Scribe: Ken Laskey
Action
1:Ken to continue action 3 (from 3 October meeting) to
come up with member-only way to view evolving draft.
Ken created section on Member page for report drafts and discussed this
in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-xg-urw3/2007Oct/0000.html.
An email thread followed that indicated a preference to continue work
on the wiki and Giorgos Stoilos
noted a tool (http://burns.w3.org/cgi-bin/wiki_tr) used by the RIF WG
for generating HTML from the wiki.
It turns out the tool is not generally available or supported, and Ken
said he was uncomfortable using an undocumented tool with uncertain
support.
Mike said it should be up to the editing team on how to generate a
report in a way that got things done with the least extra effort.
Mitch thinks it is safer to have discussions on wiki and extract to
HTML. Paulo agreed, saying we
can have wiki for people to write and editing team will focus on HTML
document.
Ken noted W3C tools for doing diffs between HTML files. These and other
tools along with current status is at
http://www.w3.org/2004/12/wg-tools.html.
In summary, the editing team is responsible for the the final report in
HTML. The specifics of the process used for generating the report is up
to the editing team as long as there is transparency in how things are
done, a process for submitting comments against report drafts, and we
ensure that all
comments are adjudicated fairly. It is also important to have
configuration management for the drafts so we can reliably track
comments back to the text and see what actions were taken.
This action closed.
ACTION: Giorgos, please
look more into wiki to HTML tool and make
recommendation on use.
Action
2:
Paulo to take continuing action on Action 4.: Paulo to insert
his more detailed specifics in discussion section of discovery use
case.
Action continuing and combined with previous action 4 and 5.
ACTION: Editing Team
continue from last meeting Actions 2, 4, and 5: insert
more detailed specifics in discussion section of discovery use case;
work on appropriately connecting Discovery use case to uncertainty
ontology; start identifying "methodologies" for addressing the issue of
annotating the use cases.
Action
3:
Peter and Mitch to provide email and/or lead to later discussion on how
probabilistic and fuzzy could be combined.
Mitch reported on email exchange with Peter. Capture at http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/urw3/wiki/OpenIssues. They were looking for ways to annotate with uncertainty and then user would perform own analysis using these annotations.
Kathy said there is discussion in literature and conferences on theories for combining, but Mitch said he was unsatisfied with current suggestions.Ken noted that XG scope is to come up with what are likely annotations and may have second set of what needs to be captured to show analysis that leads to conclusions using annotations.
Mitch said the uncertainty ontology should be extended to show domain
(fuzzy, probabalistic, ...) and needed info for each domain.
Kathy thinks Mitch and Peter's scenario is very helpful in laying out issues to be addressed; thanks to Mitch and Peter for doing this. Kathy would make some changes to the scenario. What is called fuzzy there should, she thinks, be modeled as a utility function. Kathy will add something to the scenario addressing her comment and putting in something she thinks can be modeled with fuzzy.
ACTION: Kathy to comment on discussion and extend.Action 4: Paulo, Trevor and Mitch to work on appropriately connecting Discovery use case to uncertainty ontology.
Continued and added to new action 2.
Action 5: Paulo, Trevor and Mitch to start identifying "methodologies" for addressing the issue of annotating the use cases.
Continued and added to new action 2. Note, combining with action 2 takes place of action 4.
Action
6: Vipul to expand one of the HCLS use cases with
types of uncertainty
exhibited (using uncertainty ontology as guide)
ACTION: Vipul to expand one
of the HCLS use cases with types of uncertainty
exhibited (using uncertainty ontology as guide)
[continue 17 October action 6]
Action
7: Peter to work on the extraction use case.
ACTION: Peter to work on
the extraction use case.
[continue 17 October action 7]