W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > June 2005

(unknown charset) [VM] Report on 2005-06-07 telecon

From: (unknown charset) Thomas Baker <thomas.baker@izb.fraunhofer.de>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:18:28 +0200
To: (unknown charset) SW Best Practices <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20050616121828.GA3436@sub00157>

Vocabulary Management Task Force Telecon, 2005-06-07

IRC log: http://www.w3.org/2005/06/07-vmtf-irc

    Tom Baker (chair)
    Alistair Miles (scribe)
    Dan Brickley
    Bernard Vatant

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jun/0017.html

Topic 1. Report from the last Telecon, May 12

Topic 2. "Basic Steps for Managing an RDF Vocabulary" - next steps

        <tbaker> In Dublin Core community, we see that people want
        to create application profiles but start out assuming they
        can mix-and-match terms from any source.  So there has been
        discussion lately on how to explain (in terms understandable
        for ordinary people) concepts like "property"; the notion of
        "sub-property"; and the difference between an RDF property
        and an XML element.  See, for example:


        See also an earlier piece by Dan and Eric:

        Such issues have a bearing on migration -- under what
        conditions or with what assumptions can one express a legacy
        vocabulary in RDF?  Are such issues in scope for the current
        draft?  Or do we focus on low hanging fruit, and talk about
        building RDF vocabularies from scratch?

        <aliman> My position is to leave migration completely alone.
        Take RDF as the starting point.  If you start thinking about
        migration, if you open the lid, it's one of those threads in
        a jumper :)

        <danbri> Reminds me of that phrase from DCMI - what you do
        in the privacy of your own database is your own business.
        What matters is what goes over the public networks.  I'm happy
        to stay with the RDF side of things.  RDF was designed to give
        a technical story to DCMI (among others) about how that works.

        tbaker and bernard agree on this scope.

        <tbaker> This scope is implicit in current draft.

        <danbri> Agrees.  The current draft does not raise expectations
        that it should be about migration.

Topic 3. "Some Things that Hashless URIs can Name" - next steps

        <danbri> Have made no progress since last draft.  This new
        document is modest -- says RDF classes and properties are
        similar in a way to documents and web services and therefore
        classes and properties can be named by hashless HTTP URIs.
        Seems to be compatible with tag decisions.

        <bernard> Should Danbri's doc be included in vmtf basic
        principles draft?

        <danbri> Better to have separate, esp. because recommendations
        regarding http uris depend on agreement with TAG.

        <danbri> Should keep the hashless doc on active agenda
        for VMTF.  Expect to be able to make some progress, though
        not in the immediate future.


    ACTION: tbaker to edit current vmtf draft
    for discussion on 21 June:

    ACTION: Tom to add DC examples, Danbri Foaf examples,
    aliman SKOS examples.


    Tuesday, Jun 21, 1300 UTC (1500 Amsterdam)

    Zakim: +1.617.761.6200 
    Conference code 8683# ('VMTF')

Dr. Thomas Baker                      baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de
SUB - Goettingen State                            +49-551-39-3883
and University Library                           +49-30-8109-9027
Papendiek 14, 37073 Göttingen
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2005 12:19:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:43 UTC