Re: meeting record: 2004-11-18 SWBPD telecon

thanks for the notes.
I have two comments:
- i sent in regrets for nov 18 so please add me to the regrets list. [1]
- on oep, i sent in an update on action items i had and also pointed out 
that two items -
the units and measures notes and the owl time notes are waiting for 
action items
from chairs or w3c team contact.  also in [1] 
i would like to know that those action items are either done or are on 
people's lists.

[1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Nov/0081.html

Deborah

Ralph R. Swick wrote:

>Minutes from the irc log [1] attached.  Thanks to Brian for the irc transcript.
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/2004/11/18-swbp-irc
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>   Semantic Web Best Practices & Deployment Working Group
>   18 Nov 2004
>
> Agenda 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Nov/0089.html>
>
> See also: IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2004/11/18-swbp-irc>
>
>
>     Attendees
>
> Present
>     Phil Tetlow, Ralph Swick, Fabien Gandon, Andreas Harth, Tom Baker,
>     Alistair Miles, Evan Wallace, Steve Pepper, Guus Schreiber, Brian
>     McBride, Jeff Pan, David Wood
> Regrets
>     Darren, Libby, ChrisW, BenA, DanBri, Marco, Jeremy, BenjaminN,
>     TomA, Gary, Alan
> Chair
>     David
> Scribe
>     Brian
> Previous
>     2004-11-02 <http://www.w3.org/2004/11/01-swbp> (f2f)
>     2004-10-28
>     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Oct/0170.html>
>     (telecon)
> Next
>     2004-12-02, 1500 UTC (10:00 Boston)
>
>
>     Contents
>
>     * Topics <#agenda>
>          1. Adminstrivia <#item01>
>          2. Action Review <#item02>
>          3. Tech Plenary / SWBPD March FTF <#item03>
>          4. RDFTM Task FORCE PROPOSAL <#item04>
>          5. Task Force Updates <#item13>
>     * Summary of Action Items <#ActionSummary>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>       Adminstrivia
>
> review of minutes of oct 28 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Oct/0170.html> 
> - minutes accepted
>
> review of minutes from f2f 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Nov/0045.html> 
> - minutes accepted
>
> telecon times, in response to email from Chris 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Nov/0079.html>
>
> guus: he has a point
>
> ralph: is this week slip a temporary aberation?
>
> david: we talked at f2f about this [temporary adjustment, or permanent 
> adjustment]
>
> ralph: I propose we look ahead into January to decide when we should meet
>
> david: thanksgiving, christmas and new year don't work; keep to 
> slipped schedule for the rest of this year
>
> ACTION: david to propose a telecon schedule for the new year
>
> Ralph notes that a meeting on jan 6, the bi-weekly schedule would fit 
> well with the tech plenary
>
> ralph: we are agreed to meet on 02 Dec 2004, regrets from me as there 
> is a w3c meeting
>
> RESOLVED next meeting is 02 Dec 2004
>
>
>       Action Review
>
> ACTION BenB read ODM documents
> -- withdrawn
>
> ACTION gary ng review ODM
> -- DONE 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Oct/0173.html>
>
> ACTION Ralph to ask WG for feedback on requirement to embed RDF/XML 
> markup in an XHTML document
> -- DONE 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Oct/0180.html>
>
> ACTION danbri circulate links for his existing feedback/review to dawg
> -- DONE 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Nov/0097.html>
>
> ACTION philT look at gary ng's message, see what actions if any this 
> wg should take
> -- DONE 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Oct/0187.html>
>
> ACTION chrisw approach sophia about units and measures particpating
> -- DONE
>
> ACTION guus to note on numeric ranges after the xml datatypes TF has 
> finished
> -- continued
>
> ACTION libby to make that note into a document to read for the f2f by 
> 25th oct
> -- DONE
>
> ACTION guus send jeremy pointer about numeric ranges and XMLS
> -- continued
>
> ACTION jjc to send around pointers on HTML TF
> -- DONE
>
> ACTION libby to send pointers to list in preparation for f2f
> -- DONE
>
> ACTION Alistair make explicit in skos core doc the fact that you're 
> trying to deal with potential for multiple thesauri using the ame 
> terms, overlap etc., different from paper publishing world
> -- DONE 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Nov/0115.html>
>
> ACTION Ben to send this statement [regarding RDF/A] to HTML WG via email
> -- DONE 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2004OctDec/0040.html>
>
> ACTION Brian and DanBri need to talk about what need to do for Wordnet 
> document to be good enough
> -- continued
>
> ACTION David to reword the statement on RDF A to HTML WG
> -- done
>
> ACTION JJC review SPARQL WD re 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20041012/#extendedtests
> -- DONE 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Nov/0102.html>
>
> ACTION Phil to write up concerns about RDF/A on email
> -- DONE 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Nov/0044.html>
>
> ACTION Steve to email on concerns for RDF in XHTML
> -- DONE 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Nov/0005.html>
>
> ACTION VM TF to compile list of sample vocabs for the note
> -- continued
>
> ACTION VM TF with help from Guus to find thesaurus like example and 
> high end ontologies to section 3
> -- continued
>
> ACTION David to contact Eric Miller re his interest in joining the 
> RDFTM TF
> -- continued
>
> ACTION find someone to do the review the part of UML about TM
>
> david: whose ACTION?
>
> Steve: asked me to ask Lars Marius to do that. I asked Lars Marius and 
> he went pale
>
> david: mark action complete
>
> ACTION Jeremy Clarify which parts of UML docs HP is most interested in 
> reviewing
> -- continued
>
> ACTION Steve to finish rdftm TF description
> -- DONE 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Nov/0024.html>
>
>
>       TECH PLENARY / SWBPD MARCH FTF
>
> guus: there was a generic request from the tag whether other working 
> groups want to meet with the tag during the Technical Plenary 
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/09/TPOverview.html>
>
> david: do we want to meet with the tag? we could state our position on 
> xhtml working group
>
> ralph: not sure that is an appropriate topic, but the so called 
> httpRange-14 <http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#httpRange-14> 
> issue is. httpRange-14 ought to be one of our issues too
>
> steve: is relevevant to rdftm task force
>
> <aliman> +1 on talking to TAG on HTTP range
>
> ralph: will hit other tf's too e.g. vocab management; should talk to 
> the tag about that
>
> david: that issue is important to us - we've done it one way but not 
> sure its the right way; meeting with the tag would a good idea for us
>
> pepper: would be good idea to have a general discussion
>
> Alistair: this is the biggest issue for the porting tf
>
> phil: lets discuss on what topics we need to discuss on the list
>
> ralph: we could do that, but the timing is somewhat tight
> ... I suggest the range14 dicussion may be better with the whole tag
>
> ACTION: Ralph take up TAG-SWBP agenda CG tomorrow
>
> ralph: I said we want to meet two of those days, prefering thu/fri
> ... also asked if it were practical to meet for 4 days
>
> steve: would like to do tech work on rdftm - could take two days
>
> guus: we could have breakout groups on two days
>
>
>       RDFTM Task FORCE PROPOSAL
>
> david: I'm happy with the TF description. any objections?
>
> david: we have a lot of interest in the rdftm task force; want to get 
> it underway. any objections?
>
> ralph: are we quorate for those who agreed to participate in the task 
> force? we have three TF members on the call, so thats ok
>
> david: steve do you have commitments from the folks listed that they 
> want to participate
>
> steve: yes
>
> ralph: can they make the telcon time
>
> steve: yes
>
> david: steve will you take an action to get them at the next telecon
>
> guus: I'll help
>
> steve: thanks guus
>
> ACTION: guus to introduce new members from rdftm task force to the wg
>
> ralph: propose approve task force creation
>
> RESOLVED: RDFTM creation approved
>
> steve: description of work explains what we do
> ... we need to start note on existing practice
> ... we need to collect test cases to evaluate proposals
> ... snippets of both rdf and tm for translation back and forth
>
> david: can you talk to folks like nikita and danc
> ... they have specific concerns - valuable to collect in use case
>
> steve: iso group met in dc
> ... informed them about the tf
> ... general reaction was extremely positive
> ... some discussion of brining more folks in
> ... membership of w3c can be an issue
> ... what you may see is an initiative at a higher level to establish a 
> liason group between jtc1 to allow formal input
> ... have a recognised position for reviewing
>
> <pepper> WG3 resolution: "WG3 expresses its support for the W3C's 
> initiative in setting up a task force to address the issue of 
> RDF/Topic Maps interoperability and encourages the active 
> participation of members of the Topic Maps community."
>
> david: we can always send a document draft to iso for comment
>
> steve: that would probably satisfy them
>
> david: could record in tf description
>
> steve: could add that
>
> guus: what you have written is good enough
> ... we are required to request feedback from the dependent parties
> ... you have to reach consensus if they give comments
>
> ralph: identifying them in particular as a group makes it explicit we 
> hope to hear from them
>
> david: can we proceed in the face of an objection from iso?
>
> ralph: we'd handle it like any other public comment
>
> guus: we'd have to explain why he should override to the director
>
> ralph: there would be a lot of procedural things involved in setting 
> up a formal liason structure
> ... task force could be "well underway" before it could be set up
> ... but we could look at it if there is a strong need
> ... it is not completely impossible
>
> steve: there is other work in iso that overlaps w3c work
>
> ralph: there are a number of liason things going on between w3c and 
> JTC 1 and this could be added
> ... I would propose the TF proceeds without that and they can come back
>
> steve: they will; the chair has an action
> ... contact will be made and there can be a general discussion
>
> ralph: if you could provide a url for 13250 that would be great
>
> steve: for the standard?
>
> ralph: ideally yes - the normative materials the tf needs to know
>
> ACTION: steve email 13250 to the WG
>
>
>       Task Force Updates
>
>
>         PORT
>
> Alistair:quick start 
> <http://www.w3.org/2004/03/thes-tf/primer/2004-11-17.html> in response 
> to action from f2f
> ... there is an example
> ... using skos core in rdf/xml and n3 (following guus suggestion)
> ... recommends assigning uri's for concepts
> ... should have metadata about the thesaurus itself
> ... links to main docs
> ... and thats it
> ... If this is the right sort of document, should we do a WD?
> ... I would like to publish the quick guide document and skos core vocab
> ... as soon as is possible
> ... haven't produced a wd before
> ... need guidance and advice
>
> <aliman> http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/
>
> david: you'll get help
>
> ralph: you have danbri
>
> steve: subject property indicator - is there an example
>
> alistair: this property has only just been added
> ... its in the spec document
> ... you can launch and example from there
> ... of using subject indicators
> ... I've left it out of quick guide doc
> ... because I've tried to scope to standard thesaurus terms
> ... and link to the longer document
> ... which includes discussion of different ways of identifying thinks
> ... the idea is to have an inverse functional property that refers to 
> a psi docuement
>
> steve: I'd like to ask about ...
>
> alistair: that exert is a relative uri - the full uri is ....
> ... the full uri is the one they used in their publication of their 
> thesaurus
>
> steve: I'll take other questions to the list, specifically on use of 
> xml:base
>
> alistair: one question ...
> ... in the examples I chose to use an xml base to avoid repeating uri's
> ... with the possibility that people might miss the xml base
> ... comments on this style please
> ... bearing in mind that audience don't know rdf at all
> ... please send me comments
> ... I'd appreciate positive comments too
>
>
>         OEP
>
> evan: I don't think anything has happened since the f2f. there is an 
> agenda item proposal for a SE tf
>
> evan: my question concerns the SE engineering tf formation
>
> <Guus> Natasha and Alan gave a great tutorial at ISWC
>
>
>         Wordnet
>
> Brian: I have some progress to report
> ... thanks to Andreas for his actions
> ... we've made some progress on the technical aspects of the ontology
> ... I have recruited some help from a student working at HPlabs
> ... he's fixed some bugs and is using Protege to make some OWL 
> statements about the Wordnet concepts
> ... a number of issues have arisen
> ... I've been trying to have a document that an RDFschema-only 
> processor can make use of
> ... and obviously an OWL processor would do more with this document
> ... would not model all the constraints in the Wordnet structure
> ... and OWL document would model more of the Worndet constraints
> ... thinking of something with an RDF Schema up front and 
> Protege-generated OWL statements at the back
> ... I'd like feedback on this approach
> ... we have discovered that when you combine RDFS and OWL, Protege is 
> not happy with the result
> ... I hope to post something to the list tomorrow
>
> <aliman> protege OWL plugin is still pretty buggy in my experience; 
> lots of things can throw it off.
>
>
>         XML Schema datatypes
>
> jeff: I've discussed iwth jjc
> ... we have two new actions; one about duration
>
> evan: has question re duration issue
> ... you said you would put something in about durations
>
> jeff: jjc has sent email 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Nov/0095.html> 
> about adding a new section about duration
>
> david: evan you can ask on list
>
> ralph: has he sent it yet
>
> jeff: yesterday
>
>
>         vocab mgmt
>
> tom: we discussed in f2f which vocabs would be featured
> ... foaf and dc are in
> ... what about skos?
> ... alistair you suggest that skos illustrates some of the good practices
>
> alistair: I'm happy for it to be used if other folks are happy iwth that
>
> tom: lets put it in and review in draft
> ... re wordnet
> ... its not going to be ready
> ... part 2 has practices like use uri references
> ... and part 3 where things are less clear
> ... since wordnet is not a maintained vocab in the same sense as others
> ... didn't seem like a candidate for part 2
> ... but could look at it for part 3
> ... does anyone have a strong opinion
> ... shame aldo isn't here today
> ... he did volunteer to produce some info
> ... about practice in the context of wordnet
> ... but I'm assuming that at this point this will go into part 3
> ... I've been in touch with prism vocab maintainers
> ... they are a good candidate
> ... they exemplify principles of good practice
> ... they are looking to see if they have a w3c member
> ... otherwise I was proposing them I work with them to put in 
> information about prism as appropriate with their help
> ... comments or objects?
> ... prism is a dc based vocab for print and magazine publishers
> ... there still is a need for a candidate vocab for a larger scale 
> thesaurus or ontology
> ... that could illustrate some of the principles of good practice
>
> TomB: there is one at FAO (fisheries?)
> ... its not clear we have one that is ready
>
> ralph: I wondered specifically about oasis published subjects
> ... have you had a chance to consider that
>
> tom: oasis published subjects is already in there
> ... do you mean as a thesaurus
>
> ralph: as an example of vocabulary that will be maintained
> ... I was thinking of f2f discussion
> ... we don't want to point to people whom we are not confident will 
> continue to follow best practice
> ... bringing oasis into a discussion aboout sw best practice might 
> have other good effects
>
> tom: we already have them in the introduction
> ... but that is not looking at them as a thesaurus.
> ... its already in there
>
> alistair: if you used published subjects that would be an example of 
> identifying terms indirectly
> ... and there is nothing in the draft about that
> ... we'd have to expand the document
> ... second thing is I've just posted a couple examples of large 
> thesauri that have published in RDF
> ... they are not maintaining as an rdf vocab
> ... they are conversions from other forms of vocabs
>
> ralph: I want to distinguish different aspects of why published 
> subjects may be interesting
> ... they are using some specific techniques that are out of scope for vm
> ... but contrasts with wordnet which is large and has a maintenance 
> activity
> ... which we are unlikely to be able to influence
> ... but published subjects may have a less well established 
> maintenance process
> ... our practice should be independent of semantics of vocab
>
>
>         rdf in xhtml
>
> David: I'll mention thtat there have been several messages on list
> ... from jjc and mark, also from ben
> ... big question is whether html wg addressed rdf/a
>
> ralph: we checked the web
> ... best we could find was the irc logs
> ... acknowledged our encouragement
> ... but no specific discussion
> ... they are moving to last call
>
> david: did they note jjc's feedback
> ... jjc's feedback was substantial and on point
>
> ralph: the message sent to the tf mailing list didn't have a lot of 
> detail
> ... Mark and Jeremey clarified the issues in a one-to-one meeting
> ... didn't say they'd resolved the issues
> ... I'm asking if there can be more detail
> ... I didn't get a warm cosy feeling that resolutions would appear in 
> the last working draft
> ... mark has said there is not a lot of work to be done
>
> david: should we take an action to follow up more directly
>
> ralph: I will be asking steven permberton for more detailed records of 
> their meeting
> ... as a practical matter, that wg is trying to go to last call this month
>
> ACTION: ralph contact steve pemberton to clarify html wg's position on 
> inclusion of rdf/a in their last call wd.
>
>
>         adtf
>
> <DavidW> Tom Adams' notes 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Nov/0107.html> 
> on Tutorial Page
>
>
>         Phil's proposal for Software Engineering task force
>
> ralph: lets postpone because of time
>
> ACTION: david put software engineering task force on agenda for two 
> weeks time
>
> phil: please send feedback on draft terms of reference 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Nov/0084.html>
>
>
>     Summary of Action Items
>
> ACTION: guus to note on numeric ranges after the xml datatypes TF has 
> finished
> ACTION: guus send jeremy pointer about numeric ranges and XMLS
> ACTION: Brian and DanBri need to talk about what need to do for 
> Wordnet document to be good enough
> ACTION: VM TF to compile list of sample vocabs for the note
> ACTION: VM TF with help from Guus to find thesaurus like example and 
> high end ontologies to section 3
> ACTION: David to contact Eric Miller re his interest in joining the 
> RDFTM TF
> ACTION: Jeremy Clarify which parts of UML docs HP is most interested 
> in reviewing
> [NEW] ACTION: david put software engineering task force on agenda for 
> two weeks time
> [NEW] ACTION: david to propose a telecon schedule for the new year
> [NEW] ACTION: guus to introduce new members from rdftm task force to 
> the wg
> [NEW] ACTION: ralph contact steve pemberton to clarify html wg's 
> position on inclusion of rdf/a in their last call wd.
> [NEW] ACTION: Ralph take up TAG-SWBP agenda CG tomorrow
> [NEW] ACTION: steve email 13250 to the WG
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 
 Deborah L. McGuinness 
 Co-Director Knowledge Systems - AI Lab (KSL) 
 353 Serra Mall
 Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241 
 Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020 
 email: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu
 URL: http://ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm 
 (voice) 650 723 9770    (stanford fax) 650 725 5850