 <CHrisW-scribe> ... no new input on GRDDL question
18:16:27 <CHrisW-scribe> ... should WG take up GRDDL as a task or endorse it
18:16:39 <CHrisW-scribe> ...(an open question)
18:16:42 <Ralph> ACTION: Gavin find out from his community and contacts if they have use cases
18:17:20 <CHrisW-scribe> Ralph: do have a document from XHTML WG thta is close (modulo bnode issue)
18:17:30 <CHrisW-scribe> ... waiting for JJC to come back
18:17:49 <CHrisW-scribe> ... language may not be precise enough
18:18:29 <CHrisW-scribe> Phil: why did the XHTML wg change its stance
18:19:01 <CHrisW-scribe> Ralph: (around bnodes) not really a change, wasn't sufficiently addressed in previous note (ie it was a bug)
18:19:16 <CHrisW-scribe> ... four solutions on table and need to pick one
18:19:42 <CHrisW-scribe> DavidW: will Ralph review new WD?
18:19:51 <CHrisW-scribe> Ralph: Yes
18:20:58 <CHrisW-scribe> ... the TF considers reviewing this draft a high priority
18:21:07 <CHrisW-scribe> ... need Jeremy for this
18:22:14 <Ralph> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Jun/0029.html meeting record 2005-06-14 XHTML telecon
18:22:29 <Ralph> Topic: 3.10 SE TF
18:22:49 <Ralph> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jun/0027.html Minutes of SETF Telecon 07-06-05
18:23:10 <Ralph> Phil: we'd like reviewers for Composite IFPs draft
18:23:18 <Ralph> ... using more than one resource to identify a resource
18:24:06 <Ralph> ... reviewers for Composite IFP draft wanted in 3-4 months
18:24:18 <Ralph> ... we'd like reviewers for current document now
18:24:30 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/SE/ODA/ Ontology Driven Architectures and Potential Uses of the Semantic Web in Software Engineering
18:24:49 <Ralph> DavidW: recommend asking on the list, since attendance here is light
18:24:59 <Ralph> ... I may be willing to be one reviewer
18:25:31 <BenjaminNguyen> I am interested also, depending on review deadline
18:26:24 <Ralph> Chris: I'm willing to review but I'm listed as a contributor
18:26:42 <Ralph> Phil: your contributions were very early on
18:28:18 <ChrisW> ben, how much time do you need for a review?
18:28:34 <BenjaminNguyen> end of july
18:28:45 <Ralph> Phil: Benjamin's offer accepted, there's no particular urgency so 4+ weeks to review OK
18:28:49 <BenjaminNguyen> fine
18:30:03 <Ralph> RESOLVED: SE draft reviewers are Chris and Benjamin with DavidW likely to comment
18:30:10 <Zakim> -Natasha
18:30:28 <Ralph> adjourned
18:30:31 <Zakim> -Phil_Tetlow
18:30:32 <Zakim> -ChrisW
18:30:35 <Zakim> -Elisa_Kendall
18:30:36 <Zakim> -Jeff
18:30:38 <Zakim> -Mike
18:30:39 <Zakim> -David_Wood
18:30:48 <Zakim> -Ralph
18:30:49 <BenjaminNguyen> bye folks !
18:30:50 <Zakim> SW_BPD()1:00PM has ended
18:30:51 <Zakim> Attendees were David_Wood, Ralph, DBooth, Alistair_Miles, Jeff, Mike, Elisa_Kendall, Phil_Tetlow, Natasha, ChrisW
18:31:18 <Ralph> rrsagent, please draft minutes
18:31:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-swbp-minutes.html Ralph
18:31:27 <Ralph> rrsagent, make logs world-visible
18:31:42 <Ralph> rrsagent, bye
18:31:42 <RRSAgent> I see 10 open action items:
18:31:42 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Guus to start a straw poll on new meeting day; Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday -- all at 1700 UTC [1]
18:31:42 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-swbp-irc#T17-08-39
18:31:42 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Ralph post this resolution to the list [2]
18:31:42 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-swbp-irc#T17-09-56
18:31:42 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Ralph to start a poll on Thu/Fri 3-4 Nov vs. Fri/Sat 4-5 Nov vs. Fri/Sat 11-12 Nov. (noting the 11-12 dates conflict with OWL workshop) [3]
18:31:42 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-swbp-irc#T17-11-14
18:31:42 <RRSAgent> ACTION: DavidW to identify the 4 httpRange-14 options [4]
18:31:42 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-swbp-irc#T17-18-33
18:31:42 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Chairs to discuss the httpRange-14 issue at the coordination level [5]
18:31:42 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-swbp-irc#T17-19-38
18:31:42 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Jeff to review XML schema LC draft [6]
18:31:42 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-swbp-irc#T17-25-38
18:31:42 <RRSAgent> ACTION: DavidW ask about the XML Schema Component Designators LC status at the SemWeb CG meeting [7]
18:31:42 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-swbp-irc#T17-32-20
18:31:42 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Aldo to propose an update the Wordnet TF description [8]
18:31:42 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-swbp-irc#T18-09-45
18:31:42 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Gavin find out from his community and contacts if they have [9]
18:31:42 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-swbp-irc#T18-11-50
18:31:42 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Gavin find out from his community and contacts if they have use cases [10]
18:31:42 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-swbp-irc#T18-16-42