IRC log of swd on 2006-10-24

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:52:14 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #swd
14:52:14 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:52:19 [RalphS]
Meeting: SWD WG
14:52:22 [RalphS]
Chair: Tom
14:52:28 [RalphS]
zakim, who's on the call?
14:52:28 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P21
14:52:43 [RalphS]
rrsagent, ??p21 is probably Tom
14:52:43 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand '??p21 is probably Tom', RalphS. Try /msg RRSAgent help
14:52:48 [RalphS]
zakim, ??p21 is probably Tom
14:52:48 [Zakim]
+Tom?; got it
14:52:53 [RalphS]
rrsagent, please make record public
14:53:21 [RalphS]
Previous: 2006-10-17
14:54:32 [Antoine]
Antoine has joined #swd
14:55:40 [seanb]
seanb has joined #swd
14:58:28 [TomB]
Agenda for today:
14:59:03 [TomB]
zakim, who is here?
14:59:05 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Tom?
14:59:06 [Zakim]
On IRC I see seanb, Antoine, RRSAgent, TomB, Zakim, RalphS
14:59:24 [Zakim]
14:59:25 [RalphS]
14:59:42 [Zakim]
14:59:50 [Antoine]
zakim, VrijeUni is Antoine
15:00:00 [Zakim]
+Antoine; got it
15:00:13 [Elisa]
Elisa has joined #swd
15:01:12 [Zakim]
+ +44.120.682.aaaa
15:01:30 [benadida]
benadida has joined #SWD
15:01:34 [RalphS]
zakim, Ben_Adida is with Ralph
15:01:47 [benadida]
zakim, I am Ben_Adida
15:02:02 [Zakim]
15:02:13 [RalphS]
zakim, aaaa is Bernard
15:02:18 [Zakim]
15:02:20 [RalphS]
zakim, Ben_Adida is with Ralph
15:02:34 [Zakim]
+Ben_Adida; got it
15:02:40 [Zakim]
sorry, benadida, I do not see a party named 'Ben_Adida'
15:03:32 [Zakim]
+Bernard; got it
15:03:40 [Zakim]
Ben_Adida was already listed in Ralph, RalphS
15:03:56 [RalphS]
wow; significant Zakim-bot lag
15:04:29 [RalphS]
Regrets: Diego, Fabien
15:05:10 [RalphS]
Regrets+ Alistair, Guus
15:05:16 [RalphS]
Regrets+ Daniel
15:05:34 [RalphS]
zakim, who's on the call?
15:05:39 [RalphS]
Topic: Admin
15:07:03 [Antoine]
scribe: Antoine
15:07:08 [Zakim]
On the phone I see TomB, Antoine, seanb, Bernard, Elisa_Kendall, Ralph
15:07:12 [Zakim]
Ralph has Ralph, Ben_Adida
15:07:50 [Antoine]
accept minutes previous meeting
15:08:09 [Antoine]
...minutes accepted
15:08:42 [Antoine]
action on scribe convetions, next week
15:09:09 [Antoine]
SKOS requirements
15:09:35 [Antoine]
Sean: description of Cohse project
15:09:52 [Antoine]
... using owl ontologies to find documents associated to concepts
15:10:03 [Antoine]
... simple NLP to find expressions matching terms
15:10:19 [Antoine]
... providing links between docs and concepts
15:10:30 [Antoine]
... using ontology structure (hierarchy)
15:10:59 [Antoine]
... we have realizing that using OWL ontologies to structure navigation is not optimal
15:11:16 [Antoine]
... thesaurus structure (broader/narrower) would be better
15:11:24 [TomB]
Sean: Using OWL ontologies not necessarily the right thing - for navigation, thesaurus is more appropriate.
15:11:37 [Antoine]
... so replacing skos-like vocabularies, wrapping them up with simple services
15:11:50 [Antoine]
... like synonyms, relationship retrieval
15:12:27 [Antoine]
... fitting pattern A: use vocabularary for retrieval, but also query the voc itself
15:13:17 [Antoine]
... not necessarily a full RDF repository
15:13:28 [Antoine]
... using a SKOS-like scheme
15:14:00 [Antoine]
Bernard: confused by the word index, rather annotation
15:15:39 [Antoine]
... Sean agrees with the fact they are terminolgy problems
15:16:26 [TomB]
RalphS: agree with Bernard re: discomfort with "index" - not sure "annotation" solves the problem... BT/NT jumps out as big benefit - easy to explain to people.
15:16:26 [Antoine]
... other examples of uses of relations, than broader/narrower?
15:16:44 [Antoine]
Sean: related term could be useful
15:17:30 [Antoine]
..important in the end: less precise bt/nt are more useful than RDFS/owl subClassOf
15:17:38 [TomB]
Bernard: less-precise BT/NT much better fit to the relationships we want to use for navigation.
15:18:06 [Antoine]
... useful to acces thesaurus
15:18:40 [Antoine]
TomB: discussion should be postponed until we are more numerous
15:19:00 [Antoine]
Sean: is my document appropriate?
15:19:18 [Antoine]
TomB: yes
15:19:43 [TomB]
Antoine: Qst about use cases.
15:20:07 [TomB]
...Can we provide abstract use case?
15:20:50 [TomB]
...Should the data referred to in the use case be public?
15:21:29 [TomB]
RalphS: We should consider real-example use cases where data is not necessarily available. Like the level of detail of Sean's document.
15:22:31 [TomB]
Bernard: SUN Microsystems ontology is not available - one of the use cases is Unified Product Taxonomy. Others are public-domain.
15:22:40 [TomB]
RalphS: could you describe that in general terms?
15:23:06 [TomB]
Bernard: When project started, there was a description - details are not public.
15:23:11 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.450.aabb
15:23:29 [TomB]
RalphS: Level of detail we need to drive design of SKOS - we can do that without having...
15:23:37 [RalphS]
zakim, aabb is Daniel
15:23:39 [Zakim]
+Daniel; got it
15:26:03 [Antoine]
daniel? : the use case can be published.
15:26:24 [Antoine]
... it is actually important that some data is published!
15:26:27 [RalphS]
-> Daniel's use cases
15:27:44 [Antoine]
daniel: terminologies were developped that could be used in computer services
15:27:48 [ryager]
ryager has joined #swd
15:28:14 [Antoine]
... huge effort of knowledge creation in these cases
15:28:42 [Antoine]
... goal is too create a large library of termonologies
15:29:04 [Antoine]
... accessible for integration in various applications
15:29:16 [RalphS]
15:30:04 [Antoine]
Sean: selling point of skos: semantic relationships to tie together concepts in a loose way
15:30:19 [Antoine]
... is it relevant for the biology cases?
15:31:03 [Antoine]
Daniel: There is tension between informal and very formal
15:31:15 [TomB]
Daniel: tension btw terminologies (loose) and ontologies (rigorous, formal) - there is no easy answer re: best solution - if SKOS can support both communities that would be ideal.
15:33:31 [Antoine]
Daniel: tradeoff between precision and recall
15:33:53 [TomB]
Daniel: tradeoff precision/recall - SKOS not appealing if doesn't accommodate need of some for crisp, formal semantics
15:34:17 [Antoine]
... relation like BT/NT could be specialised for ;ore useful links
15:34:33 [Antoine]
... for reasoning services
15:34:39 [TomB]
Daniel: BT/NT very high-level - need more specific types of relationships
15:35:10 [Antoine]
... in anatomic models there are loosely defined links
15:36:37 [Antoine]
... important communites are looking forward to adopt standards like dublin core and skos
15:37:04 [Antoine]
... people developping functional genomics
15:37:45 [TomB]
Daniel: community for functional genomics - consortium of researchers - basic biological research data - high-level ontology to subsume experimental investigation.
15:37:54 [seanb]
q+ to ask about migration from "scruffy" to "neat"
15:38:27 [Antoine]
Ralph: Daniel, the first two cases would be interested in more precise semantics. Are there specific applications?
15:39:06 [Antoine]
... what would motivate the need for more precise semantics?
15:39:39 [Antoine]
Daniel: some communities are using classification to recognize inconsistencies
15:39:54 [Antoine]
... they want to create more 'intelligent' services
15:40:12 [Antoine]
... e.g. reasoning application which uses FMA
15:41:07 [Antoine]
Ralph: what is the level of eagerness of these communities to follow swd schedule?
15:41:21 [Zakim]
15:41:52 [RalphS]
(eagerness and urgency); i,e. what is our time window of opportunity?
15:41:53 [Zakim]
15:41:54 [Antoine]
Daniel: they want standards
15:42:08 [Antoine]
... we're doing their work so timing is great
15:42:39 [Zakim]
seanb, you wanted to ask about migration from "scruffy" to "neat"
15:42:43 [Antoine]
TomB: acknowledge Sean and Daniel
15:43:26 [TomB]
SeanB: Is there a gray area between scruffy and neat?
15:43:36 [Antoine]
Sean: another question: is there there some migration path
15:43:52 [Antoine]
... from application neeeding simple knowledge
15:44:09 [Antoine]
... to application needing rich formal semantics
15:44:43 [TomB]
Daniel: Want to start simple and migrate to something more complex.
15:45:06 [Antoine]
... Even uses of subsomption can help
15:45:25 [RalphS]
q+ to suggest additional information that would be useful to have with SKOS use cases
15:46:22 [Antoine]
Ralph: it might be interesting to extend on Daniel's examples refering to the SKOS draft
15:46:38 [Antoine]
... use cases should point to things that work well
15:46:46 [Antoine]
... and to things that need more attention
15:47:11 [Antoine]
Action: Daniel to link his use case to SKOS draft
15:47:26 [Antoine]
TomB: Next item
15:47:27 [RalphS]
Topic: RDF in XHTML
15:48:00 [Antoine]
Ben: everyone interesting in RDFs is invited to participate
15:48:19 [RalphS]
-> meeting record: 2006-10-23 RDF-in-XHTML TF telecon
15:48:22 [Antoine]
... goal is to make RDF work as XHTML1.1 module
15:48:52 [Antoine]
2 documents: RDFa syntax (more formal) and RDFa primer
15:49:01 [RalphS]
-> editor's draft RDFa syntax document
15:49:32 [RalphS]
-> editor's draft RDFa primer
15:49:46 [Antoine]
... one aim is to be able to create chunk of html self-contained wrt metadata
15:49:59 [Antoine]
... next steps: reification + containers
15:50:25 [Antoine]
... target is 4/6 weeks for next working drafts
15:51:00 [RalphS]
q+ to ask Ben about schedule expectations for UC&R
15:51:31 [Antoine]
two WG: SWD and RDF-in-RDF How can we best organize that?
15:52:22 [Antoine]
Many people would not want to get involved in huge level of technical detail
15:52:40 [Antoine]
... but continuing copying important documents is useful
15:52:45 [Antoine]
... to get feedback
15:53:12 [Antoine]
RalphS: set of question the TF should formulate to involve the WG
15:53:55 [RalphS]
ack me
15:53:55 [Zakim]
Ralph, you wanted to suggest additional information that would be useful to have with SKOS use cases and to ask Ben about schedule expectations for UC&R
15:54:25 [Antoine]
Ben: about the documents issued by last TF
15:54:34 [Antoine]
... they should get feedback from the WG
15:56:29 [TomB]
RalphS: an HTML WG shares these work items
15:56:30 [Antoine]
???: charter for HTML WG has gone for review
15:56:38 [RalphS]
15:56:42 [TomB]
RalphS: the charter for that group is still underway
15:56:44 [Antoine]
... there could be some re-scheduling to match
15:56:47 [RalphS]
s/has gone/has not yet gone/
15:57:37 [Antoine]
Who is interested to review use case requirements?
15:57:46 [RalphS]
q+ to note SKOS + RDFa potential use cases
15:58:26 [RalphS]
ack me
15:58:26 [Zakim]
Ralph, you wanted to note SKOS + RDFa potential use cases
15:58:36 [Antoine]
Some biological use cases could be also for RDF in HML?
15:58:43 [Antoine]
Daniel: could be
15:58:53 [TomB]
RalphS: do some of Daniel's use cases both SKOS and RDFa? Involving HTML documents with embedded metadata?
15:59:29 [Antoine]
Ralph: perhaps use cases for SKOS could be linked to RDF in HTML
16:00:13 [Zakim]
16:00:32 [Antoine]
TomB: Final point on receipes
16:00:35 [RalphS]
Topic: Recipes for Publishing RDF Vocabularies
16:01:04 [RalphS]
-> "Recipes" Working Draft - comments from May 2006 [TomB 2006=10-24]
16:01:07 [Zakim]
16:01:09 [benadida]
benadida has left #SWD
16:01:11 [Zakim]
16:01:14 [Zakim]
16:01:26 [seanb]
seanb has left #swd
16:01:36 [TomB]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
16:01:36 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate TomB
16:01:41 [RalphS]
zakim, list attendees
16:01:41 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Tom?, TomB, Antoine, +44.120.682.aaaa, seanb, Elisa_Kendall, Ralph, Ben_Adida, Bernard, +1.650.450.aabb, Daniel, Tom_Baker
16:01:53 [TomB]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
16:01:53 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate TomB
16:02:36 [Zakim]
16:05:37 [Zakim]
16:10:26 [Zakim]
16:11:43 [Zakim]
16:11:46 [Zakim]
16:11:48 [Zakim]
SW_SWD()11:00AM has ended
16:11:49 [Zakim]
Attendees were Tom?, TomB, Antoine, +44.120.682.aaaa, seanb, Elisa_Kendall, Ralph, Ben_Adida, Bernard, +1.650.450.aabb, Daniel, Tom_Baker, Rachel_Yager
17:05:54 [RalphS]
zakim, bye
17:05:54 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #swd
17:06:08 [RalphS]
rrsagent, bye
17:06:08 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item saved in :
17:06:08 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Daniel to link his use case to SKOS draft [1]
17:06:08 [RRSAgent]
recorded in