W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > November 2004

meeting record: 2004-11-01 SWBPD F2F

From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:56:04 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20041110225151.02041808@127.0.0.1>
To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org

draft minutes in http://www.w3.org/2004/11/01-swbp, text snapshot below.

Note that per agreement of the 28 Oct meeting, the telecon previously
scheduled for later today (11 Nov) has been canceled.  The next telecon
is scheduled for 18 Nov, as decided at the f2f.

----


                   SemWeb Best Practices and Deployment F2F
                                 1-2 Nov 2004

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Oct/0163.html

   See also: [3]day 1 IRC log, [4]day 2 IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2004/11/01-swbp-irc
      [4] http://www.w3.org/2004/11/02-swbp-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Ralph Swick, Jeremy Caroll, Phil Tetlow, Brian McBride, Libby
          Miller, Guus Schreiber, David Wood, Alistair Miles, Dan
          Brickley, Jeff Pan, Felix Burkhardt, Andreas Harth, Steve
          Pepper, Benjamin Nguyen

   Present by telecon for part
          Deb McGuinness, Tom Baker, Chris Welty, Ben Adida

   Regrets
          Evan Wallace, Deb McGuinness (partial), Marco Nanni, Tom Baker
          (partial), Natasha Noy, Gary Ng, Fabien Gandon, Ben Booth, Jos
          De Roo, Lars Marius Garshol

   Chairs
          Guus Schreiber, David Wood

   Scribe
          Dan, Libby, Andreas, Alistair, David, Jeff, Ralph

   Next Meeting
          18 November, 1900 UTC (2pm Boston)

Contents

     * [5]Topics
       Day 1
         1. [6]PORT TF
         2. [7]Wordnet TF
         3. [8]ADTF
         4. [9]XML Schema Liaison
         5. [10]HTML TF
         6. [11]VM TF
         7. [12]OEP Task Force
       Day 2
         1. [13]RDF/OWL and Topic Maps
         2. [14]discussion of breakout groups
         3. [15]Breakout Report - RDF/TM
         4. [16]Breakout Report - RDF/HTML
         5. [17]Breakout Report - Wordnet
         6. [18]Wrapup
     * [19]Summary of Action Items

     _________________________________________________________________

Day One

Agenda Adjustments

   <danbri> Re Restaurant, I think it is here, but jjc will confirm:
   [20]http://www.conradatjamesons.co.uk/location/index_location.htm

     [20] http://www.conradatjamesons.co.uk/location/index_location.htm

   <libby> yep that's the one

   propose to swap RDF-in-HTML and ADTF slots, so Bristol folk can move
   to the teleconf room

   RDF-in-HTML will be discussed at 1530 UTC, ADTF will be discussed at
   1330 UTC,

   tomorrow afternoon discussion on breadth of work and ways to bring in
   other participants

PORT TF

   <RalphS> [ PORT (aka Thesaurus) TF description is
   [21]http://www.w3.org/2004/03/thes-tf/mission ]

     [21] http://www.w3.org/2004/03/thes-tf/mission

   al: brief intro to skos core spec
   ... [22]SKOS Core is an RDF vocabulary for thesaurii
   ... vocabulary is managed like FOAF; each property in the vocabulary
   has its own level of stability
   ... classes and properties summarised in a table, with their
   properties
   ... and a brief mention of the management policy for skos core
   ... and a brief note re community involvement
   ... list of vocab details
   ... that bit of document generated from the schema itself, hence table
   created from script
   ... navigation at side of document

     [22] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/

   ralph: stepping back briefly...
   ... feeling a bit out of sync with this task force
   ... how does this vocab serve as being the most important answer right
   now to get thesauri ported to the semweb
   ... what's the feedback you've got that makes you confident in this as
   a solution

   al: coming from the other point of view, within dig library community,
   for thesauri alone there is currently no dominant interchange format
   ... so v little reuse of tools etc within that community

   jjc: how much is skos yet another format that won't be a standard

   al: will answer that one later
   ... skos is part of a family of similar systems, thesauri, subject
   heading schemes, glossaries, which have all been developed with walls
   in between them
   ... they all share a lot of common features
   ... another thing in the thesaurus community is that moving beyond
   print environment is still a new thing

   guus: do you have indication how many of the vocabs out there have
   such a structure that can be usefully mapped to skos
   ... eg mesh not something that you can...

   al: i'd say 98%

   DanBri: work that is written-up here [SKOS] has a heritage back to
   other work, including a write-up I did for the W3C Query Workshop in
   1998
   ... vocabulary as written is good
   ... some commentors suggest it could be more term-centric
   ... this is low-hanging fruit
   ... could relate to future Topic Map discussions

   al: i've presented this at a few digital library workshops
   ... the single feature that i've picked up on that people have
   liked...
   ... use of rdf means people can add new features, and extensible, you
   can specialise classes and properties
   ... v attractive as people want to refine thesauri standards to be
   more precise

   phil: i'm kinda concerned that this might be a closed community

   ralph: why are Wordnet and MESH hard examples for SKOS?

   guus: wordnet isn't a conventional thesaurus in the ISO sense
   ... nor mesh
   ... but in the library world, ppl have been making thesauri for ages

   ralph: can we target a specific thesaurus?

   al: sure. we already have gemmet(?) who use a prev version of skos
   ... also uk govt categories
   ... in swad-e we did a cycle of review/test/etc

   ralph: i didn't realise it had been used, wasn't clear from the docs

   al: is linked from the swad-e pages

   <libby> [23]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/thes/

     [23] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/thes/

   <libby> usecases:
   [24]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/thes/usecase.html

     [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/thes/usecase.html

   DanBri: the Digital Library community likes this because RDF allows
   them to use many representation types and specialize
   ... worries me because of a view toward "facet modelling"
   ... I think they don't realize what can be done with OWL
   ... in the RDF & OWL world we can say "subClassOf"
   ... in the thesaurus world they are accustomed to want to say
   'broader' and 'narrower'

   Al:SKOS attempts to not replicate things that are already in OWL

   DanBri: 'denotes' relationship bridges models
   ... [25]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/thes/8.8/
   ... subtle distinction between modelling in RDF and OWL over modelling
   thesaurii -- will be important for us to explain this

     [25] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/thes/8.8/

   al: of whole skos core vocab, the broader property is the most
   important one in there

   david: al, you said the thesaurus community only recently thinking
   beyond print... can you expand?
   ... what are the changes?

   al: single biggest impact of that, working in the print community, you
   have a thesaurus which is a book, terms, record cards...
   ... you fill terms from thesaurus into record card
   ... so term-centric
   ... as people working with this
   ... a problem with that, 'cos in a thesaurus you have two kinds of
   term, preferred descriptors and non-preferred terms
   ... a descriptor is a main label for a concept
   ... ...so confounding of term as unique id vs usage in natural
   language

   david: i'm with you ... but ... so what?

   al: althought a thesaurus is supposed to be concept oriented, in
   practice it is term oriented

   <Benjamin> WN draft might be :
   [26]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wordnet-sw-20040713.h
   tml

     [26] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wordnet-sw-20040713.html

   guus: all these communities have built vocabs, they're v domain
   specific, terms represent agreements within a community
   ... if people commit to this particular terminology

   al: as we move into networked world

   Guus: even within a community there will be conflicts and
   disagreements in usage

   al: where two vocabs collide in networked world, this is a new
   problem/issue to pre-electronic version

   <Guus> sure!

   david: can you make that explicit in the document

   ACTION: Alistair make explicit in skos core doc the fact that you're
   trying to deal with potential for multiple thesauri using the same
   terms, overlap etc., different from paper publishing world

   Steve: this is an area in which Published Subjects might be helpful

   guus: not sure ... that this is specifically work for this tf
   ... happy to see port tf to propose a skos-based convention for
   represnting real-life thesauri in rdf/xml
   ... could be very short
   ... my main problem is ?size of doc / quickstart / primer

   DanBri: note comment from Brad @ Siderean

   phil: you're looking at having multiple independent domain specific
   thesauri, but not at detailed cross domain mappings
   ... are we looking at the problem of translating across domains; e.g.
   medical to something else?

   Al: that's part of SKOS Mapping

   DanBri: faceted browser for Dublin Core was built using a term-centric
   approach
   ... the developer said the term-centric approach was easier to deal
   with, though less elegant

   ralph: this discusssion positions what you've done better for me, in
   space of problem we're trying to solve.
   ... is particularly important to emphasise the point that guus just
   made, perhaps in skos core guide, that the motivation be given right
   up front...
   ... with examples
   ... there's a risk that community rivalry might project from perceived
   qualities of a thesaurus to skos itself
   ... so show several!
   ... so skos would be more persausive if described this way
   ... so important distinction, between basic thesaurus representation
   versus fancy stuff on mapping
   ... get basics out asap, showing some use for thesaurus world without
   getting bogged down in mapping

   phil: suggesting that words on these constraints needed in the doc?

   ralph: not sure we need to write it that explicitly, just make sure we
   work through real use case examples
   ... by implication this shows our priorities

   jjc: felt to me that al's later examples could have been more
   prominent

   guus: i was visiting sound and vision institute
   ... tv and radio archive of the netherlands
   ... dutch
   ... simple textual file, i just want to have a document to give them,
   to translate that
   ... simple use cases are there
   ... another one, dutch royal library, GOO (general object something)
   ... v simple, uses 3 or 4 things from skos
   ... term, broader term, related, ...
   ... give them something to allow their developers something to build
   an rdf representation

   ralph: so speed is important?

   al: totally agree; with skos-core guide, as short and simple as
   possible, ...

   <danbri> [libraries-> web not sw; blogs, instances]

   al: suggestions welcomed

   DanBri: several things going on here; lots of historical context for
   wanting to help migrate things to Semantic Web
   ... librarians want to see their role in Sem Web
   ... many cheaper and scruffier examples being generated
   ... SKOS is interesting because it is right in the middle
   ... it fits with the light-weight data sharing things like FOAF but it
   also fits into the library world
   ... I'd like to see 2 classes of examples; a dump syntax for thesaurii
   and syntaxes that mix into the rest of the RDF world
   ... with the move from print to electronic, what's changed in the
   library world is how they operate
   ... there now are blog operators that create thousands of categories
   that point to a page
   ... hierarchical categories in SKOS have been shown to work nicely
   ... can now show to the library world that their work on thesaurii can
   show up in this new blog category world

   phil: a point about pragmatics
   ... a solution space for semantic tech for library world
   ... as they're potentially an early adopter, could be some pain there
   ... is it within our remit to help with take up
   ... ? there's some responsibility within this team to act as a
   reference point, or respond to, frustrations from early adopters
   ... is that a wg responsibility?

   david: this is our constant problem. charter is v broad. i wouldn't
   say that it is the wrong thing to do. potentially too hard for the
   group as it currently stands.
   ... we could do less of something else we're doing, or else find
   someone out there to help with this

   phil: from my standpoint in industry, when you're trying to become an
   early adopter of this technology, BP seems to be an ideal home for
   channeled frustrations

   jjc: i disagree

   david: a pain registry would be good in theory...
   ... but because i'm sensitive to what this group is being asked to do

   DanBri: the people who participate in WGs are not generic reassignable
   resources; they have some role in their host organization
   ... for example, those of us funded by EU are here to create
   supporting materials
   ... when this goes out to WD, the WG has the responsiblity to respond
   to public comment

   ralph: SWBPD wg charter is, for better/worse, v broad
   ... i view the intent of the charter of this wg to help the real world
   use the sw tech
   ... migrate to it, etc
   ... we can't afford to take on every user community whose pain we feel
   ... but we should be confident that everything we work on addresses
   some genuine user community problem
   ... what i've been pushing here is for the materials that we deliver
   to show the real world problem that is being addressed
   ... depending on the prob, we may or may not be able to demonstrate we
   solved it all
   ... so be clear about what probs we want to be seen as solving
   ... agree w/ phil that some of that is needed, but also +1 david's
   point re resource limitations

   david: ralph likes to (rightfully I think!) pick up the concept of use
   cases... If a discussion comes up, Ralph will remind us to define a
   use case, also in document review. This is a really good idea. When we
   talk about what use cases we're going to do, the same short list comes
   up; It's always FOAF and DOAP. We have a short list of a common
   candidates for use cases

   <DanBri>: [DOAP vs DOPE]
   drug ontology thing

   <libby> DOPE: [27]http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/swc/dope.html

     [27] http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/swc/dope.html

   david: if we use same list across all our note candidates...
   ... eg. we could look back and say, 'we did xyz to bring foaf into
   mainstream fold, ...
   ... so we should probably come up with list of these use cases

   jjc: back to phil's earlier point... i think it is important that we
   don't do support of individual users
   ... ralph talked about communities not individuals
   ... we do latter on jena-dev list

   phil: I agree

   David: I see indivs supported in IG; communities supported by WG

   steve: re topicmaps angle... this skos looks like a v interesting
   project
   ... collab, make sure whatever we do in the rdf/tm tf is consistent

   al: thanks, agree; Kal Ahmed, ...[missed names] have been active w/
   skos
   ... re Published Subject Indicator, currently discussing whether to
   have a PSI property in SKOS
   ... re spec document, people seem ok with that, concerns have been
   with the guide document
   ... guide is at an early stage, built from our wiki content
   ... feasible to publish for end of november

   guus: more discussion tommorrow?

   al: might be useful to run new features of skos core past the WG
   ... because of the subject indicator discussion

   guus: so i hear two issues; 1st is potential examples, 2nd is to talk
   about topic maps [& denotes property]
   ... ie. open issues within task force; alongside discussion of rel'n
   to topicmaps tf

   ralph: david commented about standard use casees
   ... guus has emphasised that there are use cases; please lets pick
   some.
   ... concern i have with foaf is that it is simple and intuitive
   ... but foaf is already developed, and rdf friendly

   guus: foaf is a description template, not a vocab

   ralph: not clear useful to list foaf as a skos use case
   ... anything we do, there's some community out there, who we should
   know about and whoese needs we should address

   al: I could've written this by showing classic print thesauri followed
   by skos version; could do that, but foaf developer folks wouldn't
   follow. There are different communities who need different kinds of
   example.

   guus: who is main community? digital library?

   al: point is that this is skos core guide... is that the right title
   for the right document?
   ... another point is a primer specifically for using skos w/ thesauri

   <RalphS> "Expressing Your Thesaurus in the Semantic Web"

   guus: how about not having skos in title

   Steve: not just thesaurii; also controlled vocabularies, subject
   headings

   (various proposals uncaptured; discussion of whether just thesauri
   ...)

   all: great work alistair!

   <DanBri>: RalphS, I believe the intro to
   [28]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wordnet-sw-20040713.h
   tml explains how SKOS, Wordnet, and RDF/OWL fit together. Would be
   great if you could review that bit of the doc in particular.

     [28] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wordnet-sw-20040713.html

Wordnet TF

   Guus: history: history wordnet in rdf several times - but none
   endorsed by princeton
   ... phase one - wordnet datastructures in RDF/OWL - no changes, make
   it so that everytime wornet is updated, get an rdf/owl version too
   ... Brian has been working on a draft:
   [29]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wordnet-sw-20040713.h
   tml
   ... details to be worked on: wordnet has synsets, a group of terms.
   many linguistic relationships between the synsets and the terms
   ... main problem with the phase one conversion is lack of people's
   time: more work on the document and then liase with princeton
   ... Christianne Fellbaum someone was definitely interested in working
   on this
   ... which maybe enough

     [29] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wordnet-sw-20040713.html

   <RalphS> [ WordNet Task Force description is
   [30]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/tf ]

     [30] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/tf

   guus: issues: what shoudl the base uri be for wordnet; how shoudl
   updates be handled? and how shoudl words be repreesnted
   ... this is the only document we have really. focus discussion on how
   to get more effort into here

   danbri: everyone wants to do the exciting stuff not phase one stuff:
   this is hard wor

   guus: would love to do it if he had the time

   danbri: good for all to review the introduction to this...easy to
   confuse the differnt tasks, e.g. could skos grow to address any of the
   wordnet tasks?
   ... some of these are research questions e.g. similarity of structures
   between thesaurus and a lexical database

   jeremy: maybe just a few terms to connect those...maybe in a separate
   namespace

   brian: issue in modelling wordnet is : what is it you're modelling - a
   lexical concept, a sequence of characters?

   <RalphS> [Christiane attended our 27-May WG meeting to talk about
   WordNet-SWBP collaboration; see
   [31]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004May/0149.ht
   ml ]

     [31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004May/0149.html

   brian: people using it in RDF want a large set of classes not "the
   word bicycle"

   danrbi: yes - two traditions

   guus: we decided to do the lexical one first and the classes one in
   phase 2

   some text from guus: [32]http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/public/wn.txt

     [32] http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/public/wn.txt

   jeremy: we could just discuss the resource issue?

   david: do it with skos?

   jeremy: complexifying stage 1

   guus: problem is too many representations and people like a common
   reference

   ralph: has princeton endorsed any rdf reepresentations?

   benjamin: decker one linked form their page

   david: but none of these are complete representations

   <danbri> [they'll list anything that uses wordnet; they don't QA those
   links]

   jeremy: could a grad student take this document through the process?

   guus: it's not just a grad student exercise....

   ralph: but we could help answer some of teh harder questions
   ... any candidates? even at princeton maybe?

   guus: might have a candidate, btu would need a group to ask questions
   of

   ralph: a student might drive the group by asking specific questions

   david: do we gain anything as a wg by using skos for
   this/investigating this link

   guus: doesn;t think there's much of a link betwewen skos and stage 1

   david: librarian case - their terms have a lexical route, they might
   benefit

   guus: librarians and wordnet are distinct communities
   ... wants to get something out fast

   aliman: agrees that 1st step, skos not appropriate. pragmatic point -
   people don;t want two solutions for one problem: cleaner at first
   anyway to offer one solution

   danbri: agrees with that. also peopel confuse teh powers of skos and
   the powers of rdf, lots of education to do there. cobining the two
   will confuse matters even more.
   ... already acknowldged in teh docs that these could become closer
   later, leave it at that
   ... wordnet is a model of the english language - work in other places
   to generalize the model to other languages e.g. euroowordnet, japanese

   danbri: be exiting to have this language neurtral stuff later. plenty
   of simple work for now

   ralph: generalization can make it less attractive to a particular
   community; specialization in documents helps us more in deployment

   <danbri>
   ([33]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/talks/200404-nict/Overview-2.htm
   l I plugged wordnet (class model) to NICT folks nr Kyoto)

     [33] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/talks/200404-nict/Overview-2.html

   guus: we just say: use this one (with princeton) - and not say why
   ercept ina background document

   danbri: "use this one" worries me - as there are naturally 2
   ... you (guus) are talking about adding to the lexical version with
   classes later....

   guus: class representation is too difficult, one taht we all agree
   on...

   danbri: make it a brutish one

   guus: the revisions are the issue
   ... agreement in the TF telecon is to work wioth princeton to help
   with representation at the lexical level plus discuss with them
   transformations tools that could help with different versiosn
   ... in the maintenance phase the schema doesn;t change, just the
   content; for the rdf classes version the schema does change

   ralph: do we know the mechanics of how they update the database?

   danbri: they do a release every 6 months or so

   <aharth> ftp download at ftp://ftp.cogsci.princeton.edu/pub/wordnet/

   brian: 4things to do in TF: basic schema; talk to people whove done
   other represerntations and involve them; needs to interact with
   princeton, getting them to include it in their distribution etc;
   finally build some tools to create the RDF representation
   ... all depends on the first one
   ... lots of work in this TF above producing the document

   guus: first step is critical but not the only thing

   brian apologises for not having got further with this. happy for
   someone to pick it up and finish it; otherwise brian will find the
   time to get a first cut by the end of the year

   danbri: q for brian: do you ahve a sense of how much more work needs
   ot be done on the document before a pre-working draft release of teh
   document. impacts on interacting with other producers

   brian: betweeb 2 weeks (grad student) and end Dec (brian, given his
   time contraints)

   ralph: would it be harmful to toss a coin to pick an existing
   representation?
   ... would like to keep the tf around until we get more resources
   rather than suspend it

   guus started with the swiss one... [scribe missed name]

   scribe: we're very close to that one

   danbri: my version is not a lexical version, can't use that

   <libby>[[
   - KID Group, Univ. of Neuchatel, OWL representation
   [34]http://taurus.unine.ch/GroupHome/knowler/wordnet.html
   ]]
   [35]http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/public/wn.txt

     [34] http://taurus.unine.ch/GroupHome/knowler/wordnet.html
     [35] http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/public/wn.txt

   <danbri> [as are half the others; this WD-draft is as good as it gets,
   I think]

   <danbri>
   [36]http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think6.html
   ... article by Uche coding to Melnik's version

     [36] http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think6.html

   <libby> [Univ. of Neuchatel version is the one the TF drafts are close
   to]

   ralph: perhaps there is soemthign in jeremy's suggestion for a grad
   student to do

   guus: steve - is there a link between PSIs and this work?

   steve: yep

   guus: could use these as publisheed subjects

   steve: yep

   <RalphS> i.e. if there is content that Guus and Brian already have
   that is not yet represented in a new version of the Working Draft, it
   sounds like there's a place for an editorial resource to help

   danbri: might be interested in contacting say uche, re contacting
   developers

   guus: Univ. of Neuchatel version is a more complete version of the
   melnik version

   danbri: would like a few words on the spec about lexical vs class
   representation - could do this text

   ralph: design rationale - useful but not essential...

   guus: would be nice

   ralph: basic design would not wait for the design rationale

   brian: danbri's offer to interface with develeopers in this area would
   be very useful

   ACTION: brian and danbri need to talk about what need to do for
   Wordnet document to be good enough

   guus: review the decisions that need to be taken on this document
   tomoorw? 11.30 -1

   [missed brian's comment sorfry]

   danbri: worried about not knwoing when we've got it right

   guus: this what the working draft will do
   ... considers all the other parts as very important, incl class
   representation, how to use the lingistic representtaion for annotation
   of images, say

   <RalphS> [yes, publication of the working draft will get visibility
   for the design which then gets feedback on the correctness]

   --break for lunch

ADTF

   guus: people want to see showcase applications that show added value
   of the technology
   ... some nontechnical examples to make that point

   <RalphS>
   [37]http://esw.w3.org/mt/esw/archives/cat_applications_and_demos.html

     [37] http://esw.w3.org/mt/esw/archives/cat_applications_and_demos.html

   guus: semantic web challenge 2003: AKTive Space, DOPE, Building
   Finder, Museum

   <RalphS> [ADTF description is
   [38]http://esw.w3.org/topic/SemanticWebBestPracticesTaskForceOnApplica
   tionsAndDemos ]

     [38] http://esw.w3.org/topic/SemanticWebBestPracticesTaskForceOnApplicationsAndDemos

   guus: things in common: integrate different large data sources,
   RDF/OWL used for syntactical interoperability
   ... storage and access issues the main things to worry about
   ... schema mapping required
   ... use of owl:sameAs was an issue
   ... information integration and presentation is an issue
   ... unfortunately only in-house because it's about computer science
   ...DOPE: very typical based on a thesaurus
   ... uses EMTREE thesaurus based on mesh
   ... 5M Medline abstracts, 500k full-text articles
   ... disambiguation of search terms an issue
   ... use case: search for information about aspirin
   ... medicine is important area, professionally used
   ... won a technology award recently
   ... BuildingFinder:> USC
   ... use various sources (satellite images, roadmap info, address
   information)
   ... BuildingFinder: reverse address lookup not possible in some eu
   countries
   ... image alignment algorithms
   ... point to a satellite image and find out the name of the person who
   lives there
   ... combination of structural and image processing techniques
   (multimedia info)
   ... Finnish museums on the web
   ... BuildingFinder: unfortunately in finnish
   ... weblog providing us already with some decent material, maybe not
   sufficient

   <RalphS> [Longwell would be another good addition to
   [39]http://esw.w3.org/mt/esw/archives/cat_applications_and_demos.html
   ; [40]http://simile.mit.edu/longwell/ ]

     [39] http://esw.w3.org/mt/esw/archives/cat_applications_and_demos.html
     [40] http://simile.mit.edu/longwell/

   <RalphS> -> [41]http://atlas.isi.edu/semantic/servlet/SemanticServlet
   BuildingFinder

     [41] http://atlas.isi.edu/semantic/servlet/SemanticServlet

   libby: presents weblog
   ... how to get rdf descriptions out of the weblog
   ... weblog started out of part of the swad-e project weblog
   ... plan to use the weblog as part of the skos effort
   ... application page: title, uri, descriptions about projects
   ... who to contact, more information, categories
   ... 17 applications in the weblog already
   ... bit cumbersome to fill in the template
   ... because of spans in the template it's possible to use GRDDL and
   XSLT to extract the information
   ... uses doap (description of a project) vocab to encode information
   about the projects
   ... mixed-and-matched with dc and foaf

   <danbri> ah, <html xmlns="[42]http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

     [42] http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml

   <danbri> <head
   profile="[43]http://swordfish.rdfweb.org/discovery/2004/06/adtf/#">

     [43] http://swordfish.rdfweb.org/discovery/2004/06/adtf/

   <danbri> ...in head of
   [44]http://esw.w3.org/mt/esw/archives/cat_applications_and_demos.html

     [44] http://esw.w3.org/mt/esw/archives/cat_applications_and_demos.html

   libby: uses swed: ns for categories

   <danbri> DOAP, see [45]http://usefulinc.com/doap

     [45] http://usefulinc.com/doap

   <danbri> (not to be confused with DOPE?)

   libby: swed (semantic web environment and directory): facetted browser

   <RalphS>  SWED is at [46]http://www.swed.org.uk/swed/ ]

     [46] http://www.swed.org.uk/swed/

   libby: contains environmental information
   ... SWED browser worked quite nicely for the semweb applications and
   demos
   ... SWED uses SKOS to describe categories
   ... categorization by name, and other properties
   ... build-in harvester can be used to add data from remote sites

   <danbri> example of Redland w/ SKOS and DOAP descriptions... [another
   great swad-europe deliverable :-]

   <RalphS> [I wonder if SWED has any provenance yet]

   libby: possible to add data and filter on properties
   ... creation of records about projects could be done by the
   application authors themselves

   <jjc> [47]http://swordfish.rdfweb.org:8080/adtf/ is top level uri for
   what libby is presenting

     [47] http://swordfish.rdfweb.org:8080/adtf/

   libby: then harvested
   ... doap uses freshmeat categories for software projects

   jjc: question about harvesting and control policy

   libby: possible to trust a certain domain name

   ralphs: maintaining provenance data?

   libby: really uses SWED as an application, keeps track of trusted
   sources and other sources
   ... jen golbeck's work is related

   davidw: difficult for users to accept is presentation of raw uri's
   ... we are providing human-readable labels
   ... non-technical users focus on longish uris

   ralphs: that's what rdfs:label is for

   danbri: truncation mabye?

   <danbri> [aside: recent sobering experience re slipping into geek
   assumptions; the woman sat next to me on plane on friday hadn't heard
   of iPods/MP3, and I found myself realising I was suprised]

   ralphs: in this case truncation doesn't work

   Guus: OpenDirectory is the closest existing categorization

   davidw: open directory is used for categorization, but is not really
   appropriate

   <RalphS> [yes, left-most truncation on the DOAP category example Libby
   was projecting contains the only human-interpretable information; that
   freshmeat and sourceforge were part of the classification]

   libby: need labels and uris

   davidw: having demos that are compelling to end users tucana is
   interested it

   aliman: got a student who's looking at a wiki tool for building a
   thesaurus

   guus: demos page is a demonstration in itself
   ... how to operate this?

   <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to seek confirmation that we're happy with
   community project self-description (trust ppl not to be vain
   selfpromoting dorks)

   guus: 18 new applications in the semantic web challenge
   ... what areas are missing?

   danbri: what's the motivation for making vocabularies owl dl friendly?

   guus: most applications use rdf and owl:sameAs
   ... maybe it's too early for owl applications, takes two years for
   applications to use new stuff

   jjc: maybe have options on what semantic web technologies are used in
   the applications

   ralphs: maybe a bit technical
   ... what's the process of maintaining the software package?

   <danbri> [for listing RDF vs OWL DL vs Full etc., I find narrative
   content ("what we did was...:") much much more valuable than simple
   checkboxes ("we use OWL DL.").]

   guus: later on maybe do a survey, keep the barrier low for data entry
   ... have to depend on ongoing projects that showcase applications

   <RalphS> saying what technologies are used is also liable to be
   out-of-date; will someone remember to update the "Now uses full OWL"
   entry when they go beyond the DL subset?

   guus: owl and xml datatype discussion

XML Schema Liaison

   <RalphS> [XSCH Task Force description is
   [48]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Apr/0125.ht
   ml ]

     [48] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Apr/0125.html

   jjc: issues the task force is addressing came up in the webont and RDF
   Core wg
   ... two questions about how to use XML Schema datatypes with RDF
   ... current situation is a compromise between what's ideal and what's
   possible
   ... user-defined datatypes
   ... issue here that there's no agreement what uris to use for
   user-defined datatypes
   ... when are two type literals the same
   ... issue here: are 0 as a float and 0 as an integer the same?
   ... rdf and owl testcases don't include testcases on this question
   ... datatypes come from xml schema, not part of the semantic web
   activity

   <RalphS> [JJC discussing
   [49]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Oct/att-0049/x
   sh-sw-note.html ]

     [49] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Oct/att-0049/xsh-sw-note.html

   jjc: some response from the xml schema wg
   ... need the buy-in of the xml community, but need to progress as well
   ... xquery/xslt are also working with the xml schema datatype
   ... a lot of w3c groups are potentially involved

   <Guus> Related issue: numeric ranges require iser-defined datatypes:
   [50]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Apr/0066.ht
   ml

     [50] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Apr/0066.html

   ralphs: producing a sketch that people can comment on maybe a good
   idea

   jjc: possible solutions;
   ... the DAML+OIL solution works for datatypes that has a name
   ... using name attribute to fragID the xml schema descriptions
   ... however, not in conformance with RFC2396 and xml schema mime type
   ... for sw people, this solution is better
   ...alternative: xml schema component designators wd
   ... powerful solution to navigate in the schema using xpointer
   ... however, quite complex
   ... possible solution: use both id and name

   ralphs: it's important to distinguish between a concept and a
   particular description of the concept

   danbri: made the conflation using uri's for identification and getting
   the description by dereferencing the uri

   jjc: xml refers to syntactic objects, on semantic web the resource
   that denotes itself is interesting
   ... uri of a description is the uri of the thing described

   ralphs: other ways of constructing an uri: bnode xpointer scheme?

   jjc: both the id solution and the xscd solution could work
   ... next item: comparison of values
   ... comparison between float's and int's
   ... simplest possible solution: all the types are different
   ... but somewhat counterintuitive
   ... long and int are derived from the same primitive type

   guus: number datatype would help

   davidw: we have super datatype of number

   <RalphS> XML Schema 'decimal' type is
   [51]http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#decimal

     [51] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#decimal

   davidw: implemented in product because of customer demand

   <RalphS> XML Schema 'float' type is
   [52]http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#float

     [52] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#float

   jeffp: what are the current answers from the xml datatype spec?

   jjc: no consensus within the xml schema group regarding the issues
   ... the document should be clear about that though.
   [53]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Nov/att-0092/0
   4-num-hierarchy.png

     [53] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Nov/att-0092/04-num-hierarchy.png

   jeffp: is it a subsumption hierarchy or definition hierarchy?

   jjc: two extremes: all types are different vs. strong mathematical
   representation

   <danbri> [ context:
   [54]http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20041012/#extendedte
   sts ]

     [54] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20041012/#extendedtests

   jjc: xpath 2.0 documents mention the eq operator that says "2.0 eq 2"
   is true
   ... xslt have typed literal objects and operations can be done on
   these literals

   guus: what next steps need to be taken?

   jjc: key question: publish a document without xml community?
   ... continue to work on the document and then ask for input on an
   editor's draft
   ... timeline could be distribution to the other wg's before chrismas

   <RalphS> [I was unaware of the XML Schema Component Designators work
   -- looking at it now, it does appear to be a strong connection with
   this datatype issue]

   danbri: relationship to DAWG/SPARQL and xquery operators?; see
   [55]http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20041012/#extendedte
   sts

     [55] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20041012/#extendedtests

   <RalphS> [XML Schema: Component Designators

   <RalphS> [56]http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xmlschema-ref-20040716/

     [56] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xmlschema-ref-20040716/

   <RalphS> W3C Working Draft 16 July 2004

   <RalphS> ]

   jjc: following the xslt 2.0 is more likely to be in line with the dawg
   group

   <Zakim> RalphS, you wanted to say that mathematicians will laugh if we
   adopt the viewpoint that xsd:decimal has a disjoint value space from
   xsd:float

   ACTION: jjc review SPARQL WD re
   [57]http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20041012/#extendedte
   sts

     [57] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20041012/#extendedtests

HTML TF

   [Ben Adida calls in for this session]

   ->
   [58]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Nov/0003.ht
   ml [HTML] Status for RDF/XHTML [BenA]

     [58] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Nov/0003.html

   Ben: RDF-in-XHTML-TF has been in existence since 1999
   ... users include FOAF, TrackBack, GEO-URL
   ... Dublin Core, and more recently Creative Commons
   ... main issue is how to embed RDF triples in HTML
   ... have been focussing now on the sections that are dependent on the
   HTML WG's current timetable
   ... working in parallel on making sure we understand our requirements

   <benadida> [59]http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdf-in-xml.html

     [59] http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdf-in-xml.html

   Ben: ... there are items in the 27 May 2003 document that we are no
   longer sure still make sense
   ... e.g. direct embedding of RDF/XML syntax

   [Tom Baker calls in at this point]

   Ralph: the problem is complicated because at least 2 WGs need to
   cooperate, and possibly 3.
   ... also, the HTML WG's charter does not allow them to request certain
   changes of XML schema (for example)
   ... Jeremy sent proposals to make RDF A simpler
   ... need to offer proposals to HTML WG before last call

   Jeremy: initial review (from 1 week ago) some issues came up
   ... have done implementation of RDF A
   ... serious issue: RDF A is too complicated
   ... some of the rules are too complicated
   ... the number of different ways of representing a triple in RDF A is
   432
   ... if you run examples from spec you get more triples than the author
   said

   Ralph: the spec needs more work either to represent authors intent, or
   to fix triples
   ... opportunity: the words in the spec could be simpler
   ... and could fix triples at same time

   Jeremy: some clear simplifications but doesn't go far enough l ...
   ... more functionality ...

   <Ralph> ->
   [60]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2004Nov
   /0001.html Jeremy's simplification of RDF/A

     [60] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2004Nov/0001.html

   Ben:it's good because can represent more complex triples, literals
   ... and an RDF triple in an HTML clickable way
   ... without duplicating anything in markup
   ... which is good property of GRDDL

   <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to check familiarity with new W3C Compound
   Documents WG

   Danbri: new WG at W3C Compound Documents

   Ben: lot's of important techinical detais re RDF A - please take a
   look!
   ... Now get some initial feedback asap for html WG
   ... look at 3 line statement from Ben's email
   ... important message to HTML WG: we';re moving in the right
   direction.

   Ralph: This meeting output: statement that Ben put in his mail from
   today ...

   <benadida> statement: We find RDF/A to be a big step forward and
   encourage the HTML WG to use it in place of the 22 July
   MetaInformation module. Our forthcoming detailed comments and
   suggestions on RDF/A are intended to perfect this work in fulfilling
   the long-standing needs of the RDF deployment community to embed
   semantic web data within HTML documents.

   Ben: Can we all endorse that statement?

   Guus: are willing to make this direction statement?

   ralph: what questions does the WG want to ask of the TF before
   deciding on the endorsement?

   Phil: direction is superb
   ... pragmatics - concerned about potential abuse within XHTML user
   community
   ... question need to push forward incolusion of metadata for XHTML 2
   ...rather than hold back and look at richer set of use cases
   ... concerned about the potential abuse of RDF/A within HTML, perhaps
   focus on RDF/XML embedding
   ... use of metadata inside XHTML may be misinterpreted by general
   public
   ... if I were writing metadata in web page now, would do it to drive
   search engines.

   Guus: this is important point, but outside scope of this WG

   Ben: what do you consider abuse?

   ACTION: Phil to write up concerns on email

   Danbri: how strongly are we pushing this as as a new RDF syntax?
   ... originally to handle FOAF namespace ...
   ... hoped that the FOAF namespace document could be validated for RDF
   content ...
   ... so do we support the practise that e..g. the FOAF RDF description
   be written as embedded in an XHTML document?
   ... I.e. should we write ontologies in RDF A?

   <RalphS> [me says No!]

   <danbri> [in which case, 1 original FOAF use case remains unmet]

   Ben: goal is to produce alternative serialisation for RDF ...

   Ralph: goal?

   Ben: requirement to embed arbitrarily complex RDF statements in XHTML
   ....to satisfy this requirement is a goal.

   <RalphS> [but it would be an interesting exercise to see how much of
   the expression of an ontology in RDF/A could be done]

   Guus: meant to e used mainly for annotation purposes ..

   Jeremy: RDF A IS a new RDF syntax ...

   Ralph: but this in itself is not a goal.
   ... i.e. implies something wrong with existing syntaxes.
   ... The result is to create a new syntax
   .... but this is soultion to original requirement.
   ... Use RDF A to express an OWL ontology? No, not a goal or
   recommendation.

   Danbri: what about my original FOAF use case?
   ... I want a single resource for both humans and machines
   ... my use case was to write a single document at my namespace that
   could be both presentation and RDF without content negotiation

   <DavidW> RDF/XML has known problems as an XML vocabulary and as a
   serialization format

   Phil: This new variant of RDF will become the defacto standard syntax
   ...

   Guus: can people outside the TF support positive statement for RDFA

   danbri: on the fence, wants to talk to compound docs WG

   SteveP: opening a can of worms ... lead to trouble
   ... but in the mandate of the TF support for complete RDF
   ... think RDF subset for simple annotations sufficient.
   ... the problem is that the requirement was for complete RDF support,
   not "just enough" to write metadata _about_ a document

   ACTION: Steve to email on concerns for RDF in XHTML

   David: should not treat RDF/XML as sacrosanct
   ... problems with it ... we have an opportunity to recognise that RDF
   is to concept, NOT the syntax
   ... this proposal leads to use cases for HTML authors ... and more
   ... would rather clean this up than see RDF/XML fixed, or RDF/XML in
   XHTML.

   Danbri: In RDF Core, test cases used rigorously
   ... worried that design work so far happened without test case
   infrastructure ...

   ralph: we have an action to express all RDF test cases ...

   Ben: I have an action to make sure this works with creative commons
   and with FOAF ...

   <RalphS> [make sure that DanBri differentiates between users of FOAF
   and the FOAF namespace document]

   David: we have to get formal comments to HTML WG before use case work.

   Guus: very positive about this work, with reservations about test
   cases
   ... but if going to happen, then happy.

   Jeremy: political goal to be positive.

   Guus: propose to make general positive statement, with technical
   caveats

   <danbri> me: "It's great and it's useful and it's progress... but it
   doesn't address my use case (FOAF namespace documentation: RDF/XML
   inside XHTML); I want to know how that'll be progressed. Shoudl we
   begin a conversation w/ Compound Documents WG?"

   Guus: add wording about test cases

   David concurs

   Danbri: fulfil SOME of the needs; who should do test cases?

   Ralph: ask them to do all of our test cases

   <danbri> maybe 'many of the...'

   Danbri: they should be using test case driven framework.

   Ralph: don't want them to feel that all test cases must be met.

   Guus: rephrase the statement?

   ACTION: David to reword the statement on RDF A to HTML WG.

   Jeremy: they need DIFFERENT test cases
   ... RDF Core test cases are a starting point ... may not want to use
   all ...

   Danbri: framework for doing it using NTRIPLES.

   Ben: HTML WG meets next week ... not all will agree to RDFA
   ... if impose too constraints now, they may revert to metainformaiton
   approach
   ... can we include test cases in detailed comment s to come?

   Guus: in fact test cases are implicit in any spec
   ... so can leave this out of comment

   <DavidW> Try this one: We find RDF/A to be a big step forward and
   encourage the HTML WG to use it in place of the 22 July
   MetaInformation module. Our forthcoming detailed comments and
   suggestions on RDF/A are intended to perfect this work in fulfilling
   long-standing needs of the RDF deployment community to embed semantic
   web data within HTML documents.

   Guus: proposed to send this as comment to HTML WG

   second Jeremy

   motion carried

   ACTION: Ben to send this statement to HTML WG via email

VM TF

   Guus: outline current docs and issues please.

   <RalphS> [VM Task Force description is
   [61]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/ ]

     [61] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/

   Tom: sent out timetable ...

   <RalphS> [Tom's timetable is in
   [62]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Oct/0147.ht
   ml ]

     [62] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Oct/0147.html

   Tom: put document on list before holidays
   ... Move to CVS for finer editing by January
   ... First public release mid Feb
   ... Other section try to describe some principles of good practise
   ... then third section discussing unclear issues
   ... After discussion ... there are some points could be added
   ... Do we have large scalse vocab to use as example of good practise ?
   ... or discuss this in open issues?
   ... but before getting into issues - is the timetable realistic, does
   the outline look good?
   ... aim to quickly flesh out the draft with low hanging fruit
   ... agree on main points ... then begin refinement.

   Guus: timeschedule?
   ... ambitious but feasible (good to be ambitious)
   ... also fits well with charter for TF to produce results within
   2-4months

   David: there has been interest re ontaria
   ... interest in evaluating ontologies posted on ontaria against VM
   recommendations
   ... and posting compliance ont he site
   ... i.e. this is the kind of use this thing will be put to.

   Tom: compliance is a heavy word
   ... we are trying to get agreement on some basic principles
   ... to evaluate ontologies against these principles could be good but
   ... we are talking about quite geenral principles ...

   Guus: this note does say anything about 'compliance' but customers may
   ask about 'compliance' ...

   ralph: this WG is producing docs with are 'best practises'
   ... whatever can be mechanically tested will be.

   Danbri: part of this TF leaving machine readable evidence for
   management of a vocab
   ... but machines cannot tell if statements are true ot not
   ... wories me when people look for a big pile of 'good' or 'bad'
   ontologies ...

   Guus: N.B. we are talking about vocabulary management
   ... proper usage criteria
   ... we can endorse this without going into a good/bad debate.

   David: there is good/bad URIs and issues without going near whether an
   ontology is itself good for a specific job ...

   <Tbaker> agree with David

   Jeremy: can these principles say: use RDFS label?
   ... and re 'conformance' this says rec rather than note ... would
   rather not go there.

   David: we can put out a series of good ideas as a best practise group
   ... without taling about compliance
   ... but as Guus says, people may choose to evaluate compliance
   relative to our note
   ... even though it is not a W3C recommendation.

   David withdraws the word 'compliance' :)

   Tom: a suggestion came up to have an example vocab that provides
   example of good practise points
   ... examples of different types of vocabulary
   ... describe FOAF, DC, SKOS, .... illustrate range of vocab tyupes
   ... pointer to how management is done for these vocabs
   ... still not clear to do about the really large ontologies
   ... there are some big vocabs that do not use URIrefs
   ... what should we use re large complex ontology as example?
   ... e.g. FAO fisheries, wordent, NCI ..

   guus: we take some simple vocab for section 2
   ... want to keep as simple as poss.

   Tom: so OK to feature simpler vocabs in section 2
   ... leave high end onts for esction three?

   Guus: exactly.
   ... which vocabs on the table as examples?

   Tom: FOAF DC SKOS Wordnet
   ... + maybe major medical/life sciences vocab
   ... Wordent section 2/3?

   Guus: FOAF excellent example

   Danbri: good example, shares stuff with DC ...

   Guus: also nice to hive more terminology style vocab
   ... e.g. FAO thesaurus
   ... I.e. maintained RDF representation by owning authority

   Danrbi: two classes of thing to do:
   ... 1. interview people on how they managed older vocabs
   ... 2. manage specifically in relation to RDF representations ...

   Guus: my preference would be to choose something that is already
   expressed in RDF by its owning organization

   Alistair: opportunity to pick something that already has a history of
   evolution

   David: spoke to NCI guys last week
   ... have 5-6 guys
   ... + chief editor who merges by hand changes
   ... process is painful
   ... want standard tools to handle change ... i.e. real world problem
   ... difficult for large onts edited by multiple peoplle
   ... so people appreciate guidance on how to markup an ontology
   ... to support change management.

   <Zakim> DavidW, you wanted to ask Tom whether the VM TF has addressed
   guidance for multi-user editing and merging of edits for very large
   ontologies.

   Guus: any more on sample vocabs?

   Tom: for people coming new to W3C
   ... want to collect issues into one place
   ... this note would be helpful if could summarise in 2-3 paras
   ... what the major papers are, what there scope is etc.

   Guus: agree

   ACTION: VM TF to compile list of sample vocabs for the note ...

   Guus: Candidates FOAF, DC, and one thesaurus style vocab (missing
   candidate)
   ... look into candidate for this ...

   Ralph: we need to find someone who'll keep maintaining things in good
   way ...

   Jeremy: also need to choose example with good modelling, even though
   modelling is not the focus.

   Steve: (on published subjects)
   ... what about vocabs where don't use URIs ...

   <Zakim> RalphS, you wanted to say that in the VM case the only reason
   to push to an external example (e.g. non-FOAF) is to engage some
   specific community

   ralph: whatever we pick for third, need to be reasonably confident
   about their current practise, or that they will follow our best
   practise
   ... OASIS may be possibility ...

   <RalphS> [specifically, if we can nudge OASIS in a better direction by
   involving their Published Subjects in this work, that might improve
   the world]

   Jeremy: published subjects good if meet quality threshold.

   Steve: may meet in DC at XML conf 2004 week of nov 14-

   Guus: summarising:
   ... positive feedback on outline and timeschedule
   ... endorsemenet of using DC and FOAF as examples

   ACTION: VM TF with help from Guus to find thesaurus like example and
   high end onts to section 3

   Tom: final point: appreciate help setting up wiki.

   danbri volunteers

   <RalphS> [I accept the actions listed by my name in
   [63]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Oct/0150.ht
   ml ]

     [63] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Oct/0150.html

OEP Task Force

   Guus issue to discuss: how do we get additional people involved in
   some task forces? e.g. Sandpiper
   ... according to current W3C policy it is difficult to ask people to
   become invited experts from companies

   Ralph: Reminds all members of W3C economics and the benefits of
   joining. There are good reasons not to invite experts from non-member
   companies unless they have skills we specifically need and cannot get
   in another manner.
   ... Invited experts may also join when an organization's joining is in
   progress.

   Guus: Good for everyone to know policy.

   Deb: This particular request was from a very small company. Joining
   may be difficult for very small companies.

   Ralph has an action to discuss this with the company.

   David: Companies are responsible for making the decision to join or
   justify the reason not to.

   Guus: Editors of documents do not have to be members of WGs or W3C.

   Ralph: Not sure that is a good precident to set.

   David: Since Ralph has an action, we should move onto OEP business.

   Deb: There are other companies who are in the same position. Should we
   generate our Note with them as authors, but not members?
   ... OWL Time would be another note that would benefit from the
   involvement of individuals who are from non-Member companies

   Jeremy: I have a preference that editors and authors be bound by the
   patent policy.

   <jjc>
   [64]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2004Nov
   /0004.html was msg from DanC I mentioned half hour ago

     [64] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2004Nov/0004.html

   Guus: More about the priorities for the OEP work?

   Deb: Reviewing [65]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/

     [65] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/

Other Topics, Day 2 planning

   Deb: regarding ADTF -- suggest that there be a connection to
   SemWebCentral site

   <dlm> [66]http://www.semwebcentral.org/

     [66] http://www.semwebcentral.org/

   Guus: SemWebCentral is more oriented to tools

   Deb: yes, but it's a general resource for the community

   Libby: I was not aware of SemWebCentral -- I will take a look at it

   Guus: candidate for TF breakouts tomorrow are: HTML, WordNet, XSCH,
   ... Topic Maps (to draft a TF description)

   DanBri: maybe this WG should work with the TAG on hash vs. slash

   Guus: hash vs. slash might be on agenda for Technical Plenary

Day Two

RDF/OWL and Topic Maps

   <pepe> Short background reading for RDF/TM session:
   [67]http://www.ontopia.net/tmp/RDFTM-TF-DoW.html

     [67] http://www.ontopia.net/tmp/RDFTM-TF-DoW.html

   Steve presents [68]http://www.ontopia.net/tmp/RDF-TM-interop.ppt

     [68] http://www.ontopia.net/tmp/RDF-TM-interop.ppt

   Ralph: will this be a stable URI?

   Steve: no, I will put it someplace more permanent after I correct the
   typos

   Steve: Extreme Markup staged "confrontation" between Eric Miller and
   Eric Freese (in 2002) was unfortunate in that it created a perception
   of a rivalry

   [slide 4] TMCL is Topic Maps Constraint Language

   XTM - XML Topic Maps

   HyTM - SGML-based Topic Maps exchange syntax

   LTM - text-based "linear Topic Maps" syntax, developed by Ontopia

   Topic Maps were developed while trying to identify the underlying
   semantics of a back-of-book index

   RDF is resource-centric, Topic Maps are subject-centric

   Steve: but with a subtle shift in the meaning of "resource", this
   apparent difference becomes more dialectic than diametric

   <danbri> [69]http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=seamless
   [[Having no seams: seamless stockings.

     [69] http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=seamless

   <danbri> Perfectly consistent: a seamless plot in the novel.]]

   Steve: the distinction between the symbol ("Topic") and the referent
   ("subject") is quite distinct in Topic Maps
   ... Subject is explicitly defined as "Anything whatsoever, regardless
   of whether it exists or has any other specific characteristics, about
   which anything whatsoever may be asserted by any means whatsoever"

   Guus: re: 3 types of assertions in Topic Maps, my mental map is
   association corresponds to general statements, names correspond to
   rdfs:label, occurrences correspond to rdf:type statements

   Steve: not quite for occurrences; there is a built-in notion of type

   Guus: a kind of part-of semantics?

   Steve: not really, it's like 'about' but the other way around
   ... occurrences are a special form of association; they are always
   binary and express relationships between a concept (Topic) and an
   "information resource"
   ... "information resource" is some kind of document in the broadest
   sense
   ... rdf:Resource corresponds to tm:Subject
   ... tm:Resource is an abbreviation for tm:InformationResource

   <Ralph> [re: slide 14, Ralph wonders if 'basename' is a relationship
   in some built-in Topic Maps vocabulary]

   Steve: in order to know the exact semantics of a particular
   relationship you need to know the role that each thing takes

   David: where are the definitions of these associations?

   Steve: associations have types
   ... an association type and an association role type is a topic
   ... so to create a new type, you create a new Topic
   ... syntactically these are XML elements within your Topic Map
   document

   Ralph: syntactically, can you get from a document that has instances
   to the XML document that defines the Topics?

   Steve: yes

   DanBri: are there logcial rules associated with a Topic Map that
   defines, e.g., a creator association?

   Steve: TMCL is the language in which to capture such constraints

   <danbri> [I wonder how much of TM semantics could be captured in
   something like Lbase,
   [70]http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/NOTE-lbase-20030905/]

     [70] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/NOTE-lbase-20030905/

   JJC: reification in rdf never meant what it seemed to mean; it isn't
   very usable
   ... RDF Core WG did not remove reification from the spec recognizing
   that there is legacy use of it. But RDF Core did not want to encourage
   further use.

   DanBri: 2 parts to the puzzle; the reification vocabulary
   (rdf:Statement, rdf:subject, rdf:predicate, rdf:object) and the
   reification syntax

   JJC: the bagID stuff got removed

   DanBri: originally implementors thought they had to always create the
   reification triples. this is no longer the case.

   <danbri> cf.
   [71]http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/#higherorder and
   [72]http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/#model

     [71] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/#higherorder
     [72] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/#model

   JJC: the rules for identify of literals is the task of the XSCH Task
   Force

   Steve: Topic Maps distinguish between "names" and "identifiers"

   Brian: please define "names" and "identifiers" as you use them

   Guus: let's defer that discussion

   DanBri: RDF is very clear on this point

   Steve: a URI attached to a topic that represents an information
   resource is a "Subject locator"
   ... arbitrary subjects that are not information resources do not have
   a subject location.
   ... Topic Maps uses an indirection mechanism in this case
   ... the information resource is the subject indicator
   ... the URI of the information resoruce is the "Subject identifier"
   ... such a distinction between subject locator and subject identifier
   does not exist in RDF

   DanBri: objection -- this distinction is provided at a different level

   Guus: the RDF metamodel does not contain this distinction

   Steve: the same Topic can have many identifiers; this expresses the
   fact that the identifiers identify the same thing
   ... Published Subjects: a distributed mechanism for assigning unique,
   global identifiers -- based on URLs -- to arbitrary subjects

   Guus: are published subjects for both subject identifiers and subject
   locators?

   Steve: subject identifiers only

   DanBri: slide 27 suggests that different URIs definitely means not the
   same subject

   Steve: not necessarily the same subject; you can never establish that
   two things are absolutely different

   <danbri> [which would create a landgrab; I could create a psi for
   Ralph Swick, meaning that nobody else could. Which would destroy the
   soughtafter grassroots pluralism]

   <danbri> [re slide 28, I'd like to revisit Q of how a PSI provider
   would help people distingushi a museum-as-building vs
   museum-as-organization]

   <Ralph> [I think the Topic Maps PSI mechanism differs in practice from
   RDF/OWL only in that Topic Maps _requires_ that the URI be
   dereferenced to determine the identity of the subject]

   <danbri> [I get adequate facilities from a primaryTopic rdf property,
   has v similar characteristics to those advertised for TM I think]

   [Steve promises to put a version of
   [73]http://www.ontopia.net/tmp/RDF-TM-interop.ppt at a more persistent
   URI after corrections]

     [73] http://www.ontopia.net/tmp/RDF-TM-interop.ppt

   [slide 47; Procedure and deliverables]

   DanBri: I think it is important to keep OWL close by from the
   beginning of the discussion

   <danbri> ['cos owl:InverseFunctionalProperty critical to discussion of
   merging, identity reasoning etc]

   Guus: focus discussion on particular steps to be taken

   Jeremy: the published subject stuff is the most exciting bit of Topic
   Maps work from an RDF perspective
   ... it would be nice to write something that permits the RDF community
   to use the PSI work

   <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to to offer to contrast the foaf:topic and
   foaf:primaryTopic design [possible lunch topic if no time...]

   DanBri: I have a strawman on a 'primaryTopic' relation
   ... so you can scoop up data and use OWL reasoning;
   ... my strawman: [74]http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/#term_primaryTopic
   ... "The foaf:primaryTopic property relates a document to the main
   thing that the document is about."

     [74] http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/#term_primaryTopic

   Guus: is there a metamodel for Topic Maps? I think it would be easy to
   write one in RDF Schema

   Steve: a couple of people have written such metamodels but none are
   viewed as sufficient by the Topic Maps community

   David: some of Steven's slides that he skipped do give reasons why a
   simplistic mapping should be rejected

   <danbri> [aliman has some stuff in SKOS in this area, too...]

   <aliman_> proposal for 'skos:subjectIndicator' ...

   <aliman_> which I think (danbri?) could be inverse of
   foaf:primaryTopic?

   <aliman_> (skos:subjectIndicator as an inverse functional prop)

   <danbri> it's related, possibly the same. i'd be happy migrating that
   piece of work into SKOS rather than FOAF if functionality is being
   duplicated.

   <aliman_> could leave them as each others inverse in both vocabs ... ?

   <aliman_> ... actually realise foaf:primaryTopic and
   skos:subjectIndicator couldn't be full inverse, ...

   <aliman_> because not all pages described with a primary topic would
   qualify as a PSI

   <Benjamin> [on the rdf topic map mapping :
   [75]http://www.w3.org/2002/06/09-RDF-topic-maps/ ]

     [75] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/09-RDF-topic-maps/

   Jeremy: W3C WGs work better when they start with a completed proposal
   -- one that is viewed as 'finished', then the WG finds the parts that
   really were not finished
   ... may be premature to start WG work when a [full proposal for]
   mappings do not yet exist

   Steve: I view this as similar to DAWG where there are a number of
   attempts at mappings now

   Jeremy: published subjects looks like an easy piece of work to get
   early success

   Steve: while published subjects are important to RDF-Topic Maps
   interoperability, that is not all they do
   ... PSI will be important for vocabulary management

   Alistair: there's been a lot of discussion in SKOS about a new
   predicate that would support the published subject paradigm

   DanBri: does the creator of a page have to plan that page to be a PSI?

   Steve: that is the recommendation -- a published subject page should
   be something that was explicitly written to be a PSI
   ... it does not necessarily have to contain machine-readable content,
   though there are recommendations regarding the content

   Guus: who might be interested in participating in a TF on RDF-Topic
   Maps interaction?

   [Ralph sees Steve, DanBri, Alistair's hands and assert that one of
   {Eric Miller, Ralph} is likely to want to participate]

discussion of breakout groups

   breakouts will be:

   1. RDF/TM TF description (Steve, Alistair, David, Libby)

   2. RDF/XHTML issues + XML Schema datatypes (Benjamin, Felix, Jeff,
   Ralph, Phil, Jeremy)

   3. WordNet phase (Andreas, Guus, Dan, Brian)

Breakout report - RDF/TM

   <aliman> [76]http://www.w3.org/2004/11/02-swbptm-irc#T14-24-51

     [76] http://www.w3.org/2004/11/02-swbptm-irc#T14-24-51

   Aliman: happy with TF description

   <aliman> [77]http://www.ontopia.net/tmp/RDFTM-TF-DoW.html

     [77] http://www.ontopia.net/tmp/RDFTM-TF-DoW.html

   Aliman: only those in the meeting today

   <danbri> [re TF membership, I have a few things I want to contribute,
   not sure yet quite how much time I'll have for TF overall...]

   mailist identier?

   Guus: suggest rdftm

   Aliman: we frame the initial statement
   ... to combine the two families
   ... to provide transformation between the two objects:
   ... three longer term objects

   Ralph: note additional W3C Process requirements if the RDFTM TF
   intends to produce a Recommendation (or a "Recommendation-track
   document")

   Steve: that means sth not part of the short term objectives

   Alima
   n: The initial focus is on features defined in ISO 13250 Topic Maps.
   ... Other Topic Maps-related standards (such as TMCL and TMQL) may be
   considered at a later date.

   Steve: we discuss on various detailed issues, and suggest consider
   them later on

   Alistair: DELIVERABLES

   <RalphS> [discussion of dropping the word 'complete' in approach "2.
   Choose one or more of these as a starting point for defining a
   complete methodology." ]

   Guus: what do mean by "Note"?

   David: we can intent to have a "note"

   Guus: WG note on this issue.

   Steve: any W3C member can provide note?

   Ralph: note true; member submission vs. WG note

   Guus: WG note is different from recommendation
   ... we can use working draft
   ... our note is not for public review yet

   Alistair: DEPENDENCIES are left updated by steve, dependency on PORT
   TF for SKOS

   David: by the next teleconf
   ... are you addressing any use case in this TF?

   Guus: it might get lots of attention from other communities
   ... suggest two co-ordinaters; one for W3C and the other for ISO

   David: not sure if we need coordinators

   Steve: we can get some publications out of it

   ACTION: David to contact Eric Miller re his interest in joining the
   RDFTM TF.

   Dan: someone might write about it at xml.com

   ACTION: Steve to finish rdftm TF description

   Ralph: are you soliciting public feedback?

   Steve: the note should cover all the existing approaches

   Ralph: WG Note implies we don't have further version of it
   ... otherwise it is a Working Draft

   Steve: TF only produce draft?

   Ralph: TF provides proposed draft
   ... WG decide if it can become WG working draft

   Steve: what are the final output from WG

   Ralph: recommendation or a WG note
   ... WG provides last call working draft
   ... provide evidence to director

   Ralph: change the second point [change 'Working Draft' to 'Note']

   Guus: WG consensus can lead to a WG note
   ... time?
   ... rdf/xhtml

Breakout Report - RDF/HTML & XSCH

   Ralph has sent [78]notes to the mailing list

     [78] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Nov/0012.html

   Ralph: Phil concerned that RDF/A addresses a closed community; the
   opportunity
   ... to express a variety of use cases around RDF/A is limited.
   ... Phil agrees to provide some use cases
   ... Jeremy says good tools are part of the solution to manage proper
   usage.
   ... Benjamin and Jeff willing to help
   ... Jeff agrees to give comments of current draft
   ... Jeremy points out there are two related working drafts had last
   call last year
   ... hard to get further comemnts

   Guus: can we handle the late suggestion?

   Jeremy: we should have done it much earlier

   Guus: is it critical?

   David: waht about rdf/a

   Jeremy: w.r.t. the value space question, the most critical thing is
   that implementors do the same thing -- which choice is made won't
   matter as much

   David: we should be prepared to comment on rdfa in the next few months

   Jeremy: i have made all the negative points in their mailing list

   David: Mark has been had his way

   Ralph: we have to be persuade

   <danbri> today's negative comment on rdf/a:
   [79]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2004Nov
   /0007.html

     [79] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2004Nov/0007.html

Breakout Report - Wordnet

   <danbri> see: [80]wordnet breakout: raw notes

     [80] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Nov/0011.html

   Guus: TF draft will be ready after their f2f meeting

   Guus: we revise the TF
   ... we look at the prolog source of WN
   ... and went through the list of all issues
   ... requirement that URI should be humna readable
   ... we should do some test on URIs
   ... we postpone discussion on some issues
   ... ask Jan to write transformation into RDF/OWL
   ... we include wn:lexicaForm
   ... we also resolve Prinston team re requirements
   ... resolved not to add a verb group for mow
   ... we provide two versions of WN
   ... we can complte by the end of the year
   ... move to class-centred representation

Wrapup

   Guus: 1. UML stuff
   ... we can also talk about location of next f2f
   ... teleconf is useful
   ... ODM group is more ambitious now
   ... also do metamodel mapping
   ... they use OWL full
   ... as the anchor point for translations
   ... other metamodels: rdf, topic maps
   ... also mapping to scl but only one way
   ... they will have a two way UML - OWL Full mapping
   ... mapping between ER models and OWL Full
   ... possible for express as well
   ... they expect our feedback
   ... we should review their draft in Dec
   ... we should plan in advance for review

   Jeremy: HP agees to review

   Dan: comments? 6 pages or 2 lines comments?

   Phil: they mainly want to be awared

   Guus: which part HP want to review?

   Jeremy: not sure

   Guus: TM TF should review the connection between OWL full and TM
   ... if their work is good, we can take it

   Steve: we can include it into our previous work

   ACTION: Jeremy Clarify which parts of UML docs HP is most interested
   in reviewing

   ACTION: find someone to do the review the part of UML about TM

   Guus: two chapters; TM metamodels and its mapping to OWL Full

   Guus: Dec will be the review period

   Guus: I can do metamodel of OWL full and mapping to UML
   ... ask PatH to review the scl part
   ... who are interested in OWL full to ER?

   David: Tate Jones can do that

   Guus: it makes sense to help them as much as possible

   David: will the OWL to ER be chapter review?

   Guus: yes

   next f2f at W3C Tech Plenary

   <libby> 28 February- 4 March 2005, Boston, MA, USA, Hyatt Harborside
   Hotel

   Guus: whole week meeting; WG f2f meeting and TF meetings; up to us to
   decide

   Jeremy: should be working with XML schema working group etc.

   Steve: we can have TF meetings first then WG meetings; i.e. 4 days of
   meetings?

   Ralph: we can ask

   Guus: ok for everyone?
   ... Nov 18 next teleconf

   <libby>
   [81]http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=11&day=
   18&year=2004&hour=15&min=0&sec=0&p1=0

     [81] http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=11&day=18&year=2004&hour=15&min=0&sec=0&p1=0

   Ralph: 2pm boston time

   <libby>
   [82]http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=11&day=
   18&year=2004&hour=19&min=0&sec=0&p1=0

     [82] http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=11&day=18&year=2004&hour=19&min=0&sec=0&p1=0

   <RalphS> 2pm Boston is now 1900 UTC

   Guus: Nov 18, 1900 UTC; after that we stick to two weeks schedule

   <RalphS> 2 December 1500 UTC

   Guus: www panel

   <RalphS> 16 December 1900 UTC

   <RalphS> (noting that 2 December is during the Advisory Committee
   meeting)

   David: WWW2005 May 10 2005, japan
   ... we need strong representation from this WG
   ... who will be in Japan then and want to be involved

   Steve: I am tempted but need to talk to the boss
   ... good chance to present our work

   David: panel submission dl: shortly
   ... Steve, Jeremy, ...

   David: someone from NI ...

   Guus: review
   ... [83]table about TF and members
   ... Felix agrees to help ADTF
   ... we decided to drop some TFs ...

     [83] http://www.w3.org/2004/03/04-SWBPD

   <RalphS> Guus is showing the table in the 2004-03-04 F2F minutes:
   [84]http://www.w3.org/2004/03/04-SWBPD

     [84] http://www.w3.org/2004/03/04-SWBPD

   David: one to explain SW to developpers

   Phil willing to participate in TF revise

   <DavidW> WRLD TF to be considered again in March/April 2005, after
   some TFs complete (maybe VM, WORDNET, RDFHTML?).

   <DavidW> David, Phil, probably Jim H willing to participate in WRLD TF
   next year.

   thank the local host Jeremy!

   very nice service!

   <danbri> jjc++

   We will do a good job in our first year!

   Steve: thanks to Free University of Amsterdam for dinner!

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Alistair make explicit in skos core doc the fact that
   you're trying to deal with potential for multiple thesauri using the
   same terms, overlap etc., different from paper publishing world
   [NEW] ACTION: Ben to send this statement to HTML WG via email
   [NEW] ACTION: Brian and DanBri need to talk about what need to do for
   Wordnet document to be good enough
   [NEW] ACTION: David to reword the statement on RDF A to HTML WG
   [NEW] ACTION: JJC review SPARQL WD re
   [85]http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20041012/#extendedte
   sts
   [NEW] ACTION: Phil to write up concerns about RDF/A on email
   [NEW] ACTION: Steve to email on concerns for RDF in XHTML
   [NEW] ACTION: VM TF to compile list of sample vocabs for the note
   [NEW] ACTION: VM TF with help from Guus to find thesaurus like example
   and high end ontologies to section 3
   [NEW] ACTION: David to contact Eric Miller re his interest in joining
   the RDFTM TF
   [NEW] ACTION: find someone to do the review the part of UML about TM
   [NEW] ACTION: Jeremy Clarify which parts of UML docs HP is most
   interested in reviewing
   [NEW] ACTION: Steve to finish rdftm TF description

     [85] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20041012/#extendedtests

     _________________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [86]scribe.perl 1.90 ([87]CVS
    log)
    $Date: 2004/11/11 03:53:13 $

     [86] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribe.perl
     [87] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/scribe.perl
Received on Thursday, 11 November 2004 03:59:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:40 UTC