

<Tutorial TF>

Ben: No changes since Aug.

Guus: Education and outreach group should subsume the TF.

Ralph: organise the confs and tutorials could be part of this
group.

Guus: the main thing is to make it presentable to the outside
world. correct?

Ralph: yes.

Fabien: OEP is technicle or education?

Guus: not education.

Ralph: EO WG won't write many working draft.

Guus: in Knowledge Web project sets up a database for education
materials. There are other sources too.

Ralph: EO WG sets up strategies ... Not sure if there are many
tutorials, but at least to provide quick reference card.

**ACTION**: Fabien send the mailing list the resources of
education materials from EU projects.

**ACTION**: Ben to send an email to the mailing list about
positive and negative feedback.

Mike: you may find it difficult to get many feedback ...

Ben: we only need info about whether it is useful for you.

Chris: Mike means that we don't delete things only because of
negative feedback.

guus: I am a bit concern about the timing, prefer leave it to the
EA WG. I would have agreed if we have more time.

</Tutorial TF>

<Application TF>

Libby: I sent a message last night, which is about moving this TF
elsewhere. The history of the TF is that people didn't bother to
provide inputs excepts some of us. In the Boston ftf, we decided
to persuade people to input, but there are some technical problems
... We wanted something useful vitual applications (as an example
of what we can do about it) and I did it last night. David
suggests moving the TF to the SWIG. Any comments of the future of
the TF? What to do with the TF next?

Guus: The kind of materials from the TF are very valuable,
according to my experience of presentations.

Fabien: (1) The materials are very useful for our teaching. (2)
Shall we put all the use cases and demos from diff TFs (such as MM
TF) into the Application TF.

Libby: seems like a good idea, but the problem is the input.
People tend to spend time on use cases if they need to do that in
their TFs.

Ralph: I would go for a combined approach.

Libby: maybe we need to do more publicities before we make our
decision.

**ACTION** (Libby): To make the wiki pager the list the doc files
of the applications and parse them into HTML.

**ACTION** (Libby): fix the demon that do work.

**ACTION** (Libby): Send an email to SWIG about it.

**ACTION** (Ralph): To identify as input for the propose SWEO

Guus: we can look at the mailing list of SWCG to see what happen

Deb: what is the plan

Ralph: I will find a way to present it if it is polite

Guus: I will let you consider

**ACTION** (Ralph): To send to the mailing list the SWEO proposal

</Application TF>

<SPARQL>

Guus: any news about SPARQL

David: We received the message from Enrico Franconi

Guus: what is your status?

David: I plan to draft for a WG  ...

Jeremy: is it a personal comment

Guus: is it an official response

David: Enrico says ...

Brian: Apologise for not sending it to the list. The scope of the
comments about design issue about the language. The proper place
to comment is within the DAWG. In this group, we would rather
concertrate on the work we have done.

Guus: I think we should provide comments about XSDT. can you also
divide your comments into two part, one as personal comment and
the other as WG comments.

ACTION (Jeremy): Provide a phrasing about XSDT.

Guus: when is the deadline?

David: we should be quick. if Jeremy can give me before Nov 14.

Brian: interoperbility and scalability seem not proper for WG
comments

Jeremy: we might need to find out whether we have a comment

Ralph: not very sure whether the comments are about best practice
or language design.

David: I encourage the WG to the issues about bnodes and  and
rephrase the

ACTION (Brian): to work with David about the WG comments about
SPARQL

Guus: I concern about the timing. Is the WG agree?

Ralph: We should see it from the mailing list first.

Brian: Maybe David and me work out something during lunch - we
will do it on email

Jeremy: The two comments are ones to do with DAGW design ...

</SPARQL>


<ODM>

Elisa: mid night 14 Nov the document will be publish. The contents
are mainly from this group: Chris, I, Even, Deb and HP support
etc. We hope it is useful for people. The profile will help people
design tools. The common logic view is updated. The ... metamodel
of the diagram is in the ISO documentation. The TM metamodel is
updated too. Free feel to send me or the WG any comments. The
contents are very stable except some of the mappings.

guus: Is it a big document?

Elisa: 300+ pages. I can send the link to the WG.

ACTION (Elisa): To send the link to the WG.

</ODM>

<VM TF>

Alister: We have a wiki draft and also a shorter draft. The
problem is the SKOS, DC are not doing the same thing. I provide
options on how to set up ... we have a telecon including HTTP
people from W3C too.

Guus: (i) It will be a waste if we can not finish it on time. (ii)
it is very relevant (iii) I concern about the time. Any support
from the WG? Shall we

Jeremy: does the scope cover frad id

Alister: yes

Ralph: it has bothered the community for a long time about the RDF
namespace. It is good to have practice now and share experience
about SKOS, DC and FOAF.

Guus: You support the idea of the short draft

Jeremy: I hope it is uncontroversial.


Alister: the important bit is that we need WG support for the
first section

Guus:

Dan: We don't need this as the first publication. Diff people want
diff version.

Guus: is this pointed covered by the draft

Alister: no. I think we should describe that before partitioning.

Guus: Two things before lunch: (i) anyone want to review the short
doc?

David and Andreas agree to review it.

Guus: (ii) how this work should continue? The TF started from the
beginning of the WG. I would rather not include it into the new
charter.

Alister: versioning is another major issue

Guus: I would like to see proper place for it. We might talk about
that this afternoon.

Jeremy: ...?

Guus: please don't interpret is as a negative comment.

guus: The last note is very important. make sure in the next
telecon to address this.

About the future:

(1) versioning

(2) what should be in the end of next phrase.

</VM TF>

