See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: DBooth
<dwood> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 17 Oct telecon:
<dwood> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0171.html
<dwood> RESOLUTION: to accept the Galway ftf minutes:
<dwood> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0144.html
RESOLUTION: to accept the minutes of the 17 Oct telecon: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0171.html
<dwood> PROPOSED next meeting 12 December
RESOLUTION: next meeting 12 December.
DWood: We had discussion on this in June and September.
<dwood> Our response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0010.html
DWood: I want someone other than Ralph, DBooth or me to respond please. Volunteers?
<scribe> ACTION: Elisa Kendall to review DWood message on httpRange-14 resolution: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0010.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-swbp-minutes.html#action01]
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph, DavidW, and DavidB to an initial draft of TAG httpRange-14 resolution impact on semweb application developers [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/27-swbp-minutes.html#action02] [DONE]
Jeremy: While I am not compelled by the resolution, I note that there is sufficient consensus. Given that, the response is an improvement.
<scribe> ACTION: Brian to review SPARQL Last Call document recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action04] [CONTINUED]
<scribe> ACTION: Jeremy to provide a phrasing about XML Schema Datatype (XSDT) (Jeremy to look up URI for this action) [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-swbp-minutes.html#action04]
<jeremy> [[I think the XSDT action was about checking that SPARQL would work with the derivative solution]]
Brian: Re bnodes. We're looking for an example couched in
some of the BP work, that would illustrate a serious problem, but I've
not been able to find one.
... Could someone else propose a suitable problem?
... Could task force chairs identify a problem in any of their work?
I.e., the problem of being able to name a bnode in a query.
Elisa: I would have to invent something.
DWood: Several people think there is an issue and it is important to resolve, but we're lacking concrete examples to prove it. If we don't supply evidence, SPARQL will not fix it.
DBooth: How about asking for confirmation that this is NOT a problem?
DWood: Please act on these critical issues while we can, in spite of holiday crunches.
Elisa: Longer description of the problem would be helpful.
Brian: I'll try to do that in my message that I send.
<Zakim> jeremy, you wanted to argue that if this is needed then model is broken ....
<aliman> remembering bnode ids between queries sounds like asking sparql protocol to be stateful?
Jeremy: If you need to identify a bnode, and cannot do it in terms of its inverse functional properties (IVPs), then that is a fault of your data model. A good example of good practice will not exhibit this problem, because nodes will be identifed by URIs or IFPs. So I think it will be difficult to come up with a convincing example.
DWood: I disagree. We're expecting an environment in which people query other people's data sets, and will lack complete info about them.
<scribe> ACTION: Elisa to send new ODM link to the WG [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-swbp-minutes.html#action05]
<Elisa> link to ODM in the message at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0164.html
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to arrange telecon between himself, Alistair and PFWG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/17-swbp-minutes.html#action07] [PENDING]
<dwood> aliman, Do you have status on Guus' action to arrange a call with you and the PFWG?
<aliman> i haven't heard anything yet
<dwood> aliman, have you done anything in regard to your action regarding the WAI Protocol help to the PFWG?
<aliman> no, waiting on Guus to arrange a telecon ...
<dwood> aliman, OK. We will continue both actions.
<aliman> (original request from PFWG was very vague, we need to talk with them to get the specifics)
<aliman> yep, continue
<scribe> ACTION: Alistair and Guus to help the WAI Protocol and ormats WG on their vocabulary [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action07] [PENDING]
WSDL 2.0 RDF Mapping Working Draft published: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0054.html
<scribe> ACTION: DBooth and Elisa to review WSDL 2.0 RDF Mapping: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0054.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-swbp-minutes.html#action08]
<dwood> ACTION: document editors to use the appropriate style for editor's drafts: http://www.w3.org/2003/Editors/ [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-swbp-minutes.html#action09]
DBooth: There are templates for editor's drafts, WG notes, etc.
<dwood> aliman, can you summarize PORT's progress without being on the phone?
<aliman> no progess since last telecon, except publication of 2nd WDs ...
<aliman> (thanks ralph) ...
<aliman> I wrote an email today (searches for link) ...
<dwood> Congrats to PORT for the WDs
<aliman> thanks dwood ...
<aliman> email today re PORT progess and planning: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0163.html
<aliman> propose not to go for 3rd PWD before 31 jan
<aliman> ... for SKOS docs
Elisa: Unsure of progress on this.
<Zakim> jeremy, you wanted to ask about duration
Jeremy: Asked about duration, and the initial response did not go far enough.
Evan: There was a second response saying we could get rid of it and make a comment.
Jeremy: Oh, good. I didn't see that.
DWood: I support Jeremy's comment.
<jeremy> (my comment is more a spec thing: RDF Semantics say SHOULD NOT use duration)
<dwood> aliman, is your action to review Qualified Cardinality note complete?
<aliman> please continue
<aliman> (will do this week)
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to review OWL Time note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action10] [PENDING]
<scribe> ACTION: Alistair to review Qualified Cardinality note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action09] [PENDING]
<scribe> ACTION: Chris and Alan to work with Ralph to make part-whole ready for publication about the Semantic Integration note, when the document will be ready for review ? [PENDING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-swbp-minutes.html#action12]
<scribe> ACTION: Chris to move QCR note to W3C pace [PENDING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-swbp-minutes.html#action13]
<scribe> ACTION: Chris to move todo's to the changes section [PENDING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-swbp-minutes.html#action14]
<scribe> ACTION: Alistair, Jeremy, Jeff to review QCR note [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-swbp-minutes.html#action15]
<scribe> DONE by Jacco:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0042.html
<scribe> ACTION: Jeremy action to send comments to the list on the non-use of the duration datatype [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-swbp-minutes.html#action16]
<scribe> DONE: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0081.html
<scribe> ACTION: Evan to send note to Feng on discussion of semantics [PENDING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-swbp-minutes.html#action17]
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to bring issue wrt URI space for ontologies to the SWCG [PENDING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-swbp-minutes.html#action18]
<scribe> ACTION: Chris to ensure Feng gets signed up for the WG [PENDING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-swbp-minutes.html#action19]
<scribe> ACTION: Raphael Georgios S, Fabien, Phil to review Semantic Integration note [PENDING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-swbp-minutes.html#action20]
ACTION Dan to investigate spatial relations work in SWIG [PENDING]
<dwood> Review Caeeoll:
<dwood> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0081.html
<aliman> re wordnet draft, can you take me off formal reviewers list (will send comments as and when I can)
<Jacco> jacco's wn review: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0136.html
<scribe> ACTION: Ben to review WN draft by 25 Nov Review Caeeoll: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0081.html [PENDING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-swbp-minutes.html#action21]
<dwood> aliman, has your part of the above action been completed?
<bwm> bwm's review http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0166.html
<Jacco> with additional comment at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0149.html
<aliman> no, see above comment
(Jeremy, Brian, and Jacco already did their reviews)
<aliman> re wordnet draft, can you take me off formal reviewers list (will send comments as and when I can)
(Alistair asked to be removed from that action)
<scribe> ACTION: Jeremy to prepare a new draft of XML Schema datatype prior to F2F [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/17-swbp-minutes.html#action16] [DONE
<scribe> ACTION: jc explain non-montonicity and interoperability issues by email [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-swbp-minutes.html#action23]
<jeremy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0080.html
Jeremy: Unclear how to go forward from here.
... If the behavior is left to the implementation, then there needs to
be a well-thought-out way of coping with non-monotonicity, because it
will lead to non-monotonicity.
DBooth: That sounds to me like a good reason for not leaving it up to the implementation.
Jacco: Your SPARQL example is also one way of leaving it up to the implementation.
Jeremy: In the SPARQL example, the semantics is not
implementation defined, though the behavior is.
... In terms of wanting a well-defined extensibility point and coping
with non-monotonicity, SPARQL allows you to make steps that are not
valid under RDF semantics, and it's an app concern whether those
deviations from the semantics are significant.
Jacco: What about Jeff's proposal of mapping between the float and decimal types?
Jeremy: I don't think I've understood his proposal well enough to comment. AFAICT, Jeff is allowing the application to choose the interpretation, and has insufficient constraints on it. One must be cautious in advocating a non-mon position.
Jacco: I don't think Jeff wants a non-mon solution. I
think Jeff is suggesting a standardized app technique to address this
problem.
... Need to ask Jeff to clarify his proposal.
<Jacco> yes!
<scribe> ACTION: Jacco to ask Jeff to clarify his proposal for data types (float, decimal, etc.) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-swbp-minutes.html#action24]
Tom: I posted an update, focused on what we expect to achieve by the end of this charter period. Alistair suggested that the TF description should be broader. What is the purpose of the TF description? Look forward beyond January? Or focus tightly on what we can achieve before then?
<aliman> (I like the OEP style TF page, suggested that for VM)
DWood: Immediate goal is to focus the WG around
deliverables we can make before the end of the charter.
... I'd love to get the cookbook out by the end of the charter.
Tightening the TF description was specifically in line with tightening
expectations for deliverable by end of charter. No decision to extend
the WG yet. If there's something you think the TF could accomplish in
an extended WG, please let the chairs know.
Tom: I'm comfortable focusing on the deliverable now.
... I rewrote the TF description. If we're now looking at ideas for
extending the WG, then I'd have to revise that document.
Proposed update TF description:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0134.html
'HTTP Cookbook' editor's draft
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0117.html
DWood: I agree with Alistair's comment, I like the format.
<aliman> I suggest, as orthogonal to publishing the cookbook which we should aim to do before end of charter, we begin identifying and scoping future work items for VMTF ...
<aliman> so could add to the VMTF page 'planned notes' section?
DWood: No objection to your proposed replacement text. I note the dependency on the httpRange-14 text, though it isn't listed as a dependency. What is the SKOS dependency?
Tom: Alistair is experimenting with these recipes in the
SKOS context.
... Re "planned notes", I could add something on where we see this
going in the future.
<aliman> I have some initial suggestions re next steps for VMTF, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0165.html
<dwood> aliman, ok, noted.
<scribe> ACTION: TomBaker to add something on where we see the Vocabulary Management work going in the future. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-swbp-minutes.html#action25]
Tom: DBooth and Andreas voluteered for review at the F2F.
... We want the cookbooks to be reviewed once before the end of
charter, but don't see a pressing need for Note status.
DWood: Why no move to Note?
Tom: What would it entail and what would be gained?
DWood: Work is more likely to survive the WG.
Tom: Have not done a complete taste test. I want to take it back to DCI and deploy one of the variants with Dublin Core. Want to feel more confident before publishing as Note status.
<aliman> According to W3C process, 'Note' implies work has ended on the given topic. This doesn't sound right.
DBooth: Note is not cast in stone. Not the same as a Rec. Ok to publish Note as current thinking.
Tom: What are logistics?
DWood: Alistair, not correct. Note does not mean work has ended.
<aliman> Can we get reviews done for the cookbook, then ask if it should go straight past WD to Note?
DWood: Better to shoot for Note.
Tom: So if reviewers and telecon attendees agree, then we could publishh the Note?
DWood: Yes. A Rec is a standard. A Note is a way to say 'this is the best way we know right now'.
Tom: I'll report back on the next telecon.
<Zakim> jeremy, you wanted to discuss note versus rec and sotd
<aliman> Re Note vs. WD for cookbook I defer to chair, whatever you think is best.
<aliman> [N.B. re meaning of 'Note': http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/keyword/Process.rdf/?keywords=Note ]
Jeremy: Rec has consensus level over the whole consortium. A WG Note from this WG means consensus of this WG, but no wider implication. But even that is not necessary in the note, but what *is* necessary is that the note says explicitly what the consensus status is. Notes can be published with out consensus (and say so).
<tbaker> jeremy, thank you for that clarification
DWood: Important is that first the TF has consensus on it, then ask the WG.
<aliman> re VMTF can we get formal actions to review cookbook?
Jeremy: Becoming clearer to the group that language tag may be an issue.
<scribe> ACTION: Jeremy write a formal description of the CURI proposal for WG consideration [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-swbp-minutes.html#action26]
<scribe> ACTION: DanBri to ask TF for sign-off on putting the draft xhtml vocab to the WG for review. [recorded in [66]http://www.w3.org/2005/09/05-swbp-minutes.html#action09] [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-swbp-minutes.html#action27]
<scribe> ACTION: Ben produce schedule for getting RDF/A editor's drafts docs ready for WG review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/04-swbp-minutes.html#action04] [CONTINUED]
<scribe> ACTION: ben to contact alistair on use of frag id's [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/04-swbp-minutes.html#action02] [CONTINUED]
<ewallace> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/SE/ODSD/
Evan: Primer doc is ready to go to WD.
Elisa: I sent my comments this morning.
<Elisa> Link to my comments: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0171.html
<jeremy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0086.html
DWood: Please incorporate Jeremy and Elisa's comments, then on 12 December we can ask the WG for agreement to publish.
<scribe> ACTION: Jeremy Carroll to send review comments on SE Primer by 25 Nov DONE [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-swbp-minutes.html#action30]
Jeremy's comments: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0086.html
Jeremy: My comments were not addressed yet either.
DWood: Important to address each comment, even if the response is disagreement.
<scribe> ACTION: JeffPan to check on getting Holger to join the WG [recorded in [59]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/17-swbp-minutes.html#action19] DONE [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-swbp-minutes.html#action31]
<scribe> ACTION: Jeff Pan to make sure Holger Knublauch gets signed up [PENDING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-swbp-minutes.html#action32]
<scribe> ACTION: Elisa Kendall to send review comments on SE Primer by 25 Nov [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-swbp-minutes.html#action33]
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph to check if there's a formal policy issue wrt implicit endorsement [PENDING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-swbp-minutes.html#action34]
<scribe> ACTION: Phil Tetlow to check the copyright on the screenshots [PENDING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-swbp-minutes.html#action35]
<scribe> ACTION: danbri: draft a bit of text pointing to SWIG [PENDING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-swbp-minutes.html#action36]
<jeremy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0087.html
<scribe> ACTION: Phil to make sure that an email is sent to the list about how the primer document will handle the listing of products [PENDING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-swbp-minutes.html#action37]
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to include publication proposal in Nov 28 agenda [PENDING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-swbp-minutes.html#action38]
<scribe> ACTION: phil/danbri to see how to proceed with discussion of ODA draft in the SWIG [PENDING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-swbp-minutes.html#action39]
<scribe> ACTION: jc send some more constructive comments on ODA draft [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-swbp-minutes.html#action40]
<jeremy> Note: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0087.html is the ODA comments
<aliman> for the record ... re VMTF can we assign actions on dbooth and andreas harth to review 'HTTP cookbook' http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/http-examples/2005-11-18/ ... as they so kindly agreed to do a review for VMTF at the f2f :)
<scribe> ACTION: dbooth and andreas harth to review 'HTTP cookbook' http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/http-examples/2005-11-18/ [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-swbp-minutes.html#action41]
(This action was taken at the F2F in Galway, but seems to have been inadvertently lost.)
See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0145.html for action items to be carried forward.
3.7 ADTF - Applications and Demos (Libby)
3.8 RDFTM - RDF/Topic Maps Interoperability (Steve)
3.9 Tutorial Page
3.11 MM - Multimedia Annotation
ADJOURNED