<RalphS> (Day 2)

<RalphS> [David, when it's your own nick you can simply say "zakim, I am David_Wood"]

<RalphS> [network in meeting room is not working today]

SE TF

<RalphS> [PhilT]

<RalphS> Ontology Driven Architectures and Potential Uses of the Semantic Web in Systems and Software Engineering

<RalphS> [Libby scribing, apparently]

<RalphS> [scribing is off-line due to network]

<RalphS> [Jeremy makes some comments that can't be heard remotely]

<RalphS> DanBri: not concerned that this sort of document doesn't match normal W3C content

<RalphS> DBooth: will send some comments

<RalphS> ... is an interesting research area but my impression is that the content is speculative rather than "best practice"

<RalphS> ??: easy transition to modelling in OWL

<RalphS> DBooth: my comments only apply to the first (ODA) document

<RalphS> Guus: apparently the issue with the [ODA] document is that it is less technical in nature

<RalphS> [these notes extremely sketchy due to not being able to hear speakers; mostly serve to provide places to hang expected email]

<RalphS> Guus: would the TF object if we only published the [Primer for OO] now?

<RalphS> David: comparing SemWeb technologies with O-O is a good step

<RalphS> ... agree that ODA document is lacking in technical content

<RalphS> ... if TF publishes a doc in the near term, it should be the Primer

<RalphS> Andreas: the University network is down

<Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to raise a procedural objection to publishing O-O Primer at the moment

<RalphS> Ralph: Holger has not been appointed to the WG

<RalphS> ... either of the institutions can appoint him, as both are W3C Members

<RalphS> ... so the Member has signed the IPR (good) but Holger's AC Rep needs to acknowledge agreement with the WG participation requirements

<RalphS> Jeremy: I volunteer to review Primer on behalf of the WG

<RalphS> Evan: I'm listed as author but didn't contribute much

<RalphS> Mike: I am willing to review

<RalphS> ... [later] I prefer to pass

<RalphS> Guus: I propose 25 Nov as review deadline

<RalphS> Jeremy: the document contains two screen shots

<RalphS> ... does this imply endorsement?

<RalphS> ... Protege and Altova

<RalphS> ... Protege probably OK as it's open source

<RalphS> Ralph: there may be a copyright issue

<RalphS> ACTION: Ralph ask if there's a policy on implicit endorsement of commercial products by showing screen shots in a TR [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/05-swbp-minutes.html#action01]

<RalphS> Guus: I would prefer a separate tools page as that material gets out of date

<RalphS> DanBri: not too concerned about the endorsement question

<RalphS> ... may be good for W3C to show an open source product and a commercial product side-by-side

<RalphS> Phil: how do we show that these things are a reality?

<RalphS> ACTION: Phil get copyright permission for these screen shots [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/05-swbp-minutes.html#action02]

<RalphS> Mike, Evan: use swoop instead of Altova

<RalphS> ... and mention that there are commercial tools

<RalphS> DanBri: could point to the SWIG and its public mailing list as a forum where other tool developers can announce their products

<RalphS> ??: all such tools can be included in the Application & Demos list

<RalphS> David: reader has to read deeply into the document in order to find the rationale

<RalphS> ... would like the TF to move rationale closer to the beginning

<RalphS> ... a list of products needs to be complete at its time of publishing

<RalphS> Phil: hearing a consensus to refer to an updateable list

<RalphS> David: is business.semanticweb.org still being maintained?

<RalphS> Guus: it's appropriate to delay the review deadline until this question is resolved of screenshots and which products are referenced

<RalphS> ACTION: Phil send mail describing how the Primer will handle references to products [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/05-swbp-minutes.html#action03]

<RalphS> Guus: depending on review comments we could hope to decide on publishing the Primer at the 28 Nov telecon

<RalphS> Ralph: regrets for 28 Nov telecon

<RalphS> Evan: perhaps the ODA document could be moved into the Interest Group

<RalphS> DBooth: I'm uncomfortable with SWBPD publishing this document as it's speculative research

<RalphS> DanBri: it's hard to say that a given document represents consensus of SWIG as it's a large group

<RalphS> ... the recently-published Calendaring note represented several years of discussion in SWIG

<RalphS> ... in the case of ODA I'd prefer that there were evidence of the material coming from a larger set of WG participants

<RalphS> Phil: the practice discussed in this note is a reality now

<RalphS> ... intended to be an introduction to people not familiar with the area

<RalphS> ... so the style may be wrong but the content is correct

<RalphS> ... I'm hearing this is difficult for the WG to sponsor

<RalphS> ... at the Boston f2f we heard that this is a valuable piece of work so we moved it forward

<RalphS> ... where do we go from here?

<RalphS> Guus: there's a difference of perspective from the outside on a WG Note versus an IG Note

<RalphS> ... this work seems worth publishing

<RalphS> DanBri: thinking about SWIG situation there are two types of documents

<RalphS> ... the RDF Calendar doc represented several years of discussion

<RalphS> ... this document is just at the start

<RalphS> ... I would be willing to present this to SWIG in that context

<RalphS> Guus: I would expect the IG to comment

<RalphS> ... but there's less need for consensus within the IG before publishing

<RalphS> ... so more 'discussion' rather than 'review'

<RalphS> Phil: I'd like to see publication as soon as possible

<RalphS> Jeremy: disagree that there was consensus in Boston about this work

<RalphS> ... I don't think this is appropriate as either a WG or an IG Note

<RalphS> Guus: I thought this version was a big step forward from the Boston version

<RalphS> Ralph: I think this is a contribution that should be acknowledged and published somehow but it might not be a "Technical Report"

<RalphS> Guus: note that the IG represents a much broader audience, so discussion there already achieves a goal of widening awareness

<RalphS> DanBri: [something about identity reasoning that should be communicated into future Rules requirements]

XSD TF

<RalphS> review version of XSCH [Jeremy 2005-10-27]

<RalphS> Jeremy: the main issue has to do with equality of typed literals coming from different branches of the XML hierarchy

<RalphS> ... e.g. zero

<RalphS> ... as a float, double, or decimal

<RalphS> ... from some points of view these are not comparable and from other points of view they are comparable

<RalphS> ... Jeff and I took the view that making these comparable was most sensible for users

<RalphS> ... but we got some developer feedback that this would be hard to implement

<RalphS> ... during discussion last night, Evan suggested that taking the conservative approach that these are not comparable is less error-prone

<RalphS> ... and datatype properties could have range constraints to help avoid typing issues

<RalphS> ... SPARQL's position is that these are different but it's possible to write a SPARQL query ... [writes on whiteboard] ....

<RalphS> ... containing an XPath 'equals' that does type conversion as required

<RalphS> DBooth: does this apply only to literals or does it also apply to computed values?

<RalphS> Jeremy: how do you compute values? if by a plug-in, the plug-in will make a decision about the types

<RalphS> ... real decision here is about literals

<RalphS> ... when fixing a Jena bug in indexing over literals in triple tables we want to index over values rather than over lexical forms

<RalphS> ... in order to make lookups efficient you have to make a decision about what key to use in the index

<RalphS> ... rounding errors make it hard to have a consistent lookup key for numbers when they're represented in different ways

<RalphS> Guus: zero is a special case in mathematics, so please don't use it as the base of the decision

<RalphS> Jeremy: we use 1.3 in the document as it rounds differently

<RalphS> Guus: how about treating everything as different except zero; zero is a special case

<RalphS> Jeremy: we could also choose not to make a decision at this stage and document both approaches

<RalphS> DBooth: this issue of rounding differences is well-known in Computer Science

<RalphS> ... so there's a basis for expecting people to understand that [these values] could compare as different

<RalphS> Jeff: [unhearable]

<RalphS> Phil: the general notion of precision of definition is important

<RalphS> DanBri: queries will be written by people with [non-CS] backgrounds

<RalphS> Jeremy: the purpose of the decision I'd like the WG to make is to say what documents mean and what entailments hold

<RalphS> ... it's possible to address rounding issues in the application either way once we decide what the document means

<RalphS> DanBri: there appears to be a dependency with SPARQL

<RalphS> Jeremy: it's not a formal dependency and I'd like to see this document closed

<RalphS> ... I'd like a straw poll on this type comparison question

<RalphS> DBooth: but the actual value of "1.3"^^xsd:float is not 1.3

<RalphS> Jeff: yes, it is

<RalphS> ... [even if the machine representation is different]

<RalphS> DanBri: this discussion makes me feel this is a very architectural-level issue for SemWeb

<RalphS> Guus: this issue goes along with qualified cardinality restrictions and compound keys as fundamental SemWeb architecture

<RalphS> Jeremy: [words straw poll]

<RalphS> ... example 3h

<RalphS> ... is example 3H an entailment or is it not or do we not decide?

<RalphS> Ben: ... want to point out ...

<RalphS> ... I agree that "1.3"^^xsd:decimal entails "1.3"^^xsd:float but not the other way around

<RalphS> Jeremy: until you make a full concrete proposal I don't think you understand

<RalphS> ??: can I have two equals operators one of which supports this entailment and the other that doesn't?

<RalphS> Jeremy: I'm not totally sure but I believe this is possible

<RalphS> ??: you can define your own XPath functions

<RalphS> [straw poll]

<RalphS> Guus: third option reworded as 'leave it to applications'

<RalphS> results: does entail: 0, does not entail: 9, leave it to applications: 12

<RalphS> Jeremy: leaving it to the application is a non-monotonic choice

<RalphS> Ralph: could we discuss, please, the interoperability issues if we leave this choice to applications

<RalphS> Jeremy: is it possible to publish noting that we did not reach a decision on this question?

<RalphS> Guus: that would be my least-preferred choice

<RalphS> [15 minute coffee break]

<RalphS> resuming ...

<RalphS> [logistics for SKOS breakout session]

<RalphS> [Jeff scribing]

<RalphS> Semantic Web Tutorials

<RalphS> Guus: there's a planned activity on education and outreach

<RalphS> Ralph: "The mission of the Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG) is to develop strategies, and awareness and training resources, to educate a variety of audiences regarding the need for Web accessibility and approaches to implementing Web accessibility."

<RalphS> WAI EO WG Charter

<RalphS> Guus: Fabien, could you post to the WG a list of the available resources in Europe?

<RalphS> [ADTF]

<RalphS> [previous discussion was on Tutorials page]

<RalphS> [ADTF,ALL] goals for f2f [Libby 2005-11-04]

<RalphS> Libby: I'm proposing that this work be moved to SWIG at the end of January

<RalphS> Guus: might be more appropriate for Education & Outreach also

<RalphS> ... SWBPD has had a hard time giving it sufficient attention

<RalphS> Fabien: it's important to show people what the data looks like

<RalphS> Ralph: a combined approach -- involve the developer community via SWIG to make viewers for DOAP resources which then will foster more DOAP files that an Education & Outreach WG could use

<RalphS> ACTION: Ralph cite relevant CG meeting records regarding SemWeb Education & Outreach discussions [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/05-swbp-minutes.html#action04]

<RalphS> [DAWG Liaison]

<RalphS> [All] SPARQL Query Language Review [David 2005-10-14]

<RalphS> David: I made some oversights in that draft that DanC has since corrected

<RalphS> ... I have drafted responses to the comments and would like the WG to decide whether to submit these or not

<RalphS> ... the review has not been formally sent to DAWG yet, but DAWG noticed it in our archive

<RalphS> Brian: ...

<RalphS> [Guus summarizes for Brian]

<RalphS> Brian: comments about the design of the language may be inappropriate for SWBPD

<RalphS> ... more appropriate would be comments on how to use SPARQL

<RalphS> ... commenting only on the basis of work that SWBPD has done

<RalphS> David: I did highlight some interoperability and scalability concerns which are appropriate for SWBPD

<RalphS> Guus: consider splitting personal comments from SemWeb best practice and add XSD datatype issue

<RalphS> ... Jeremy or Jeff asked to phrase the XSD datatype issue for David to incorporate

<RalphS> [I think Brian said what I'd wanted to say, won't push to get the floor unless there's a pause]

<RalphS> Brian: considering interoperability and scalability comments it's not clear we can base this on existing work of the WG

<RalphS> David: is there anything other than [XSD] that we can send to DAWG on behalf of the WG?

<Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to commend David for good comments but to question which ones are _SemWeb_ Best Practice and which are best practice in other areas

<RalphS> Ralph: one point that might be relevant to SWBPD is the bnode question

<RalphS> David: I'd like SWBPD to consider both bnode and the result of DESCRIBE

<RalphS> [ODM Liaison]

<RalphS> Elisa: ... midnight 14 Nov ... (some deadline)

<RalphS> ... that version of ODM developed largely by people also participating in this WG; e.g. Chris Welty has become IBM lead on ODM work

<RalphS> ... a version will be published next week

<libby> ...thinks the current product is signifiantly improved esp wrt rdf and owl

<RalphS> ... RDF & OWL profile will allow UML tool vendors to ...

<RalphS> ... topic maps metamodels also revised

<RalphS> ... doc to be published by 14 Nov

<RalphS> ... will be stable except possibly for some metamodel mappings

<RalphS> ... comments on that document will be appreciated; I will pass along to OMG anything sent here

<RalphS> ... very excited about the progress

<RalphS> ... I will point people to particular chapters that might be of special interest

<libby> [VM]

<RalphS> minutes from SWBP f2f 2005-11-05 first session: SE and XSD datatypes [Libby 2005-11-05]

<libby> al giving status update

<libby> al: started off wanting to do a more general note

<RalphS> [VM] VM Task Force update [Tom Baker 2005-11-25]

<libby> ...what you get from dereferencing, downloads, versioning etc

<libby> ...draft on wiki; Al revised; no time to finish

<libby> ...idea to just do URI dereferencing part

<libby> ...here's what SKOS does, DC, foaf, here's what they did practically: that's the new goal, realistic for start feb

<libby> al: problem is foaf skos dc doesn't quite do the same thing yet

<libby> ...minumum requirem,ents + extra stuff - see Al's email

<libby> ...Vm telecon scheduled, incl w3c web people for a sanity check of Al's suggested apache configs

<libby> ...not sure how Tom feels about the note...

<libby> guus: big waste if don't produce anything; this brief note seems very relevant; bit concerned re timing, resources

<libby> al: is the apache stuff turns out to be ok, will be fast to do

<libby> guus: what do you need from the WG here?

<libby> al: validating the set of specified requirments (how we want the uris to behave) ....[missed a bit]

<libby> guus: useful for people to comment now?

<libby> al: yes

<Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to characterize the BP Note that VM is converging on now

<libby> jc: scope: with/wthout fragids?

<libby> al: both

<libby> ralph: represents a short answer to the q: what should I put at the end of an rdf schema; very pragmatic

<libby> [/me not catching all of it, sorry ralph]

<libby> ralph does not expect a lot of controversey

<libby> jc: hopes nop controversey but fears secondary resources might be just as contentious as primary

<libby> al: read the document, thinks clear

<libby> ...thing prepared for the next telecon - help from wg is first section only

<RalphS> specifically, the document Alistair prepared for VMTF telecon on 15 Nov

<RalphS> [VM] Agenda for 15 Nov Telecon [Alistair 2005-11-01]

<libby> danbri: based on the skos breakout and discussions yesterday - to know more about partitioning owl dl and owl full versions would be really useful - not needed for this version though - but any info wg members have on good strategies here woudl be useful

<libby> al: describe current first

<libby> guus: before lunch - 2 reviewers for Al's documents and also look over now

<libby> andreas volunteers

<libby> david booth voluneers

<RalphS> Guus: I'm not inclined to continue this TF in the charter for a new Best Practices group

<libby> guus: how should this work continue? personal feeling ... not inclined to include in new charter unless new contact and clear that will fucntion better in the future

<libby> ...likes danbri's suggestion but interested in that in a particular context

<RalphS> ... DanBri's observation that OWL-DL question requires a proper place

<libby> al: also versioning

<libby> guus: perhaps for discussion later; think of the proper place for these items

<libby> ...and how can we make sure in the future that the work gets done (not intended as a criticism of participants)

<libby> ...for later discussion: versioning and resolving uris to OWL DL / OWL full

<RalphS> [ah, DanBri's OWL-DL point was apparently about how to resolve an RDF namespace URI to an RDFS, OWL-DL, or OWL-Full representation]

<RalphS> [that's perhaps a hard problem and not something we have sufficient practices yet to nominate a 'best' practice]

<libby> lunch: resume 13.45 GMT

<RalphS> [70 minute lunch break]

<RalphS> oops

<libby> internet is back!

<RalphS> yay!

<libby> photos from yesterday updated: http://swordfish.rdfweb.org/photos/2005/11/04/

<RalphS> [how much weight did Jeremy gain? http://www.flickr.com/photos/danbri/59826153/ ]

<RalphS> blue bottles in http://swordfish.rdfweb.org/photos/2005/11/04/2005-11-04-Pages/Image34.html definitely add something :)

<danbri> at last :)

<RalphS> [reconvening]

<libby> [OEP]

the first document, n-ary relations is ready to go to publication

<RalphS> ?did Chris say 'is ready' or 'is not ready>

there have been significant changes to the first working draft

<RalphS> Scribe: Elisa

so how long does it have to be available for public review before it goes to note?

Guus -- my preference is that it goes to a note

Chris -- next telecon will vote on n-ary relations going to note

David Booth -- sent comments but hasn't seen them reflected in the draft

looked at the version referenced for this meeting

says draft 7 sept 2005 -- that is the latest version

David's comments do not seem to be reflected in that version

David will look them up and resend them, or

<RalphS> (ah, I understand Chris to have said that N-ary relations is not quite ready today to vote on going to Note but will be ready soon)

Chris can go over them with David after this meeting

David -- perhaps they were not as evident as he was expecting

Next editor's draft -- simple part whole relations being edited by Alan and Chris

<RalphS> OEP Editor's Drafts

has been reviewed and comments responded -- ready to go to working draft

Chris would like to have a short discussion on comments and then vote for it to become a working draft

<RalphS> Chris: Simple Part-Whole draft reviewed by Guus and Bill McDaniels

responded to Bill (from Adobe)'s review -- queried him a couple of times but didn't get a response

responded to all of his comments including why some comments were not acted on

Guus -- if he hasn't responded after some length of time, silence should mean willingness to

accept the revisions

Brian agreed

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SimplePartWhole/index.html

<Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to comment on 1st published version being a Note

<RalphS> Ralph: if this WG does not expect to publish another version, it's appropriate for us to go to Note

<RalphS> ... we can always update a Note if we need to do so

<RalphS> ... if the WG does not expect to publish another revision, it should be a Note

<RalphS> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SimplePartWhole/index.html is identified in CVS as revision 1.7 of Aug 13 12:36:53 2005 UTC

<RalphS> QCRs

<RalphS> Qualified Cardinality Restrictions (QCRs)

<RalphS> ^ 25 May draft

<RalphS> Chris: there's a new draft that I will push to CVS very soon

<RalphS> ... would like reviewers

<RalphS> ... (hardcopies available in here in meeting room)

<RalphS> OEP agenda for f2f [Chris 2005-09-17]

<RalphS> Chris: I will publish the version to be reviewed as soon as I get reliable network access, no later than tonight in my hotel room

<RalphS> Jeremy: [some changes] ...

<RalphS> Chris: I'll move those to the 'Changes' section

<RalphS> OWL-Time

<RalphS> Chris: Libby has reviewed

<RalphS> Working with Time Zones [W3C Working Group Note 13 October 2005]

<RalphS> Ralph: OWL-Time WD should cite RDF Calendaring Note some time

<RalphS> RDF Calendar - an application of the Resource Description Framework to iCalendar Data [W3C Interest Group Note 29 September 2005]

<RalphS> Libby: I mentioned both of those in my review

<Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to comment re: OWL-Time

<RalphS> [ALL,OEP] Review of "Time Ontology in OWL" and "Time Zone Resource in OWL" [Libby 2005-10-14]

<RalphS> [sorry for missing Libby's review comments; I see she did note the two related works that I was speaking of]

<RalphS> DBooth: motivation for using this technology to solve this problem is not clear

<RalphS> Chris: you wouldn't be using this time ontology alone; you'd have some larger reasoning problem that includes a temporal component

<RalphS> ... a lot of RDF apps need time

<RalphS> DBooth: I'd prefer to structure my application so it only has to deal with UTC

<RalphS> Chris: this is addressed in the other document

<RalphS> Chris: the Time notes were split into two notes because a lot of times [heh] you can ignore timezones

<RalphS> ... the Time Zone Note is for when timezones are relevant to your application

<danbri> [ see also (apols if duplicating) http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-rdfcal-20050929/#L21805 11. Shop hours, recurring events and timezones ]

<danbri> -> "There is a question of whether timezone rules should be given by reference or by copy"

<RalphS> Chris: this work was started 3 years ago by the [DARPA] DAML project

<RalphS> ... the group was lead by Jerry Hobbs and they did a very extensive review of existing work

<danbri> [ are all those refs now part of http://www.isi.edu/~pan/OWL-Time.html ?]

<RalphS> DanBri: we should keep a list of namespaces we've created

<RalphS> Chris: yes, I've asked for a mechanism in W3C to do that

<RalphS> Guus: might be good for the WG to address this

<RalphS> Ralph: yes, the question of whether there's a pattern for namespaces has come up but we've not yet found a compelling reason to resolve it

<Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to repeat an administrative concern and to enter broken-record mode and to ask if we can cite RDF apps that use the material in the Time Notes

<RalphS> Ralph: Feng Pan is not a WG participant

<RalphS> Ralph: the Status of this Document section for *all* documents should be accurate for that specific document

<RalphS> ... Editor's Drafts should not claim to be Working Drafts

<RalphS> Semantic Integration Note

<RalphS> Semantic Integration & Interoperability Using RDF and OWL [W3C Editor's Draft 3 November 2005]

<RalphS> [looks like DERI fell off the Net again]

<RalphS> [maybe every WG participant should pick a unique bright color]

<RalphS> [as Jeremy has done :)]

<RalphS> kudos to OEP for documenting ideas for future work on their TF page

<RalphS> [15 minute break]

<RalphS> I'm asked out-of-band whether the HTML TF has made progress with including properties of bnodes in RDF/A

<RalphS> my answer is "yes, we've resolved that with the CURIE proposal"

<RalphS> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-current-issues#bnode

<RalphS> Blank nodes in RDF/A

<RalphS> 5.2 of the 27 October RDF/A syntax draft shows how we use CURIEs to declare locally-scoped names for bnodes

<RalphS> [I hope MeetingRoom folk realize they got disconnected]

<libby> few more photos: http://swordfish.rdfweb.org/photos/2005/11/05/

<jacco> discussing extra work for SE TF

<jacco> 2years for automated tools

<jacco> 6 months for compound CASE document

<jacco> XSD: input for RDF/O

<jacco> RDF/OWL revised

<jacco> ADTF: input SWEO

<jacco> Tutorial: also input SWEO

<danbri> see http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Activity

<danbri> [[ Additionally, in response to interest expressed by W3C Members and prospective Members, an Activity Proposal for a group focused on education and outreach is likely. The group would develop strategies and materials to increase awareness of the need for and benefits of the Semantic Web.]]

<jacco> VM: howto publish ontologies without getting owl dl apps into trouble

<jacco> +versioning and change management for vocabularies

<jacco> good practice for html documentation about vocabularies

<RalphS> ah, welcome back, folk!

<jacco> html-doc: 6 months

<jacco> versioning: 6 months

<jacco> change management 1-2 years

<jacco> RDF/OWL DL/OWL full versions: 6 months

<jacco> OEP: 14 documents have been suggested

<jacco> some belong in SWEO

<jacco> but not all

<jacco> PM: style guide on use of rdfs:label etc

<jacco> proposal by fabian: notes on Conceptual Graphs

<jacco> survey, mapping and usage

<jacco> jjc: good practices on internationalisation constructs in RDF and OWL

<jacco> guus: potiential scenarios for future work

<jacco> For SKOS: new skos WG or rechartered SWBPD WG

<FabGandon> pointer to mail on possible TF on CGs: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0033.html

<jacco> When no REC track it can only be done in a rechartered SWBPD

<jacco> alistair: argument for SWBPD: connection with community

<jacco> dependencies iwth OEP and VM

<danbri> [ <Image rdf:about="http://static.flickr.com/26/60050865_d726d4785d.jpg?v=0" xmlns="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"><depicts><Person><isPrimaryTopicOf rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/People/all#swick"/></Person></depicts></Image> ]

<jacco> Giving people coming into SW via SKOS also access to other SW stuff

<jacco> guus draws 2 scenarios: a SWBPD recharted and non rechartered version

<jacco> 2 years is standard?

<jacco> non denial denial :-)

<jacco> 1st no recharter: skos will need to do REC track

<dwood> Message to list regarding SPARQL and bnodes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0035.html (that completes my action item for the moment)

<jacco> WN: problem for >1 year work, needs heading of SWIG

<jacco> danbri, jjc: this could work

<danbri> (danbri: it would need to be more visible & collaborative) [to fit into SWIG]

<jacco> MM: VRA work could be linked to SKOS work, video could be under SWIG, interop under extension

<jacco> RDFTM: under extended period or swig?

<jacco> RDF-in-HTML: jjc: prefer SWIG

<jacco> SE also needs to go under SWIG, compound keys could go under extention

<RalphS> [I wonder if the scribe captured any more detail from Jeremy about moving RDF-in-XHTML to SWIG]

<RalphS> [in any case, I'd like to hear more from Jeremy about that but can contact him off-line]

<jacco> VM: RDF vs OWL under extention, rest in SWIG

<RalphS> [I hope there will be good notes from the room on this discussion]

<jacco> merge SKOS and OEP?

<jacco> yes, and call it SWBP :=)

<RalphS> oops

<jacco> OEP: which of the 14 could be done in a 6month extention?

<jacco> SemIntegration, guidance on domain/range and some other simple ones

<jacco> guus likes worst case scenarios :-)

<jacco> Now SWBPD rechartered

<jacco> what work would be better of elsewhere?

<jacco> Evan: we could change the WG name, right? All: Sure

<jacco> Danbri: SWIG is a very loose forum, only produces calandar

<jacco> more in SWIG would mean more work for the CG and the chair of the SWIG chair

<jacco> dabri might be looking for a co-chair

<jacco> danbri: RDF-in-HTML would be a ill-fit

<jacco> chris: put SWEO up there too

<dwood> but ADTF would be a good fit

<danbri> (happy to chat about that...)

<jacco> guus: SE could be a good fit

<jacco> Evan: not for the longer term, because of IPR and other reasons

<jacco> chris: outreach part of it makes it better fit in SWBPD2

<jacco> jjc: SWIG is harder to sell to your boss than working for a WG

<jacco> danbri: diff in working on a note or sending lots of email

<jacco> evan: marketing: divorce from commercial alignment

<jacco> SWIG might not be the could place to etablish credability

<jeremy> Clarification of http://www.w3.org/2005/11/05-swbp-irc#T16-44-46

<libby> bye ralph!

<jeremy> I am happy with RDF-in-HTML as part of SWBP, but given timeline issues

<jeremy> RDF-in-HTML is likely to last longer than SWBP (with extension)

<jacco> SE could be part of SWEO

<RalphS> [I'll leave irc open but I've got to leave, sorry]

<jeremy> and I would be happy with the TF to continue as a joint HTML WG/SWIG TF

<jacco> OEP/SKOS/VM part of SWBPD2

<jacco> SWBPD2 could be home of SW Lang Core, to keep track of change proposals

<jacco> MM/Video needs lots of liason work

<jacco> danbri, jacco: do not see video happen in SWIG context

<danbri> (because of IPR / patent policy concerns)

<jacco> Guus: do not see it happen within SWEO either

<jacco> Guus we could split up OEP in guidelines and particular ontologies, including video and owl time etc

<jacco> Evan, Alan: same arguments apply to SE

<jacco> Guus, no there the technical work is in ODM

<jacco> Guus: for SWBPD2 I like to stick to technical work

<dwood> Yes, stick to technical work in any new charter

<dwood> Bounding would be a good change for a while

<jacco> chris: there is lots of liason work that needs a place

<jacco> evan: we should make this explicit

<jacco> guus: the current charter has that

<jacco> oep moved from content (WN, Units/measures) to guidelines

<jacco> guus: liason work for MM, TM, ODM is different from SKOS etc

<jacco> danbri: if we push this to the SWIG, could the SWIG report to the WGs?

<jacco> Guus: do not understand, lets do this offline

<jacco> jjc: if SWBPD2 it might go into this

<jacco> Guus: but than we end up with the same charter

<jacco> Chris: I have a strong preference for focus, the telcons are too long now

<jacco> guus: we extend for more 15 minutes

<jacco> Evan: if we focus where does the liason work fit in?

<dwood> I have a strong preference for any new SWBP2 to have a smaller list of TFs and more defined deliverables.

<dwood> I'd like to resist the temptation to "just throw more in"

<jacco> alistair: ilike the liason stuff, but I also like focus

<dwood> Focus will be particularly important if we intend to do any Rec Track work

<jacco> chris: what about change the charter of SWEO to include liason

<jacco> Guus, Dave, Jacco: SWEO might not be the best place for MM/video and TM

<jacco> Giorgos: MM TF would prefer SWBPD2 over SWEO

<danbri> [there is a draft EO page at http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/EO/ but I don't know it's status, beyond that it is public ]

<jacco> Alistair: what is the output of the liason work?

<jacco> Guus: you do a survey, defining mappings and guidelines on how to use this

<jacco> giorgos: MM work on new datatypes, uncertainty etc?

<jacco> Guus, could feed into SWL Core, but this is not the home for solving the mm problems

<jacco> Guus: MM/Video would not fit into an ontology and vocabulary management group

<jacco> Raphael: liason into XG incubator?

<jacco> chris can XGs use zakim?

<jacco> danbri: I think so, not sure

<danbri> see http://www.w3.org/2005/01/incubator-activity (you'll need your w3c member password)

<jacco> giorgos: multimedia is not only liason

<jacco> guus: if you can rephrase it as a vocabulary managment or SWL core problem ...

<danbri> (looking at the incubator docs, i don't see an immediate answer)

<jacco> mpeg dropped their own DDL when XML Schema was mature enough, same could happen to OWL if it has all the things MM needs

<libby> bye dwood!

<jacco> if we have an vocab. management group, the liason work needs to be dropped

<jacco> if we have a revisited current charter, the MM liason work could stay

<jacco> me: zakim, who is there?

<jacco> danbri: we could do it more free form through mailing lists?

<jacco> jjc: still the how to persuade your boss problem?

<jacco> guus: in any rechartered group, you need a new chair (perhaps two). I'm willing to do an exention, but not a rechartered group

<jacco> evan: what is the outcome if we do not reach concensus?

<jacco> guus: we are stronger if we reach it

<danbri> [group thanks chair and local host]

<jacco> ADJOURNED

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.127  of Date: 2005/08/16 15:12:03  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/Jeff:/Ben:/
Succeeded: s/.../Ralph:/
Succeeded: s/ofg/off/
Succeeded: s/practive/practice/
Succeeded: s/is looking for a co-chair/might be looking for a co-chair/
Found Scribe: Elisa
Inferring ScribeNick: Elisa
Default Present: Ralph, David_Wood, Guus, Jeremy, Jeff, Phil, Elisa, Evan, Giorgos, Jacco, Raphael, Benjamin, Libby, Alistair, Andreas, DanBri, Deb
Present: Ralph David_Wood Guus Jeremy Jeff Phil Elisa Evan Giorgos Jacco Raphael Benjamin Libby Alistair Andreas DanBri Deb
Regrets: Gavin
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0024.html
Got date from IRC log name: 5 Nov 2005
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2005/11/05-swbp-minutes.html
People with action items: phil ralph

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.