W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > June 2009

Re: AWWSW telecon, Tues June 9

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 15:49:52 +0100
Message-ID: <b3be92a00906080749v42f2fb82t49349183ec462c00@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Cc: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Jonathan Rees<jar@creativecommons.org> wrote:
> We have a telecon scheduled but no clear agenda.
>
> I think we are done with generic resources until we get input from Tim.
>
> We could consider what we might like to have from an ontology that
> improves on genont.
>
> We could spend some time doing a post-mortem on last week's IRW review.
>
> We could attempt an overview of document requirements for whatever it
> is we might produce (target Dec 2009).
>
> We might take another crack at a tools review since if someone in the
> group wanted to work on the ontology, it wouldn't be clear how to
> proceed. E.g. I might want to use Protege 4 or LSW, but wouldn't want
> to mess up others if they want to use something else.
>
> Jonathan
>
>

I'll have to miss this call unforunately, as I'll be on an airplane
(thus the meeting last week). I'll try to get IRW aligned with GenOnt
(we already I think have a sort of alignment with small pieces of
HTTP-in-RDF), so I'd love to read the minutes

Post GenOnt alignment, I'll format up the ontology as W3C Member
Submission or Note over the next week or two as well, and will try to
send it off to everyone for formal review.

As for a post-morten, I was very happy with some of the early feedback
(such as Alan's suggestion that hasURIString be given a new name and
made inverse functional). I'd like to see that same level of
engineering ontology applied to the rest of the IRW ontology.

However, I do get frustrated when I want feedback on ontological
modelling and instead end up in circular conversations with people
about philosophical presuppositions, verificationism, and Wittgenstein
rather than actually review the ontology so we can get something that
models the area and fulfills that needs of HTTP-in-RDF and other
things :) However, I do have hope for a good thorough review via
e-mail from folks!

          -harry
Received on Monday, 8 June 2009 14:50:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 8 June 2009 14:50:30 GMT