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

meeting record: 2005-06-16 SWBPD telecon

From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 12:49:28 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20050617123337.03003eb8@127.0.0.1>
To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org

The record of the 16 June SemWeb Best Practices and Deployment WG
telecon [1] is ready for review.

   [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-swbp-minutes

A text snapshot of revision: 1.3 $Date: 2005/06/17 16:43:41 $ follows.

-Ralph
----

                     SemWeb Best Practices & Deployment WG

16 Jun 2005

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jun/0041.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-swbp-irc

Attendees

   Present
          David Wood, Ralph Swick, David Booth, Alistair Miles, Jeff Pan,
          Mike Uschold, Elisa Kendall, Phil Tetlow, Natasha Noy, Chris
          Welty, Benjamin Nguyen (IRC only)

   Regrets
          Brian, Deb, Jeremy, Libby, TomB

   Chair
          DavidW

   Scribe
          Ralph, Chris

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Admin
         2. [6]Liaison
               o [7]2.1 Proposed resolution httpRange-14
               o [8]2.2 XML Schema Last Call
               o [9]2.2 OMG: ODM review
         3. [10]TF Updates
               o [11]3.1 PORT
               o [12]3.2 OEP
               o [13]3.3 WordNet
               o [14]3.6 RDF-in-XHTML
               o [15]3.10 SE TF
     * [16]Summary of Action Items

     _________________________________________________________________



   <DavidW> IRC only: Benjamin N

   <BenjaminNguyen> I'll be phoning in if I have anything long to say
   David.

   -> [17]previous meeting 2005-05-19

     [17] http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes

Admin

   RESOLVED to accept [18]http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes as
   the minutes of the 19 May telecon

     [18] http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes

   ACTION: Guus to start a straw poll on new meeting day; Monday,
   Tuesday, or Wednesday -- all at 1700 UTC [DONE]

   -> [19]straw poll on telecon day and [20]results

     [19] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35495/telecontime/
     [20] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35495/telecontime/results

   <aliman> monday 1700 UTC fine for me

   Mike: I'm happy with Monday 1700 UTC

   Elisa: works for me too

   <BenjaminNguyen> I didn't vote, all is fine

   RESOLVED to move the WG telecon time to Mondays 1700 UTC (1800 UTC in
   the non-DST period)

   ACTION: Ralph post telecon date resolution to the list

   RESOLVED next telecons: Monday 27 June 1700 UTC and continue bi-weekly
   as usual

   ACTION: Ralph to start a poll on Thu/Fri 3-4 Nov vs. Fri/Sat 4-5 Nov
   vs. Fri/Sat 11-12 Nov. (noting the 11-12 dates conflict with OWL
   workshop) [DONE]

   -> [21]Galway f2f dates poll and [22]results

     [21] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35495/swbp051101/
     [22] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35495/swbp051101/results

   DavidW: 15 responses; shows weak preference for the Fri&Sat before
   ISWC

   <aliman> i don't mind about f2f dates

   Elisa: Evan and I have a workshop on the 6th and Evan preferred to
   have a day break in between

   RESOLVED: next face-to-face in Galway Fri-Sat 4-5 November 2005

   Jeff: there is an ODBase conference on ontologies 31 Oct to 4 Nov in
   Cypress
   ... not sure if it affects me directly, though we submitted some
   papers

Liaison

2.1 Proposed resolution httpRange-14

   ACTION: DavidW to identify the 4 httpRange-14 options [DONE]

   -> [23]httpRange-14 Options

     [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jun/0051.html

   ACTION: Chairs to discuss the httpRange-14 issue at the coordination
   level [CONTINUES]

   Alistair: recall Dan Brickley's note "[24]Some Things That Hashless
   HTTP URIs Can Name"

     [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/httpclass/1

   Ralph: the response thus far from the TAG is that they can't move on
   this issue without further technical input. Path of least resistance
   would be to endorse Tim's solution, then decide what to do about
   well-known vocabs that do not follow that.

   DavidW: Need to address the issue of server-side processing at the
   same time though, as many see it as intertwined.

   Phil: is there a deadline on the httpRange-14 issue?

   David: we've been talking about httpRange-14 for a while, no pressing
   deadline

   post-meeting note: the TAG found a [25]resolution to httpRange-14 at
   its 15 June meeting.]

     [25] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/15-tagmem-minutes#item04

2.2 XML Schema Last Call

   ACTION: Jeff to review XML schema LC draft [DONE]

   Jeff: I've read the draft and don't have any additional comments to
   post. The XML Schema WG might not be aware of our requirements for
   schema datatypes. Jeremy has been talking with them about this

   Ralph: If we want the spec to change materially during the Candidate
   Recommendation phase, we should point to an implementation that fails
   to do something important because it is missing a feature. Otherwise
   unlikely to get changes enacted.

   Jeff: Is there time for us to make more noise on this?

   Ralph: Last Call ended in April, so either they're dealing with a long
   list of issues or they think they're done. I don't know which.

   ACTION: DavidW ask about the XML Schema Component Designators LC
   status at the SemWeb CG meeting

2.2 OMG: ODM review

   Elisa: I'll send a pointer to the latest document revision
   ... we've incorporated most of the feedback received
   ... more feedback is still welcome
   ... expect one more round on the document between now and August
   ... expect to use MOF Query View Transformation to represent all the
   mappings
   ... look forward to an OMG vote in December
   ... current draft does incorporate NIST feedback

   post-meeting note: Elisa sent [26]mail regarding latest ODM
   specification]

     [26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jun/0055.html

TF Updates

3.1 PORT

   Alistair: comments on SKOS Core have started to trickle in;
   ... we now have two [27]open proposals; ([28]1) bug fix, ([29]2) some
   changes in documentation properties
   ... re: documentation properties, it makes sense to have a single root
   property and use dcterms:audience
   ... continuing to discuss DanBri's idea to have a property to relate
   SKOS concepts to OWL individuals
   ... we've been asked about how to extend SKOS Core; we expected to
   describe this at a later date, either in a separate note or in the
   Core Guide itself. My current thought is a separate note
   ... also questions on how to relate SKOS Core to XML Applications; in
   particular, how to write an XSD for SKOS Core
   ... OWL has an alternate XML syntax; does it get used?

     [27] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/proposals
     [28] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/proposals#subjectIndicatorUse-1
     [29] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/proposals#notes-2

   David: yes, I've seen the alternate OWL XML syntax used

   Alistair: NewsML is revising their schema
   ... will be hard to use the RDF/XML syntax in these applications
   ... I may start to float some ideas

   DBooth: regarding a new XML syntax, are you thinking of one that is
   already in use or design a new one?

   Alistair: I'm thinking of designing a new syntax that is XML Schema
   constrained but GRDDL-able

   DBooth: do you expect an XLST transform to be part of the design?

   Alistair: yes

   Ralph: I'm think that design of a new syntax that is as extensible as
   RDF/XML yet XML Schema validatable is a lot of work

   Alistair: I'm encouraged by the direction of RDF/A

3.2 OEP

   Chris: [30]Specified Values became a WG Note on 17 May
   ... still working on n-ary relations document [31]editor's draft]
   ... talking about publishing a vocabulary to support n-ary relations
   note
   ... so people who want interoperability between RDF and higher-arity
   systems have a way to do automatic translation
   ... simple part-whole note still pending
   ... Jerry Hobbs is now participating and we're talking about turning
   the [32]OWL Time document into a Note
   ... may have something by the end of the month
   ... Evan says he has some initial work not yet posted on units of
   measure
   ... "argument number" property was included in the [33]n-ary relations
   vocabulary to support translation to other formats
   ... some people felt this vocabulary to support translations to other
   languages was out of scope for the note

     [30] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-specified-values/
     [31] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/n-aryRelations
     [32] http://www.isi.edu/~pan/OWL-Time.html
     [33] http://smi-web.stanford.edu/people/noy/nAryRelations/n-aryRelations-2nd-WD.html

   DavidW: can you satisfy both camps by using this vocabulary in a
   non-normative example?

   Chris: anyone wanting to translate RDF to a higher-arity system would
   need such a vocabulary

   Phil: I would like to see this included, as it's important to many

   Chris: the question is about scope; the OEP Note is about particular
   patterns, not about translation to other languages

   DavidW: Best Practices gets to be practical about dealing with issues
   that are important

   Phil: ordered n-ary patterns are an identifiable pattern

   Natasha: I felt this was out of scope because the Note is not about
   mapping
   ... argument numbers won't satisfy UML mapping
   ... Developers would need an additional vocabulary for mapping to
   languages that represent n-ary relations in other ways [than argument
   numbers]

   Ralph: It's useful to have examples that help explain this. Need to
   have a vocabulary for those examples. The boundary here is whether the
   WG proposes a specific vocabulary or only provides examples.

   Natasha: there were two parts to the vocabulary and I felt the
   specific parts dealing with the mapping were out of scope

   Phil: ordered n-ary relations are a valid specialization

   Chris: if we decided it is out of scope for this Note, we could write
   a separate Note
   ... so the question is whether to expand the N-ary relations Note or
   write a separate Note

   Mike: would it make sense to use the vocabulary in the examples of the
   first note and later write a separate note about the vocabulary?

   Natasha: I had two concerns; whether a mapping vocabulary belonged in
   the N-ary relations note and the systems not covered by the current
   vocabulary
   ... we might want to tackle other things such as association classes
   as well

   Mike: I recommend including [only] things that are needed to explain
   the current N-ary relations note

   Ralph: keep it simple

   Chris: the vocabulary is there for n-ary relations. Separating it into
   another document may make it harder to find.
   ... saying how to represent higher-arity relations in RDF is part of
   this Note

   Mike: could also write an appendix of what this might look like and
   the appendix might eventually expand to a new document

   Chris: I'd rather not take that approach

   Mike: if the material exists, it makes sense to have it all in one
   place

   Chris: I wouldn't want a half thought-out appendix suggesting a fuller
   version would follow later

   Ralph: but the partial solution is partial only in that it doesn't
   cover other cases, as Natasha cites, but you're comfortable for the
   cases it does cover, right?

   Chris: yes

   Phil: I feel a separate note is better

3.3 WordNet

   ACTION: Aldo to propose an update the Wordnet TF description
   [CONTINUES]

3.6 RDF-in-XHTML

   ACTION: Gavin find out from his community and contacts if they have
   use cases [CONTINUES]

   -> [34]meeting record 2005-06-14 XHTML telecon

     [34] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Jun/0029.html

   Ralph: new [35]XHTML2 WD clarified more about their WG process
   ... good news is there is a WD
   ... In my opinion not sufficient progress from last spec; I preferred
   the more explicit wording of the October RDF/A whitepaper
   ... no TF telecon for a while, telecon attendance low, though I missed
   the previous telecon

     [35] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xhtml2-20050527/

   DavidW: should we get SWPB volunteers to review draft?

   Ralph: we need help, sure
   ... problem with b-nodes. Thought the authors would have additional
   attributes for b-nodes
   ... something analogous to nodeID attribute in rdf/xml
   ... WG seems to prefer xptr scheme for bnode
   ... which scheme will win -which is more natural for HTML authors
   ... no new input on GRDDL question
   ... should WG take up GRDDL as a task or endorse it still an open
   question
   ... do have a document from XHTML WG that is close (modulo bnode
   issue)
   ... waiting for JJC to come back
   ... language may not be precise enough

   Phil: why did the XHTML wg change its stance

   Ralph: (around bnodes) not really a change, wasn't sufficiently
   addressed in previous (October) note (ie it was a bug)
   ... four solutions on table and need to pick one

   DavidW will Ralph review new WD?

   Ralph: Yes
   ... the TF considers reviewing this draft a high priority
   ... need Jeremy for this too

3.10 SE TF

   -> [36]Minutes of SETF Telecon 07-06-05

     [36] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jun/0027.html

   Phil: we'd like reviewers for Composite IFPs draft in 3-4 months
   ... using more than one resource to identify a resource
   ... we'd like reviewers for current [37]Ontology Driven Architectures
   and Potential Uses of the Semantic Web in Software Engineering now

     [37] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/SE/ODA/

   DavidW: recommend asking on the list, since attendance here is light
   ... I may be willing to be one reviewer

   <BenjaminNguyen> I am interested also, depending on review deadline

   Chris: I'm willing to review but I'm listed as a contributor

   Phil: your contributions were very early on

   Phil: Benjamin's offer accepted, there's no particular urgency so 4+
   weeks to review OK

   <BenjaminNguyen> fine

   RESOLVED: SE draft reviewers are Chris and Benjamin with DavidW likely
   to comment

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] [38]ACTION: DavidW ask about the XML Schema Component
   Designators LC status at the SemWeb CG meeting
   [NEW] [39]ACTION: Ralph post telecon date resolution to the list

   [40]ACTION: Aldo to propose an update the Wordnet TF description
   [41]ACTION: Chairs to discuss the httpRange-14 issue at the
   coordination level
   [42]ACTION: Gavin find out from his community and contacts if they
   have

   [DONE] [43]ACTION: DavidW to identify the 4 httpRange-14 options
   [DONE] [44]ACTION: Guus to start a straw poll on new meeting day;
   Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday -- all at 1700 UTC
   [DONE] [45]ACTION: Jeff to review XML schema LC draft
   [DONE] [46]ACTION: Ralph to start a poll on Thu/Fri 3-4 Nov vs.
   Fri/Sat 4-5 Nov vs. Fri/Sat 11-12 Nov. (noting the 11-12 dates
   conflict with OWL workshop)

   [End of minutes]

     _________________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [47]scribe.perl version 1.126
    ([48]CVS log)
    $Revision: 1.3 $ $Date: 2005/06/17 16:43:41 $

     [47] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [48] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Friday, 17 June 2005 16:50:36 UTC

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