See also: IRC log
<DavidW> IRC only: Benjamin N
<BenjaminNguyen> I'll be phoning in if I have anything long to say David.
-> previous meeting 2005-05-19
RESOLVED to accept http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes as the minutes of the 19 May telecon
ACTION: Guus to start a straw poll on new meeting day; Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday -- all at 1700 UTC [DONE]
-> straw poll on telecon day and results
<aliman> monday 1700 UTC fine for me
Mike: I'm happy with Monday 1700 UTC
Elisa: works for me too
<BenjaminNguyen> I didn't vote, all is fine
RESOLVED to move the WG telecon time to Mondays 1700 UTC (1800 UTC in the non-DST period)
ACTION: Ralph post telecon date resolution to the list
RESOLVED next telecons: Monday 27 June 1700 UTC and continue bi-weekly as usual
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) [DONE]
-> Galway f2f dates poll and results
DavidW: 15 responses; shows weak preference for the Fri&Sat before ISWC
<aliman> i don't mind about f2f dates
Elisa: Evan and I have a workshop on the 6th and Evan preferred to have a day break in between
RESOLVED: next face-to-face in Galway Fri-Sat 4-5 November 2005
Jeff: there is an ODBase conference on
ontologies 31 Oct to 4 Nov in Cypress
... not sure if it affects me directly, though we submitted some papers
ACTION: DavidW to identify the 4 httpRange-14 options [DONE]
ACTION: Chairs to discuss the httpRange-14 issue at the coordination level [CONTINUES]
Alistair: recall Dan Brickley's note "Some Things That Hashless HTTP URIs Can Name"
Ralph: the response thus far from the TAG is that they can't move on this issue without further technical input. 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.
DavidW: Need to address the issue of server-side processing at the same time though, as many see it as intertwined.
Phil: is there a deadline on the httpRange-14 issue?
David: we've been talking about httpRange-14 for a while, no pressing deadline
[post-meeting note: the TAG found a resolution to httpRange-14 at its 15 June meeting. Roy Fielding announced this resolution on 18 June.]
ACTION: Jeff to review XML schema LC draft [DONE]
Jeff: I've read the draft and don't have any additional comments to post. The XML Schema WG might not be aware of our requirements for schema datatypes. Jeremy has been talking with them about this
Ralph: If we want the spec to change materially during the Candidate Recommendation phase, we should point to an implementation that fails to do something important because it is missing a feature. Otherwise unlikely to get changes enacted.
Jeff: Is there time for us to make more noise on this?
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.
ACTION: DavidW ask about the XML Schema Component Designators LC status at the SemWeb CG meeting
Elisa: I'll send a pointer to the latest
document revision
... we've incorporated most of the feedback received
... more feedback is still welcome
... expect one more round on the document between now and August
... expect to use MOF Query View Transformation to represent all the
mappings
... look forward to an OMG vote in December
... current draft does incorporate NIST feedback
[post-meeting note: Elisa sent mail regarding latest ODM specification]
Alistair: comments on SKOS Core have started to
trickle in;
... we now have two open proposals; (1)
bug fix, (2) some
changes in documentation properties
... re: documentation properties, it makes sense to have a single root
property and use dcterms:audience
... continuing to discuss DanBri's idea to have a property to relate SKOS
concepts to OWL individuals
... we've been asked about how to extend SKOS Core; we expected to describe
this at a later date, either in a separate note or in the Core Guide itself.
My current thought is a separate note
... also questions on how to relate SKOS Core to XML Applications; in
particular, how to write an XSD for SKOS Core
... OWL has an alternate XML syntax; does it get used?
David: yes, I've seen the alternate OWL XML syntax used
Alistair: NewsML is revising their schema
... will be hard to use the RDF/XML syntax in these applications
... I may start to float some ideas
DBooth: regarding a new XML syntax, are you thinking of one that is already in use or design a new one?
Alistair: I'm thinking of designing a new syntax that is XML Schema constrained but GRDDL-able
DBooth: do you expect an XLST transform to be part of the design?
Alistair: yes
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
Alistair: I'm encouraged by the direction of RDF/A
Chris: Specified Values
became a WG Note on 17 May
... still working on n-ary relations document [editor's
draft]
... talking about publishing a vocabulary to support n-ary relations note
... so people who want interoperability between RDF and higher-arity systems
have a way to do automatic translation
... simple part-whole note still pending
... Jerry Hobbs is now participating and we're talking about turning the OWL Time document into a
Note
... may have something by the end of the month
... Evan says he has some initial work not yet posted on units of measure
... "argument number" property was included in the n-ary
relations vocabulary to support translation to other formats
... some people felt this vocabulary to support translations to other
languages was out of scope for the note
DavidW: can you satisfy both camps by using this vocabulary in a non-normative example?
Chris: anyone wanting to translate RDF to a higher-arity system would need such a vocabulary
Phil: I would like to see this included, as it's important to many
Chris: the question is about scope; the OEP Note is about particular patterns, not about translation to other languages
DavidW: Best Practices gets to be practical about dealing with issues that are important
Phil: ordered n-ary patterns are an identifiable pattern
Natasha: I felt this was out of scope because
the Note is not about mapping
... argument numbers won't satisfy UML mapping
... Developers would need an additional vocabulary for mapping to languages
that represent n-ary relations in other ways [than argument numbers]
Ralph: It's useful to have examples that help explain this. Need to have a vocabulary for those examples. The boundary here is whether the WG proposes a specific vocabulary or only provides examples.
Natasha: there were two parts to the vocabulary and I felt the specific parts dealing with the mapping were out of scope
Phil: ordered n-ary relations are a valid specialization
Chris: if we decided it is out of scope for
this Note, we could write a separate Note
... so the question is whether to expand the N-ary relations Note or write a
separate Note
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?
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
... we might want to tackle other things such as association classes as
well
Mike: I recommend including [only] things that are needed to explain the current N-ary relations note
Ralph: keep it simple
Chris: the vocabulary is there for n-ary
relations. Separating it into another document may make it harder to find.
... saying how to represent higher-arity relations in RDF is part of this
Note
Mike: could also write an appendix of what this might look like and the appendix might eventually expand to a new document
Chris: I'd rather not take that approach
Mike: if the material exists, it makes sense to have it all in one place
Chris: I wouldn't want a half thought-out appendix suggesting a fuller version would follow later
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?
Chris: yes
Phil: I feel a separate note is better
ACTION: Aldo to propose an update the Wordnet TF description [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Gavin find out from his community and contacts if they have use cases [CONTINUES]
-> meeting record 2005-06-14 XHTML telecon
Ralph: new XHTML2 WD clarified
more about their WG process
... good news is there is a WD
... In my opinion not sufficient progress from last spec; I preferred the
more explicit wording of the October RDF/A whitepaper
... no TF telecon for a while, telecon attendance low, though I missed the
previous telecon
DavidW: should we get SWPB volunteers to review draft?
Ralph: we need help, sure
... problem with b-nodes. Thought the authors would have additional
attributes for b-nodes
... something analogous to nodeID attribute in rdf/xml
... WG seems to prefer xptr scheme for bnode
... which scheme will win -which is more natural for HTML authors
... no new input on GRDDL question
... should WG take up GRDDL as a task or endorse it still an open question
... do have a document from XHTML WG that is close (modulo bnode issue)
... waiting for JJC to come back
... language may not be precise enough
Phil: why did the XHTML wg change its stance
Ralph: (around bnodes) not really a change,
wasn't sufficiently addressed in previous (October) note (ie it was a bug)
... four solutions on table and need to pick one
DavidW will Ralph review new WD?
Ralph: Yes
... the TF considers reviewing this draft a high priority
... need Jeremy for this too
-> Minutes of SETF Telecon 07-06-05
Phil: we'd like reviewers for Composite IFPs
draft in 3-4 months
... using more than one resource to identify a resource
... we'd like reviewers for current Ontology Driven
Architectures and Potential Uses of the Semantic Web in Software
Engineering now
DavidW: recommend asking on the list, since
attendance here is light
... I may be willing to be one reviewer
<BenjaminNguyen> I am interested also, depending on review deadline
Chris: I'm willing to review but I'm listed as a contributor
Phil: your contributions were very early on
Phil: Benjamin's offer accepted, there's no particular urgency so 4+ weeks to review OK
<BenjaminNguyen> fine
RESOLVED: SE draft reviewers are Chris and Benjamin with DavidW likely to comment
[NEW] ACTION: DavidW ask
about the XML Schema Component Designators LC status at the SemWeb CG
meeting
[NEW] ACTION: Ralph post
telecon date resolution to the list
ACTION: Aldo to propose an update
the Wordnet TF description
ACTION: Chairs to discuss
the httpRange-14 issue at the coordination level
ACTION: Gavin find out from
his community and contacts if they have
[DONE] ACTION:
DavidW to identify the 4 httpRange-14 options
[DONE] ACTION: Guus to
start a straw poll on new meeting day; Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday -- all
at 1700 UTC
[DONE] ACTION: Jeff to review XML schema LC
draft
[DONE] 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)
[End of minutes]
Change log:
$Log: 16-swbp-minutes.html,v $ Revision 1.9 2005/06/27 15:12:50 swick Add Evan to regrets, per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jun/0081.html Revision 1.8 2005/06/22 12:30:51 swick Cite the TAG's formal announcement of its resolution of httpRange-14 Revision 1.7 2005/06/22 12:23:02 swick validation Revision 1.6 2005/06/22 12:21:11 swick Manually insert the rev 1.4 log message Revision 1.5 2005/06/22 12:19:52 swick Add change log Revision 1.4 2005/06/22 12:16:50 swick Update TAG minutes citation to the preferred URI