See also: IRC log, previous 2006-10-31
RESOLVED to accept the minutes of the 31 Oct telecon: http://www.w3.org/2006/10/31-swd-minutes.html
ACTION: Ralph consider a tutorial on scribe conventions [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/17-swd-minutes.html#action01] [CONTINUES]
Tom: I've started some notes on scribing. Ralph and I will work on filling in some of the gaps on this
ACTION: Tom to discuss changing telecon time with Guus [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/31-swd-minutes.html#action08] [CONTINUES]
Tom: conflict with RIF WG telecon was noted
last week
... Guus and I exchanged a bit of mail
RESOLUTION: Next telecon will be 14 November, 1600 UTC
ACTION: Elisa to keep us posted as SKOS/iso 11179 compatibility issue evolves [recorded in [36]http://www.w3.org/2006/10/31-swd-minutes.html#action07] [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/07-swd-minutes.html#action03]
ACTION: [DONE] Elisa to post announcement to SWD list [recorded in [37]http://www.w3.org/2006/10/31-swd-minutes.html#action02] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/07-swd-minutes.html#action04]
-> [SWD] Announcement re: Ontology Definition Metamodel (ODM) Specification [Elisa 2006-11-01]
Tom: I would not be able to attend a meeting on those days
Ralph: Fabien would like to meet
... Elisa abstains, will come if held
... also Mark Birbeck and Steven Pemberton from the HTML WG would be wiling
to attend
... Elias Torres would send regrets
Alistair: I would like to meet, have to confirm that I could travel
Guus: would Tom be able to join by telecon?
Tom: yes
<aliman> I could certainly join 22-23 Jan by telecon
<aliman> will get back to ralph re possibility of travel
Antoine: I could come to a meeting, neutral+ on meeting
Daniel: regrets; I have a conflict
Bernard: would be able to attend, what are the goals?
Tom: 2 big items would be the meeting focus: SKOS and RDFa
<JonP> I'd like to meet if I'm able to travel
Antoine: I'm focussed on SKOS
Tom: if we have a critical mass of people for either SKOS or RDFa then it's worthwhile holding a meeting
Daniel: SKOS
Bernard: SKOS
Diego: interested in both SKOS and RDFa, more experience with SKOS, would like to attend but don't yet know if I can
Alistair: will attend by telecon if I cannot travel
Jon: expect to be able to attend, primary interest is SKOS
Guus: could we have a SKOS issues list as input to a January meeting?
Alistair: yes, that sounds reasonable
Ralph: will attend, think it's a good idea to meet
RESOLUTION: SWD will meet face-to-face at MIT on 22-23 Jan 2007, with remote participation facilities
Tom: welcome Jon Phipps
Jon: I'm an independent consultant working for
Cornell University on a metadata repository
... we're using SKOS as a base model for our vocabulary description
... hope to make a meta-thesaurus for vocabulary description
... hope to be able to migrate vocabularies from other systems into SKOS
<aliman> JonP & Diane Hillman's paper at DC2006 was very good ...
<aliman> lots of important feedback and criticism of SKOS
ACTION: Alistair give pointers to deployed SKOS systems. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/17-swd-minutes.html#action06] [CONTINUES]
Alistair: I hope to be able to post some use cases over the next few weeks and talk to some organizations before Christmas time
ACTION: Daniel to link his use case to SKOS draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/24-swd-minutes.html#action01] [CONTINUES]
Daniel: I discussed 3 possible communities
... I'll send email to the list summarizing the use cases I see
Tom: need editors for Requirements document
Guus: we have the current SKOS documents and Alistair has started an issues list
<aliman> SKOS issues and proposals list
Guus: it would be nice to settle on the issue
list and be able to discuss the requirements by January f2f
... the requirements [can] become part of the final W3C Recommendation, so
perhaps it's an inducement to some to get their names on a W3C
Recommendation
... between now an the January f2f we could generate a draft Requirements
document with a goal to approving this draft for publication during the
January meeting
... gather example use cases and generate requirements from these use
cases
... and generate some more general requirements too
... this process worked well in OWL
<TomB> requirements thread
Daniel: as we already have SKOS documents, we should consider these in the requirements, right?
Guus: the requirements have to be within the
scope of our WG charter
... Alistair came up with ideas about what the vocabulary should be used for;
metadata for indexing in retrieval
... within that scope we can define any requirement we want
... and reconcile conflicts
Daniel: why is what the vocabulary is to be used for important?
Alistair: I'm putting so much emphasis on the
ultimate use of the vocabulary because SKOS makes a number of
simplifications
... the simplifications are to capture what is common between types of
vocabularies; thesaurii, subject heading schemes, and classification schemes
are considered different types of systems but have overlap
... in SKOS we want to decide what information needs to be represented so the
downstream applications can perform the function they need to perform
... we want to bridge the gaps between these similar vocabulary types that
are often considered to be different
... so there is a need to generate interoperability
... this is the only way I see to be able to clearly define 'sufficiency of
representation'
... there are a number of ways one could represent each of the vocabularies
in RDF
... without a focus on the ultimate use of the data it becomes a matter of
taste on the choice of RDF representation
... we risk growing to try to cope with everyone's favorite feature [if we
don't focus on use]
... one of SKOS' selling points is its simplicity
... we need to continue to keep SKOS simple while satisfying the requirements
that need to be satisfied
Tom: it sounds like this explanation should be part of the first or second page of the requirements document
Ralph: the responsibility of the editor is to collect and organize the discussions we have in our telecons and to identify unresolved issues
Guus: I'd like someone other than Alistair to be the Requirements editor, as Alistair is also one of the developers
Antoine: I am willing to edit the Requirements document, would like a partner
Daniel: I'm willing to help
Guus: I would prefer to have people who are
currently working on vocabularies
... the WG has to provide them content
Jon: I'm interested too
Alistair: Jon just went through a use cases analysis with a metadata registry project; I'd like him to help
Tom: ideally we'd have a document to circulate in early January in preparation for Jan 22 meeting
Bernard: are you also interested in contributors as well as editors?
Alistair: absolutely!
Ralph: everyone in the WG should be contributing
Guus: I'll supply as much as possible from my projects
ACTION: Jon, Daniel, Antoine figure out their individual roles as SKOS Requirements editors [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/07-swd-minutes.html#action07]
ACTION: Ralph point Jon, Daniel, Antoine at the W3C tech report editors materials [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/07-swd-minutes.html#action08]
ACTION: Guus cite some examples of other Requirements documents [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/07-swd-minutes.html#action09]
Guus: the roles might be to divide the domains
we're looking at and solicit contributions from each domain
... might be a lead editor who has the responsibility for updating W3C CVS
... to start, I'd look at the different content pieces and divide those up;
e.g. Daniel might take the biomedical,
... Antoine might take the libraries
Alistair: let's also collect use cases by
email
... a picture might emerge after a couple of weeks and then we'll have a
table of contents
Guus: would the esw-thes mailing list be another source of contributions?
Alistair: sure
ACTION: Alistair work with the UCR editors to draft questions to invite the esw-thes mailing list to contribute to the use cases and requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/07-swd-minutes.html#action10]
Guus: for example, in OWL I created a format
for people to submit their use cases
... this helped in reducing the work to edit all the contributions into a
single document
Alistair: I'm happy to make a suggestion regarding a format and how to phrase questions
ACTION: Alistair propose a format for presenting use cases [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/07-swd-minutes.html#action11]
<aliman> TimBL's blog entry on future of HTML
Ralph: the HTML WG has been working on expired
charter. Question on how to prioritize work on HTML version 4 versus XHTML.
Current WG has been focused on XHTML.
... Issues list needs to be made more user-friendly. Requirements document by
early January?
... for discussion on January 22-23.
Guus: I'm here at ISWC and hope to collect
feedback on several items, including RDFa
... have met Harry Halpin, chair of GRDDL WG
... he has colleagues who are very interested in the SKOS work
... he's also interested in seeing us complete our recipes document and the
vocabulary management work
[adjourned]