See also: IRC log
-> WG home page
Guus: in "W3C speak", the term "member" means an organization and the term "participant" means individuals like you and me
Guus: Bernard has already expressed
difficulties with this teleconference time
... intention is that UTC time is not fixed; we will shift by an hour when
the US changes its clock
... this year both US and Europe change on 29 October
... at present we have no Asian participants
... W3C tradition is that scribe duties rotate around the WG
... we scribe in irc
... if you don't have an irc client, you can use a Web browser with the W3C
cgi-irc interface; I've been using it successfully for several years
<TomB> I use ChatZilla - as a plug-in for Mozilla
Guus: this WG operates in the public view
... so Member Access is not necessary for any WG materials, only for other
protected things such as Coordination Group records
Tom: I live in Berlin
Ralph: I live an hour outside of Boston
Sean: I live in Manchester, UK
... participated in WebOnt
... interested in delivery of SKOS
... have a connection to KnowledgWeb
Fabien: I live in Cannes
... am a member of INRIA
... team has background in knowledge representation and knowledge
management
... also participate in the GRDDL WG
Bernard: work for Sun Microsystems Labs and
reside in the UK though I report to Sun in Burlington MA
... working on COHSE project with Sean in Manchester
<Bern> COHSE project -- http://cohse.semanticweb.org/
Daniel: I work at Stanford Univ as part of
Center for Biomedical Ontology
... also participate in HCLSIG
Diego: I work in the Semantic Web project at CTIC in Spain
Antoine: work at Vrije Universitat in Amsterdam and also on a national archives project
Guus: I also work at Vrije Universitat
Guus: was co-chair of WebOnt and SemWeb Best Practices WG
Guus: hope that there can be sharing between KnowledgeWeb and this WG
Guus: We are a Recommendation-Track Working
Group
... we have a number of deliverables, one of which [SKOS] is already
identified as a Recommendation
... the Recommendation process requires the documents to move along a process
from Working Draft to Last Call to testing via Candidate Recommendation
<Antoine> isn't SKOS a working draft?
Guus: see Art of Consensus
... SKOS is already a Working Draft, yes
... to start a Recommendation track we like to have a document already
available
Tom: Alistair is traveling today after Dublin Core meeting, sends regrets
Guus: we have 5 deliverables mentioned in the
WG charter
... one of the 5 is explicitly expected to be a Recommendation
... the other 4 we have the ability to decide whether the end state is a Note
or a Recommendation
Ralph: As one is working on document, publishing for public consumption, expectation that Editors' Drafts are visible. When published, they show up on Reports page. If our intended goal is Note, not a Recommendation, we are encouraged not to call the documents "Working Drafts". We publish versions not in final form - generally important to inform community about level of stability of documents (paragraphs about status). If we decide to go to Recommendation or to go to Note makes a difference in how we proceed.
Ralph: there's some consideration about how we name interim versions of a published technical report if we're intending the end state to be Note or Recommendation
Guus: the WG charter contains a schedule but it's up to the WG to fill in the details
Guus: Charter is there to give us clear scoping - changes can be proposed and are discussed in Semantic Web Coordination Group.
Guus: as chairs, part of our responsibility is to determine whether a proposal is in or out of scope for our charter
Guus: see -> charter
deliverables
... 5 deliverables mentioned: SKOS, ...
... we have the most input on this deliverable
... we need to draft a use cases and requirements document for SKOS
... this UCR document will be the basis for judging whether the proposed SKOS
Recommendation is complete
... hope for use cases from Stanford and other groups
Daniel: absolutely
<TomB> Alistair made a presentation on requirements for SKOS last week in Mexico
Guus: I expect the WG to work on SKOS UCR for the rest of this year
Tom: see Alistair's presentation last week at DC2006 on SKOS requirements
Guus: W3C Notes have a slightly lesser status; they give guidelines but are not necessarily standards
Guus: second deliverable is a Note or
Recommendation on best practices for publishing RDF and OWL ontologies
... third deliverable is guidelines for namespaces and versioning
... we do not yet have a draft for this
Ralph: there are some collected informal notes from the Best Practices WG though not a published document
Guus: fourth deliverable is a document on using
OWL for cross-application integration
... Mike Uschold did some draft work on this
... fifth deliverable is joint between SWD and the HTML WG on incorporating
RDF into HTML documents
... there are existing Working Drafts on this work as well
Ralph: use cases and requirements for RDFa are important to do soon also
Guus: for next telecon, please take a look at
Alistair's presentation
... we'll talk about approach to gathering UCR documents next week
Guus: Next week, start with SKOS requirements - how to approach the task of getting together a use-case and requirements document.
Guus: we encourage all communication within the
WG to go via the mailing list
... if we decide to break up the work into subgroups we may decide on certain
Subject tags
... we discourage bilateral communication off-list
... W3C tries to keep the process as open as possible; people outside the
group should be able to see the discussion, the rationale, and so on
... I would like to have input on any missing expertise within the WG
... for example, to move SKOS to Recommendation we want to show there are
tools that handle SKOS and we need to think about testing
Daniel: what do you mean by "handle"; for example, you can bring SKOS into Protege
Guus: in WebOnt we defined some features and
test suites
... for every feature we wanted two implementations
... in SKOS I would assume that a successful implementation would read in
SKOS and interpret it in the intended way
... SKOS may be the first non-representational SemWeb language that the W3C
is doing; it is more of a pattern
... our test suite should be easily usable by tool developers
... and help measure whether our specification fulfills the requirements we
initially laid out
... perhaps in a future telecon Sean can describe how this worked in
WebOnt?
Sean: sure
Guus: Normally, f2f meetings are for making key decisions, such as SKOS requirements.
Guus: Tom and I will do some initial planning
on face-to-face scheduling and venue
... f2f usually are two days and try to take advantage of colocation with
other events
Ralph: Next Technical Plenary - week where all
WGs encouraged to meet - will be Nov 2007
...smaller version of that being arranged for Jan 2007 - week of Jan 22
...we could have space there. Will be at MIT. Smaller than Tech Plenary.
...If we want that space, need to say so very soon.
<TomB> Jan 22+ would be inconvenient
[straw poll for January meeting]
Ralph: in favor of meeting that week
Tom: neutral but inconvenient for me
Sean: in favor but timing not great
Fabien: I would be able to attend
Bernard: fine for me
Daniel: unsure
Guus: not sure
Diego: ok for me
Antoine: unsure, depends on whether there is another meeting next to it
Ralph: will take an option in order to reserve the possibility
ACTION: Ralph communicate to January meeting planners our desire to keep the option for f2f open for a couple more weeks [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/10-swd-minutes.html#action01]
next meeting: 17 Oct, 1500 UTC
[adjourned]