IRC log of swbp on 2005-09-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:56:37 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #swbp
16:56:37 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:56:48 [dbooth]
zakim, this is swbp
16:56:48 [Zakim]
ok, dbooth; that matches SW_BPD()1:00PM
16:57:39 [dbooth]
Meeting: Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment WG
16:57:47 [dbooth]
Chair: DavidWood
16:59:09 [FabGandon]
FabGandon has joined #swbp
16:59:29 [Zakim]
16:59:30 [Zakim]
+Alistair_Miles (was ??P3)
16:59:40 [Jacco]
Jacco has joined #swbp
17:00:07 [Zakim]
+ +31.20.592.aaaa
17:00:09 [dbooth]
zakim, who is here?
17:00:09 [Zakim]
On the phone I see David_Wood, Phil_Tetlow, ??P2, Alistair_Miles, +31.20.592.aaaa
17:00:09 [danbri]
danbri has joined #swbp
17:00:11 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Jacco, FabGandon, RRSAgent, Zakim, dwood, dbooth, aliman
17:00:17 [guus]
guus has joined #swbp
17:00:19 [dbooth]
zakim, ??p2 is DBooth
17:00:19 [Zakim]
+DBooth; got it
17:00:21 [Zakim]
17:01:07 [Zakim]
17:01:14 [dbooth]
zakim, who is here?
17:01:14 [Zakim]
On the phone I see David_Wood, Phil_Tetlow, DBooth, Alistair_Miles, +31.20.592.aaaa, foaftown, Jacco_van_Ossenbruggen
17:01:18 [Zakim]
On IRC I see guus, danbri, Jacco, FabGandon, RRSAgent, Zakim, dwood, dbooth, aliman
17:01:19 [Zakim]
17:01:20 [FabGandon]
zakim, [Sophia] is FabGandon
17:01:22 [Zakim]
+FabGandon; got it
17:01:29 [raphael]
raphael has joined #swbp
17:01:42 [Zakim]
17:02:00 [guus]
david, i'm at home and do not seem to get connected
17:02:06 [dbooth]
zakim, +31 is Rafael
17:02:06 [Zakim]
+Rafael; got it
17:02:07 [dwood]
guus: ok
17:02:33 [guus]
i will keep trying, but i will be on irc, at least
17:02:46 [raphael]
hi all
17:02:59 [dwood]
guus: No problem. I can chair.
17:04:01 [stamou]
stamou has joined #swbp
17:04:04 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #swbp
17:04:18 [dbooth]
Scribe: DBooth
17:04:22 [dwood]
Thanks, David!
17:04:46 [ChrisW]
can't make telecon sorry
17:04:50 [dbooth]
Topic: 1. ADMIN (15 min)
17:04:59 [Zakim]
17:05:00 [dbooth]
Regrets: Lars, Benjamin
17:05:13 [dbooth]
zakim, who is here?
17:05:13 [Zakim]
On the phone I see David_Wood, Phil_Tetlow, DBooth, Alistair_Miles, Rafael, foaftown, Jacco_van_Ossenbruggen, FabGandon (muted), Ralph, Giorgos_Stamou
17:05:15 [Zakim]
foaftown has libby, danbri
17:05:16 [Zakim]
On IRC I see ChrisW, stamou, raphael, guus, danbri, Jacco, FabGandon, RRSAgent, Zakim, dwood, dbooth, aliman
17:05:34 [Zakim]
17:05:36 [danbri]
danbri has changed the topic to: SWBP telecon 5 Sept agenda:
17:05:52 [dwood]
PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 22 August telecon:
17:05:52 [dwood]
17:05:58 [guus]
17:05:59 [Vasilis]
Vasilis has joined #swbp
17:06:11 [dbooth]
DBooth seconds also.
17:06:33 [dbooth]
RESOLVED: Minutes of 22 Aug accepted.
17:06:45 [danbri]
17:06:48 [bwm]
bwm has joined #swbp
17:07:21 [dwood]
PROPOSED next meeting 19 September
17:07:22 [aliman]
zakim, mute alistair
17:07:22 [Zakim]
Alistair_Miles should now be muted
17:07:32 [dbooth]
DBooth seconds.
17:08:00 [danbri]
danbri likely regrets for next meeting
17:08:01 [dbooth]
RESOLVED: next meeting 19 September
17:08:04 [dwood]
ACTION: Guus remind WG about participation expectations
17:08:04 [dwood]
[recorded in]
17:08:33 [dwood]
17:09:11 [libby]
libby has joined #swbp
17:09:31 [dbooth]
DWood: Face-to-face preparations: TF have been asked to prepare by determining how they will complete their requirements and suggest what will need continuing after the WG ends.
17:10:02 [dwood]
17:10:06 [guus]
if at all
17:10:21 [Zakim]
17:10:25 [dbooth]
... Need this done soon to plan the agenda.
17:11:05 [guus]
propose TF responses on the list by Sep 19
17:11:13 [Zakim]
17:11:24 [dbooth]
... Also there was some significant info on the Web about the F2F by the host:
17:11:55 [dwood]
ACTION: Ralph, DavidW, and DavidB to an initial draft of TAG httpRange-14
17:11:55 [dwood]
resolution impact on semweb application developers
17:11:57 [dwood]
[recorded in]
17:12:38 [dbooth]
Ralph: Would like to continue that. Several conversations in which this is discussed.
17:12:49 [dwood]
17:12:57 [dbooth]
(DWood, Ralph and DBooth to discuss immediately after this meeting)
17:13:41 [dwood]
jjc to review XML Schema last call
17:13:41 [dwood]
[recorded in]
17:13:44 [dwood]
17:14:00 [dbooth]
s/jjc/ACTION: jjc
17:14:12 [dwood]
ACTION: ChrisW post mail to the WG about the ODM question of
17:14:12 [dwood]
triples, Statements, and Resources
17:14:14 [dwood]
[recorded in]
17:14:18 [ChrisW]
17:14:23 [dwood]
ChrisW: Are you there? Status of your action?
17:14:30 [dbooth]
i/propose TF/Topic: 2. LIAISON
17:15:25 [dbooth]
2.4 Protocol and Formats WG request
17:15:29 [dwood]
ACTION: jjc review EARL requirements
17:15:29 [dwood]
[recorded in]
17:15:32 [ChrisW]
fyi, my action message:
17:15:32 [dwood]
17:15:40 [dwood]
ChrisW: Thanks
17:15:56 [dbooth]
i/ACTION: ChrisW/2.3 OMG: ODM review
17:16:13 [ChrisW]
17:16:15 [dbooth]
Topic: 2.5 Other: Using URIs to identify non-information resources
17:16:19 [RalphS]
RalphS has joined #swbp
17:16:32 [danbri]
17:16:51 [danbri]
'How about using an http site such as to do 303 redirects?'
17:17:14 [danbri]
... a little dissatisfied w/ tag guidance, which is to use 303 or #
17:17:20 [danbri]
[within context of http: URIs]
17:17:39 [danbri]
...proposed a redirction service
17:17:42 [danbri]
...much discussion
17:17:53 [danbri]
...main criticism was that it was too centralised
17:18:06 [danbri] working up a proposal to decentralise, via a concept of a '303 redirector service'
17:18:38 [danbri]
...write urls in that style, and write metadata saying 'i'm using such-n-so service, which redirects on this prefix'
17:18:55 [danbri]
...trying to make an easier way to mint uris that match tag guidelines, and are efficient to process
17:18:56 [RalphS]
rrsagent, please make this record public
17:19:34 [danbri]
dwood: how much discussion?
17:19:46 [danbri]
dbooth: 6-10 msgs
17:19:54 [Zakim]
17:19:56 [dwood]
The chair is concerned whether the SWBP is the right forum for this discussion, but will discuss for a short while
17:20:12 [Zakim]
17:20:19 [danbri]
dbooth: some discussion was criticism of tag decision
17:20:34 [dbooth]
DWood: Concern that it outsteps the bounds of this WG.
17:20:45 [danbri]
dbooth: why does this seem out of scope?
17:20:54 [ChrisW]
i agree this discussion is out of scope
17:21:15 [danbri]
dwood: we're chartered ... arch issue of how 303s are dealt with, or non-info resources, ... transcends the Semantic Web
17:21:21 [danbri]
...not sw specific
17:21:34 [danbri]
...if we have sw-specific comments on concerns re tag response
17:21:42 [danbri]
...if we have general arch comments on the www, that's out of scope
17:21:57 [danbri]
[I also agree its out of scope]
17:22:15 [ChrisW]
If anything move this discussion to the end of the call
17:22:21 [ChrisW]
focus priority of WG on the TF work
17:22:25 [danbri]
dbooth: seems related to meaning
17:22:39 [danbri]
...if people think its out of scope, i could accept that
17:22:40 [ChrisW]
we have run out of time dicussing TFs on previous calls
17:22:49 [danbri]
dwood: can you link it to a problem w/ the sw?
17:22:55 [danbri]
dbooth: practical issues around minting uris
17:23:11 [RalphS]
[for me DBooth's proposal has too much the feel of a hack and encourages centralization rather than let people mint their own URIs]
17:23:11 [bwm]
q+ to ask if there is a writeup of the issues for semweb
17:23:13 [danbri]
...if you use 303 redirection, 2 practical issues... set up servers that way...
17:23:23 [danbri]
...and doesn't scale well
17:23:49 [danbri]
[missed 2nd point]
17:23:52 [danbri]
17:24:07 [danbri]
ack bwm
17:24:07 [Zakim]
bwm, you wanted to ask if there is a writeup of the issues for semweb
17:24:08 [dwood]
ack bwm
17:24:22 [danbri]
bwm: are the motivations written down somewhere?
17:24:25 [danbri]
dbooth: i can dig them out
17:24:29 [dwood]
ack danbri
17:24:29 [danbri]
...was in one of my early postings
17:24:50 [RalphS]
DanBri: I sent some initial comments in the mail thread
17:25:02 [dbooth]
DBooth: Regular 303-redirection doesn't scale well because of extra network access required for the redirection.
17:25:13 [RalphS]
... in the centralized form it goes against Web architecture and I don't think it will really work
17:25:32 [dwood]
ack RalphS
17:25:33 [RalphS]
... could discuss this in the Semantic Web Interest Group
17:25:51 [danbri]
ralph: was goingto make a similar comment re centralisation
17:25:53 [dbooth]
DanBri: Suggest trying to get momentum in the IG
17:26:02 [danbri]
...we could fit it in scope, as we could do best practices re naming
17:26:16 [danbri] we could treat it as in-scope, but i think the particular proposal is flawed
17:26:20 [danbri]
...wg could discuss if it chose to
17:26:29 [dwood]
17:26:32 [danbri]
dbooth: newer proposal does address the centralisation concerns, i think entirely
17:26:43 [danbri]
(url for newer version?)
17:26:52 [dbooth]
Here is the newer version:
17:27:00 [danbri]
dwood: suggestion re interest group is a good one
17:27:06 [danbri]
...i'll have to look at the newer version
17:27:12 [RalphS]
Ralph: discussion of DBooth's proposal could be in scope as we are concerned about best practices for naming things
17:27:23 [danbri]
(can i hand scribe batton back now? am without headset)
17:27:30 [dbooth]
Topic: FTF preparation and future of WG
17:28:08 [dwood]
SWBP after SWBP:
17:28:36 [dbooth]
DWood: Need to discuss what should happen after WG ends 1-Feb2006.
17:29:22 [dbooth]
... Want to close down some TFs during the FTF. If your TF is close to completion or nearing death, plan to close it.
17:29:36 [Jacco]
sorry for the noise - i'm without a head set too
17:29:41 [dbooth]
... Ones to continue would be those who have both value and momentum to continue.
17:29:58 [RalphS]
17:30:01 [aliman]
zakim, unmute alistair
17:30:01 [Zakim]
Alistair_Miles should no longer be muted
17:30:25 [RalphS]
Previous: 2005-08-22
17:30:26 [dbooth]
... Anything that should continue must consider whether it should be rec track or other, and if so what forum. E.g., strong support for SKOS being rec track, but not necessarily with SWBP WG.
17:30:53 [dbooth]
... Comments? (none)
17:31:15 [dwood]
Revised version of MM TF proposal:
17:31:15 [dwood]
17:31:17 [dbooth]
Topic: 4. TF UPDATES - 4.0 MM TF Proposal
17:31:25 [dwood]
PROPOSED to accept this TF as a new SWBP TF.
17:31:31 [RalphS]
zakim, who's on the call?
17:31:31 [Zakim]
On the phone I see David_Wood, Phil_Tetlow, DBooth, Alistair_Miles, Rafael, foaftown, Jacco_van_Ossenbruggen (muted), FabGandon (muted), Giorgos_Stamou, Brian_McBride, Ralph
17:31:35 [Zakim]
foaftown has libby, danbri
17:32:02 [Jacco]
unmute Jacco
17:32:11 [RalphS]
ack jacco
17:32:18 [dwood]
17:32:37 [dbooth]
Jacco: It makes communication with non-WG members much easier if the TF is accepted.
17:32:45 [dwood]
ack RalphS
17:32:45 [Zakim]
RalphS, you wanted to ack about participation
17:32:47 [Vasilis]
Vasilis has joined #swbp
17:32:51 [Jacco]
mute Jacco
17:32:59 [Jacco]
zakim, mute Jacco
17:32:59 [Zakim]
Jacco_van_Ossenbruggen should now be muted
17:33:29 [dbooth]
Ralph: In Giogos's draft of July 27, he lists 7 potential participants, and 5 of them are WG members. (Jacco is the only one currently present.)
17:33:55 [guus]
i'm hre :-)
17:34:05 [Jacco]
zakim, unmute Jacco
17:34:05 [Zakim]
Jacco_van_Ossenbruggen should no longer be muted
17:34:13 [dbooth]
Giogos: Vasilis is also here, and Jeff and ___, and Guus.
17:35:08 [Jacco]
zakim, mute Jacco
17:35:08 [Zakim]
Jacco_van_Ossenbruggen should now be muted
17:35:37 [dwood]
RESOLVED to accept the MM TF
17:35:38 [dbooth]
RESOLVED: Accept the MM TF as a new SWPB TF.
17:36:04 [Jacco]
17:36:19 [guus]
thx to Giorgos and Jacco for the prep work
17:36:30 [dbooth]
DWood: Pleaes use the FTF to make as much progress as possible.
17:36:41 [dbooth]
Topic: 4.1 PORT (Alistair)
17:37:05 [aliman]
17:37:07 [RalphS]
[I apologize for falling behind on SKOS review, am working on it now]
17:37:17 [dbooth]
Alistair: Second review of SKOS core. Submissions of translations of comments. Web page links to them.
17:38:32 [dbooth]
... Hoping to ask OEP TF to review and hoping to resolve tricky issues of mapping from SKOS concepts to individuals, and should SKOS core itself be an OWL ontology. Also want "how to use SKOS Core" document.
17:38:39 [RalphS]
[excellent idea to use f2f time to get OEP folk involved in SKOS dicussions]
17:38:53 [ChrisW]
17:39:09 [dbooth]
... After that, don't know what to say. Able to say more after Dublin Core conference in Madrid next week.
17:40:18 [aliman]
s/"how to use SKOS Core"/"how to extend SKOS Core"/
17:40:22 [dbooth]
Ralph: Re future of SKOS, have not spoken with Eric since Friday's coordination mtg. Guus suggests in the overall F2F agenda that this WG will be looked at for suggestions for followon work.
17:40:31 [ChrisW]
for oep: Guus, can you take an action to check new "simple part" editor's draft
17:40:41 [ChrisW]
it is ready to go to WD
17:40:49 [guus]
yes, action ok
17:40:57 [dbooth]
... We should expect to be asked our opinion on that, so we should prepare an answer.
17:41:49 [dbooth]
DWood: Would be adequate to say that SKOS has hit a nerve -- significant utility. Issue is more the mechanism to make a rec happen, right Ralph?
17:42:32 [dbooth]
Ralph: Don't disagree, but not what I was saying. Of all the work SWBP WG has been doing, SKOS has been getting a lot of attention.
17:42:34 [danbri]
q+ to note DC-2005 conf a good way to gather evidence re skos
17:42:45 [dwood]
acdk danbri
17:42:46 [dbooth]
DWood: Alistair, please be prepared to discuss at the F2F.
17:43:12 [dbooth]
DanBri: Dublin Core conf will be an excellent way to see people's interest.
17:43:41 [dwood]
4.2 OEP
17:43:48 [dbooth]
17:44:02 [dwood]
17:44:22 [dwood]
ChrisW: Other comments re recent work?
17:44:24 [dbooth]
DWood: "Is a triple an RDF resource?"
17:44:35 [ChrisW]
"triple a resource" is ODM not OEP
17:44:43 [ChrisW]
OEP work continues
17:44:46 [aliman]
s/should SKOS core itself be an OWL ontology/should SKOS Core itself be an OWL DL ontology/
17:44:46 [ChrisW]
check out TF page
17:44:51 [RalphS]
^RDF(S) triples, statements, and resource [ChrisW 2005-08-22]
17:44:55 [dwood]
ChrisW: Right, thanks
17:45:04 [dwood]
ChrisW: Comments re OEP?
17:45:10 [danbri]
[imho, triples, like all things... are resources...]
17:45:18 [RalphS]
17:45:19 [dwood]
17:45:24 [ChrisW]
made my comments above
17:45:33 [ChrisW]
to guus - simple part note ready to go to WD
17:45:39 [ChrisW]
give guus the action to approve it
17:45:47 [RalphS]
s/W: Right/W, Right/
17:45:57 [dbooth]
DBooth: FIX THIS HERE!!!! :)
17:46:02 [dwood]
ChrisW, "give Guus" or "gave Guus"?
17:46:12 [ChrisW]
someone record it
17:47:05 [ChrisW]
action: GUUS to approve new version of simple part note going to first WD
17:47:20 [guus]
ack action
17:47:36 [dwood]
ChrisW, who were the reviewers for the simple part note?
17:47:46 [ChrisW]
guus and bill mcdanial
17:47:53 [dwood]
17:47:53 [ChrisW]
17:48:34 [dbooth]
Topic: 4.3 WordNet (Aldo)
17:48:53 [dbooth]
DanBri: I think I was on it, but it's been quiet.
17:49:18 [dbooth]
DWood: More activity seems to have happened recently, Guus indicated.
17:49:42 [dbooth]
Alistair: Don Van Asten has been doing work on it.
17:49:54 [danbri]
[I should probably resign from the TF]
17:50:00 [guus]
Mark can work on it with comments Brian
17:50:05 [aliman]
s/Don Van Asten/Mark van Assem/
17:50:36 [dwood]
Guus: May Mark join the telecons at some point to discuss?
17:50:40 [guus]
i would like to have version by FTF with Princeton in the loop
17:50:55 [dbooth]
ACTION: Aldo to propose an update the Wordnet TF description [recorded in] [PENDING]
17:51:07 [guus]
sure, i will make him a formal participant
17:51:23 [dwood]
guus, thanks
17:51:29 [dbooth]
Topic: 4.4 XML Schema datatypes (Jeremy)
17:51:55 [dbooth]
ACTION: JeffP to draft a response to dave reynolds [recorded in] [PENDING]
17:52:44 [dbooth]
Topic: 4.5 Vocabulary management (TomB)
17:52:52 [dbooth]
Ralph: Tom hopes to make progress on this soon.
17:53:02 [danbri]
(tom, al, and danbri will be at dc-2005 next week in madrid)
17:53:13 [dbooth]
Topic: 4.6 RDF-in-HTML (Ben)
17:53:28 [dbooth]
Ralph: We have not met since the last telecon. No progress to report.
17:53:47 [RalphS]
["We" == "HTML TF"]
17:54:06 [dbooth]
DanBri: I got this draft note that I think is ready to roll (except for a prettier image). Should we solicit 2 reviewers? What's the process?
17:54:19 [dbooth]
Ralph: Has the TF signed off on putting it to WG review?
17:54:34 [dbooth]
DanBri: Don't remember.
17:54:52 [dbooth]
DWood: Once that TF has agreed, then just get reviewers.
17:55:46 [dbooth]
DanBri: Don't think the TF has made a formal decision to put it to the WG. Anyone is welcome to have a look though. It's a small RDF vocab to give semantics to link types.
17:56:30 [RalphS]
[Most recent meeting of the HTML TF was 16 Aug, per ]
17:56:33 [dbooth]
ACTION: DanBri to ask TF for sign-off on putting the draft xhtml vocab to the WG for review.
17:56:36 [guus]
i will take a look
17:57:15 [dbooth]
Ralph: For F2F, I'd like to see a schedule for RDFA. It's possible XHTML2 will officially be in Last Call by our F2F.
17:57:45 [dbooth]
DanBri: It's difficult for this F2F because it's a joint TF with the HTML folks.
17:58:22 [dbooth]
DWood: It sounds to me like there's progress on HTML links, and GRDDL, but RDFA is still the outstanding issue that needs addressing.
17:59:05 [dbooth]
Ralph: Yes, there are outstanding technical issues with RDFA. Mark Birbeck continues to take the major architect lead on that. It's unclear how he's being given sufficient input in order to make progress.
17:59:21 [dbooth]
DWood: We will discuss at the F2F, because it relates to a charter item.
18:00:33 [dbooth]
Ralph: Re transcending the length of the charter, the SWBP WG discharge its obligation once there's an XHTML2 that we're happy with. There will be enough machinery in place to respond to LC comments. But if there isn't a LC draft in place in time, then we will not have made our charter.
18:01:06 [dbooth]
DWood: How can we help address the issue?
18:01:14 [dbooth]
... What needs to happen?
18:02:24 [dbooth]
Ralph: The problem is not politics or process. It's just a matter of limited availability of individuals that we're depending on. There are probably others who could continue if it were high enough priority for them. We keep hearing that there are people who care, but we haven't seen anyone new join the TF.
18:02:45 [dbooth]
DWood: Can you identify open issues that need WG review?
18:02:46 [danbri]
q+ to ask ralph who can join the TF
18:02:57 [RalphS]
-> RDF-in-XHTML issues list
18:03:40 [dwood]
ack danbri
18:03:40 [Zakim]
danbri, you wanted to note DC-2005 conf a good way to gather evidence re skos and to ask ralph who can join the TF
18:03:50 [dbooth]
Ralph: If anyone can help address these, we could use it.
18:04:14 [dbooth]
DanBri: WHo can join the TF? Can we invite Dublin Core people? Or must they be invited experts?
18:04:44 [dbooth]
Ralph: The public mailing list allows the public to participate. Inviting them to meetings is a different question though.
18:05:14 [dbooth]
DanBri: I'll ask for help from Dublin Core folks.
18:05:58 [dbooth]
Ralph: Issue: People tend to use SKOS: property names, rather than http URIs.
18:06:06 [aliman]
I was just wondering the same while starting to write a 'how to do SKOS Core in XHTML2' wiki page ... !
18:06:34 [dbooth]
... One proposal is to accept two sets of attributes, with a bit a whining about why XML didn't already deal with this syntactic issue.
18:06:58 [dbooth]
Ralph: Some constituencies feel that long URLs throughout a document is unsuable.
18:07:08 [dbooth]
18:07:40 [dbooth]
DWood: Do you plan to publish anything else between now and when the TF closes?
18:08:02 [dbooth]
Ralph: We need to, but don't have a schedule that shows us publishing anything else.
18:08:16 [dbooth]
DWood: How will you address that gap?
18:08:19 [Zakim]
18:08:56 [dbooth]
Ralph: There is an event early in Oct that affects Mark Birbeck, and that may be a forcing function to help participants prioritize the work.
18:09:36 [dbooth]
DWood: Please address these issues head on, even if the result is acknowledging that more cannot be done.
18:10:54 [dwood]
18:11:05 [dbooth]
Topic: 4.7 ADTF (Libby)
18:11:37 [dbooth]
Libby: Not a huge amount done. Slow but steady stream of files, gradually putting them in our list.
18:12:10 [dbooth]
DWood: There was discussion of the value of ADTF and not wanting it to go away, and potentially moving it to the IG forum.
18:12:21 [Jacco]
Jacco has joined #swbp
18:12:21 [dwood]
ack RalphS
18:12:21 [Zakim]
RalphS, you wanted to ask about a self-sustaining model for ADTF
18:12:28 [aliman]
... oh, another SKOS thing ... I did a SKOS Core tutorial for DC2005, get it from
18:12:31 [dbooth]
Libby: I'd be in favor. Could be done nicely as collaborative project within the IG.
18:12:43 [danbri]
[nice to see all the DOAP in]
18:12:50 [danbri]
q+ re infrastructure
18:12:52 [aliman]
(most extensive presentation yet on SKOS Core)
18:12:54 [dbooth]
Ralph: Would be good to get advice from the TF for how to make it an ongoing, sustained thing.
18:13:02 [danbri]
18:13:19 [dbooth]
DWood: What mechanisms are available to make this happen?
18:13:36 [dwood]
18:13:55 [danbri]
18:14:03 [dbooth]
Ralph: Read the IG charter to see how it creates tasks -- in practice individuals interested in doing it suggest to the IG that it be the home, and then it happens.
18:14:04 [stamou]
stamou has joined #swbp
18:14:23 [RalphS]
18:14:29 [RalphS]
queue= DanBr
18:14:45 [RalphS]
q- DanBr
18:14:57 [dbooth]
Topic: 4.8 RDFTM (Steve)
18:15:06 [dbooth]
(Skipped; nobody present)
18:15:16 [dbooth]
Topic: 4.9 Tutorial Page
18:15:21 [dbooth]
(Skipped; nobody present)
18:15:28 [dbooth]
Topic: 4.10 SE TF
18:15:52 [danbri]
re new IG fora, [["The Interest Group home page provides the authoritative list of W3C email lists sponsored by the Group." ]]
18:17:05 [dbooth]
Raphael: We now have comments from Ben's first note. Now have proposal for primer for OO programmers on the use of SemWeb tech. Some momentum. For F2F, would be nice to get our first note to be official document. Also need debate on the future of the TF. Seemed an unnatural fit with the SWBP WG. Potenially move to another WG? Don't know which -- potentiall the IG.
18:17:20 [bwm]
q+ to ask Phil what specific task would be done in the new WG
18:17:25 [dbooth]
DWood: please shop around for a forum prior to the F2F
18:17:44 [danbri]
q+ to suggest danbri clarify TF transfer possibilities w/ SWCG re SWIG new mailing lists etc
18:17:56 [dwood]
ack bwm
18:17:56 [Zakim]
bwm, you wanted to ask Phil what specific task would be done in the new WG
18:18:28 [dbooth]
Brian: What do you think would be the most important task that the TF would accomplish?
18:19:20 [dbooth]
Raphael: Get out a broad definition of how SW tech could be used. High level primer. We've achieved that. Having a presence to glue together the two communities is of value.
18:19:27 [dbooth]
Brian: IG is a good place.
18:19:32 [RalphS]
18:19:36 [dbooth]
Raphael: That feels right to me at the moment.
18:19:42 [RalphS]
18:19:50 [dwood]
ack dambri
18:19:57 [dwood]
ack danbri
18:19:57 [Zakim]
danbri, you wanted to suggest danbri clarify TF transfer possibilities w/ SWCG re SWIG new mailing lists etc
18:20:07 [RalphS]
s/Raphael: We now have comments/Phil: We now have comments/
18:20:46 [dbooth]
DanBri: There have been a couple of suggestions of work to move into the IG. We didn't say enough in the IG charter of how sub-fora should be created. In the past we'd set up mailing lists for calendering, e.g..
18:21:27 [dbooth]
... This crops up also with geography and mapping. It isn't clear what mechanism to use, and that results in some paralysis.
18:22:18 [dbooth]
ACTION: DanBri to clarify rules for IG to propose new mailing lists for its TFs
18:24:50 [aliman]
Fyi, relating to XHTML2 discussion, I just tried to write some SKOS Core in XHTML2, see ...
18:25:06 [aliman]
also danbri has suggested using XHTML2 markup in examples in SKOS Core Guide.
18:25:09 [dbooth]
[Brief off-record discussion]
18:25:30 [RalphS]
[thanks, Alistair -- that sort of example development is very helpful]
18:27:18 [RalphS]
[-> discussion of RDF/A examples]
18:27:44 [RalphS]
[unfortunately, the (non-W3C) Wiki on which those examples live has had hardware trouble]
18:28:59 [dbooth]
Phil: There's an underlying theme that needs a home somewhere in the W3C. There already is the SW IG with a deliberately broad charter.
18:29:13 [Zakim]
18:29:14 [dbooth]
18:29:16 [Zakim]
18:29:18 [Zakim]
18:29:19 [aliman]
thanks everyone
18:29:20 [RalphS]
next meeting: 19 September
18:29:22 [Zakim]
18:29:24 [Zakim]
18:29:26 [Zakim]
18:29:32 [Zakim]
18:30:04 [RalphS]
zakim, who's still on the call?
18:30:04 [Zakim]
On the phone I see David_Wood, DBooth, Ralph
18:30:05 [dbooth]
zakim, who is here?
18:30:05 [Zakim]
On the phone I see David_Wood, DBooth, Ralph
18:30:06 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Vasilis, RalphS, raphael, danbri, RRSAgent, Zakim, dwood, dbooth, aliman
18:30:08 [raphael]
raphael has left #swbp
18:30:27 [dbooth]
Meeting: URI Action
18:30:30 [dbooth]
Chair: Ralph
18:30:34 [RalphS]
18:30:38 [dbooth]
s/Action/Action Item/
18:30:51 [RalphS]
the three of us have an oustanding action item re: httpRange-14
18:31:10 [dwood]
agendum+ Ralph, DavidW, and DavidB to an initial draft of TAG httpRange-14
18:31:10 [dwood]
resolution impact on semweb application developers
18:31:11 [RalphS]
DBooth: we could document the approaches that have been previously discussed
18:31:39 [RalphS]
... previous to my proposal
18:32:43 [RalphS]
David: does the TAG's decision to return 303 create a practical hurdle in developers constructing URIs?
18:32:52 [RalphS]
... I think we have a sense that this does create hurdles
18:32:55 [dbooth]
DWood: We need to address the httpRange-14 resolution and its impact on SW. Does the decision to return 303's provide a practical hurdle in constructing URIs? My sense is yes, but we haven't said what to do about it.
18:33:02 [RalphS]
... DBooth has made a stab at addressing this
18:33:31 [RalphS]
... is DBooth's proposal orthogonal to our shared action item?
18:33:33 [dbooth]
.. DBooth took a stab, and I haven't read his latest decentralized proposal. We previously thought it was orthogonal to our action.
18:34:29 [RalphS]
DBooth: I mentioned concerns in early version of thing-described-by
18:34:35 [RalphS]
... wasn't exactly in the form of a use case
18:34:45 [RalphS]
... but perhaps could be put into that form
18:37:18 [dbooth]
Ralph: Not obvious what practical difficulties there are. Use case would help me. DanBri asked early on about using 302 redirects (for pragmatic reasons), whether the TAG's resolution means specifically 303 or would 302 be acceptable. (The answer was no, it must be 303.)
18:38:18 [dbooth]
... After the TAG's decision, I've had a few other discussions with people about it, and if asked they would say "303 only" and I think they'd be correct.
18:39:09 [dbooth]
... Writing prose about that question would be useful, and that may lead us to use cases, but would not be a good example because the reasons they chose 302 were practical and made long ago.
18:40:27 [dbooth]
ACTION: DBooth to write up his concerns with the httpRange-14 decision, i.e., why native 303 redirects are too hard and inefficient
18:41:06 [dbooth]
Ralph: Need to have a way to celebrate to the world why the TAG's decision is good.
18:41:23 [dbooth]
DWood: Why did DanBri want 302?
18:41:44 [dbooth]
Ralph: He didn't. He was just asking because he noted does it, and wondering if it needd to be changed.
18:42:17 [dbooth]
... It would be costly to get OCLC to change
18:43:01 [dbooth]
... It would help to document why it is important.
18:43:33 [dbooth]
... And to understand to why the TAG's decision is an important milestone.
18:44:03 [RalphS]
DBooth: 303 redirects could happen at or by the server that the 302 points to
18:44:27 [dbooth]
DWood: What bugs me about 303 is that it says "it ain't here, but you can get it somewhere else".
18:44:58 [dbooth]
Ralph: You're touching on why the semantic difference matters. 302 does not have the semantics we need for this.
18:45:45 [dwood]
Quoting from :
18:45:58 [dwood]
The response to the request can be found under a different URI and SHOULD be retrieved using a GET method on that resource
18:47:01 [RalphS]
18:49:06 [RalphS]
Ralph: 302 talks about the _resource_ whereas 303 talks about the _request_
18:49:55 [dbooth]
DWood: So you're saying that if I want to resolve dc:creator, and I want to know canonically what that means, I expect . . . what? A 303 response that may lead to a resource describing dc:creator?
18:49:58 [dbooth]
DBooth: Yes.
18:52:13 [dbooth]
Ralph: I quibble with the word "expect". You should be prepared to handle any of the HTTP responses.
18:53:10 [RalphS]
DWood: RDF:Property is disjoint from Information Resource
18:53:27 [RalphS]
Ralph: hmm. interesting; I'll have to think about whether I agree with that assertion
18:53:30 [dbooth]
DWood: So my SemWeb app has a URI for an RDF property. And I know that it cannot be an information resource therefore.
18:54:04 [dbooth]
... We're always going to use predicates that are disjoint from info resources.
18:54:45 [dbooth]
Ralph: I'm willing to grant that as a true assertion (for now), and you know if you do a GET on a property, you won't get a 200, you may get a 303.
18:55:29 [dbooth]
DWood: The URI returned by the 303 may be useful, so then it falls under SWBP scope.
18:56:31 [dbooth]
... I'm hoping we can get to the point of saying "The SWBP response to the TAG finding means that a URI for a non-info resource SemWeb predicate the response should be 303 and should contain the following data".
18:57:18 [RalphS]
DWood: I was really addressing the use case where the URI was of a Subject rather than a Property
18:57:26 [dbooth]
DBooth: In my use case, the URI is a subject -- not the predicate.
18:57:47 [dbooth]
... And the app wants to learn about it.
18:58:28 [dbooth]
DWood: Can we continue with the assumption that predicates will never be info resources?
18:58:37 [dbooth]
Ralph: Yes, because I don't think it matters.
18:59:22 [dbooth]
DWood: If I do a lookup on an RDF predicate, and the response is a 303, then the URI *SHOULD* contain ___".
18:59:31 [dbooth]
18:59:34 [dbooth]
Ralph: Good.
18:59:59 [dbooth]
... And also the other way around: when I'm defining a new vocab, how do I pick the names.
19:00:25 [dbooth]
DWood: That's within our perview.
19:00:51 [dbooth]
ACTION: Ralph to write up why 303 and not 302
19:02:18 [RalphS]
DWood: my interest as an application developer is in narrowing the gap between machine-readable and human-readable
19:02:23 [dbooth]
DWood: My interest as a SW app programmer is marrying the gap between machine/human readable info. This discussion is important in that regard because it's nice to have machine-readable RDF and human-readable info, but occasionally you need to map between the two.
19:03:39 [dbooth]
Ralph: To what degree is your position motivated by an interest in having a single "info resource" which is both presentable to humans and machine processable?
19:04:15 [dbooth]
DWood: No, that's a special case.
19:04:25 [dbooth]
Ralph: Content negotiation adequate?
19:05:40 [dbooth]
DWood: (Dodging question somewhat) It would be a mistake to come up with a solution that precludes the embedding of machine or human readable info in the content retrieved from the URI?
19:06:03 [dbooth]
... If you do a GET on the URI, we shouldn't say anything to force the content to be machine or human readable.
19:06:34 [dbooth]
Ralph: We can and should. We can have mechanisms for choosing which content.
19:06:48 [dbooth]
DWood: Agreed. We need a way to determine what came back.
19:07:13 [dbooth]
Ralph: you want a use case that shows that can serve both human and machine readable content at the same URI.
19:07:20 [dbooth]
DWood: GRDDL perhaps.
19:07:29 [dbooth]
s/G/Yes, G/
19:10:22 [dwood]
ACTION: David Wood to send an email to the SWBP mailing list expressing a use case for SemWeb predicates to be resolved via 303 responses.
19:10:52 [dbooth]
s/responses/responses, returning both human and machine readable data/
19:12:27 [RalphS]
DBooth: the other use case of Subject URI is still in question; in this case we don't know whether or not the Subject is an Information Resource
19:13:52 [dbooth]
DBooth: There's also still an efficiency issue with doing the 303 redirect.
19:15:33 [dbooth]
Ralph: The HTTP spec refers to GET, but the idea applies to other schemes also. In the case of HTTP, HTTP has a mechanism a level of indirection and the semantics that a SW developer must understand is that a 303 is simply an indirection, and the data you're looking for you find by indirection.
19:16:36 [dbooth]
DWood: If you're a SW developer, a 303 response should not be treated as a error as it would often with other apps.
19:17:28 [dbooth]
Ralph: In the case of predicates, the app developer is most likely to always get this level of indirection, but in the case of a subject, we don't know which is more likely, but the machinery will work for either.
19:18:23 [RalphS]
Ralph: for SemWeb purposes, HTTP 303 is _just_ another level of indirection
19:19:20 [dbooth]
DWood: I think you're right about subjects. The 303 should mean the same thing for any URI -- subject or predicate. But if it's a predicate, then the 303 returned should be resolvable.
19:19:38 [dbooth]
DBooth: Why not require it for subjects also?
19:19:47 [dwood]
I propose that predicates SHOULD be resolvable on the Web, and subjects MAY be resolvable
19:20:59 [dbooth]
Ralph: Can't require it for subjects, though we should encourage it.
19:21:14 [dbooth]
DBooth: Why treat subjects differently?
19:22:02 [dbooth]
DWood: Subjects are more likely to be local content, whereas predicates are more likely to be more global ontological concepts.
19:22:28 [dbooth]
DBooth: I would challenge that assertion for evidence.
19:23:47 [dbooth]
Ralph: Maybe we don't need to distinguis these two cases. But it's clear that as the SWBP WG, the things that are in scope for us to determine are about how to write ontologies, and in the course of that we can place requirements on the predicates. We can't place additional restrictions on the rest of the world.
19:24:43 [dbooth]
DBooth: The WG is about how to write RDF, which has subject, predicate and object. I don't see a good reason to restrict the guidance to the predicates.
19:25:03 [dbooth]
DWood: Often data is voluminous and auto-generated.
19:25:18 [dbooth]
q+ to ask what is the cost of treating subjects the same as objects
19:25:56 [dbooth]
DWood: It would be too costly to do http URIs for subjects.
19:26:42 [dbooth]
Ralph: Then you're not being a good Web citizen if you're not intending to make it resolvable. By using an http URI, you're suggesting to the world that there's usefule machineray that may help them.
19:28:14 [Zakim]
dbooth, you wanted to ask what is the cost of treating subjects the same as objects
19:29:18 [dbooth]
Ralph: DWood's app wants to choose http URIs as subjects and he doesn't want to bear the burden.
19:29:40 [dbooth]
... 400 responses are highly unfriendly, rather than being intentional.
19:30:08 [dbooth]
... So he wants to mint URIs that don't return 200 or 303.
19:30:13 [dbooth]
DBooth: Why?
19:31:11 [dbooth]
DWood: An org is creating a very large number of http URIs as subjects because some are resolvable, and they don't want to separate the two because the ongoing use of the data may later make some resolvable.
19:31:50 [dbooth]
Ralph: Does your app distinguis between URIs that it has used and those it has not yet minted?
19:31:58 [dbooth]
DWood: It could.
19:32:56 [dbooth]
Ralph: So it could return one of three answer: 1. Known things: 303 2. Known but unwilling to say more: 303 with no further info; 3. not known: return 404.
19:33:17 [dwood]
yeah, I think that is OK
19:33:48 [dbooth]
DBooth: So that would permit subjects and predicates to have the same treatment.
19:33:52 [dwood]
19:35:04 [dbooth]
Ralph: That's significant to record. If I always get 404, the Web is telling me "no such name exists". Whereas this is saying 'I'll confirm the existance of that name, but nothing more about it".
19:36:00 [dbooth]
Ralph: Same reasoning for objects.
19:38:04 [dbooth]
DBooth: My concerns (ease of minting 303-conformant URIs, and scalability/efficiency of requiring the redirection).
19:39:39 [dbooth]
... are still applicable. My proposals are intended to address them.
19:40:13 [Zakim]
19:40:14 [Zakim]
19:40:14 [Zakim]
19:40:23 [Zakim]
SW_BPD()1:00PM has ended
19:40:23 [dbooth]
19:40:24 [Zakim]
Attendees were David_Wood, Phil_Tetlow, Alistair_Miles, +31.20.592.aaaa, DBooth, Jacco_van_Ossenbruggen, libby, danbri, FabGandon, Ralph, Rafael, Giorgos_Stamou, Brian_McBride
19:42:01 [dbooth]
zakim, bye
19:42:01 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #swbp
19:42:11 [dbooth]
rrsagent, draft minutes
19:42:11 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate dbooth
21:17:06 [RalphS]
rrsagent, bye
21:17:06 [RRSAgent]
I see 12 open action items saved in :
21:17:06 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Guus remind WG about participation expectations [1]
21:17:06 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:17:06 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ralph, DavidW, and DavidB to an initial draft of TAG httpRange-14 [2]
21:17:06 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:17:06 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: ChrisW post mail to the WG about the ODM question of [3]
21:17:06 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:17:06 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: jjc review EARL requirements [4]
21:17:06 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:17:06 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: GUUS to approve new version of simple part note going to first WD [5]
21:17:06 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:17:06 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Aldo to propose an update the Wordnet TF description [recorded in] [PENDING] [6]
21:17:06 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:17:06 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: JeffP to draft a response to dave reynolds [recorded in] [PENDING] [7]
21:17:06 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:17:06 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: DanBri to ask TF for sign-off on putting the draft xhtml vocab to the WG for review. [8]
21:17:06 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:17:06 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: DanBri to clarify rules for IG to propose new mailing lists for its TFs [9]
21:17:06 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:17:06 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: DBooth to write up his concerns with the httpRange-14 decision, i.e., why native 303 redirects are too hard and inefficient [10]
21:17:06 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:17:06 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ralph to write up why 303 and not 302 [11]
21:17:06 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:17:06 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: David Wood to send an email to the SWBP mailing list expressing a use case for SemWeb predicates to be resolved via 303 responses. [12]
21:17:06 [RRSAgent]
recorded in