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

meeting record: 2005-10-03 SWBPD Telecon

From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 22:53:29 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20051003225145.02f63528@127.0.0.1>
To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org

The record of todays' SWBPD telecon[1] is now available for review.

   [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/03-swbp-minutes.html

A text snapshot of $Revision: 1.4 $ of $Date: 2005/10/04 02:51:11 $
follows:

----

SemWeb Best Practices and Deployment WG

3 Oct 2005

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0006.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/03-swbp-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Ralph Swick, Chris Halaschek-Wiener, Raphael Troncy, Alistair
          Miles, David Booth, Jacco van Ossenbruggen, Jeremy Carroll,
          Giorgos Stamou, Tom Baker, Gary Ng (part), Natasha Noy (part),
          David Wood (part), Evan Wallace (part), Benjamin Nguyen (irc),
          Guus Schreiber (irc), Chris Welty (irc)

   Regrets
          Phil Tetlow, Libby Miller, Deb McGuinness, Alan Rector, Jeff
          Pan, Dan Brickley, Fabien Gandon

   Chair
          Ralph

   Scribe
          Ralph

   Previous
          [4]2005-09-19

      [4] http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html

Contents

     * Topics
         1. Admin
         2. Liaisons
               o SPARQL Last Call
               o Protocol and Formats WG request
         3. FTF Preparation and future of WG
         4. TF Updates
               o MM TF
               o PORT
               o OEP
               o WordNet
               o XML Schema datatypes
               o Vocabulary management
               o RDF-in-HTML
               o ADTF
               o RDFTM
               o Tutorial Page
               o SE TF
     * Summary of Action Items

     _____________________________________________________________

   BenjaminN: I'm on irc only today

1. Admin

   RESOLVED to accept the [24]minutes of the 19 September telecon

     [24] http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html

   ACTION: Ralph create a registration page for the November f2f
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-irc.html#T17-13-32]
   [DONE]

   -> [26]Registration for Third F2F meeting

     [26] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35495/ftf-3/

   <Raphael> this web page needs a password to be accessed, no ?

   Ralph: yes, you need your Member Access password for this form

   Ralph: are there others who may wish to attend by teleconf?

   DBooth: possibly remote, will know soon

   Jeremy: expect to know later in the week whether I can attend in
   person

   ACTION: Ralph check on possibility of remote participation for f2f
   [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2005/10/03-swbp-minutes.html#action02]

   <RalphS> Guus, any progress on finding a dinner sponsor?

   <guus> MY ACTION: I can sponsor the dinner from my Knowledge Web
   budget

   <RalphS> Guus, thank you!

2. Liaisons

2.1 SPARQL Last Call

   ACTION: Jeremy to brief the WG on use of IRIs in SPARQL [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action05] [DONE]

   Jeremy: sent message "[29]IRIs" earlier today. This issue, of W3C recs
   depending on earlier versions of IRI (before standard status), being
   not quite compatible with the IRI standard impacts many recs

     [29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0014.html

   ACTION: David Wood and Brian to review SPARQL Last Call document
   [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action04] [DONE]
   [CONTINUES]

   -> [31]SPARQL Protocol Review and Comments [DWood 2005-09-20]

     [31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0087.html

   David's review done

   DWood: my [32]comments led to a long discussion between the editors
   ... I didn't want to see a requirement in the SPARQL protocol for an
   illegal use of WSDL 2.0
   ... editors were questioning ehther I was supportive or dismissive of
   WSDL 2 integration
   ... I support WSDL 2 bindings but want them to be legal
   ... the SPARQL language is still in Last Call; would the WG like my
   review of that as well?
   ... I expect DAWG would like review from SWBPD for both the Language
   and the Protocol
   ... I think Brian intended to review the Language

     [32] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0087.html

   ACTION: David Wood draft SPARQL Language review on behalf of the WG
   [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2005/10/03-swbp-minutes.html#action17]

   <aliman> I skimmed David's review, seemed good but don't have nearly
   enough tech savvy (or time :) to do a proper review

   DBooth: I thought DavidW's review was fine
   ... what coordination is taking place with the WSDL folk?

   DWood: it's the DAWG's task to do that coordination
   ... there's a not insubstantial amount of work needed to resolve the
   technical issue
   ... I don't think this work can be done during Candidate Rec phase

   Ralph: is there an alternative for DAWG to not be dependent on changes
   to WSDL 2?

   DWood: DAWG would have to give up some features in SPARQL Protocol
   ... I fear that the WSDL community is big enough that if SPARQL
   protocol is non-conformant, it will lead to SPARQL not being
   implemented

   DBooth: the WSDL work has been going on for a long time. I was part of
   it at one time. I would not expect the WG to be very receptive to
   making changes at this point.

   Jeremy: WebOnt completed before RDF Core WG finished
   ... we waited for a few months while RDF Core finished and this did
   not do any harm
   ... it's not a bad thing for a WG to wait; didn't need to hold
   telecons during that period

   DBooth: I endorse David Wood's message that SPARQL should conform to
   WSDL 2

   DBooth: I propose that SWBPD recommend to DAWG that the SPARQL
   Protocol conform to WSDL 2.0
   ... speaking personally, not for HP

   Evan: I second the proposal

   DWood: DanC [34]forwarded my message to the public-rdf-dawg-comments
   list.
   ... there is continuing discussion under the thread "[35]WSDL
   happiness" in public-rdf-dawg

     [34] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Sep/0077.html
     [35] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005JulSep/0530.html

   objections: (none)

   in favor: Alistair, Jacco, DWood, Evan, Ralph (speaking individually),

   abstain: Benjamin

   RESOLVED that SWBPD recommend to DAWG that the SPARQL Protocol conform
   to WSDL 2.0

   ACTION: Ralph report WSDL 2.0 resolution to DAWG (after 24 hours)
   [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2005/10/03-swbp-minutes.html#action18]

   <Zakim> aliman, you wanted to ask about postponed issues for sparql

   Alistair: my requirement is to get the contents of RDF Lists
   ... that's not in the current Language; I see the issue marked as
   Postponed on DAWG issues list
   ... what does 'postponed' mean? how long?

   Ralph: generally, I think 'postponed' means "until the next group is
   chartered"

2.4 Protocol and Formats WG request

   ACTION: jjc review EARL requirements [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2005/07/25-swbp-minutes.html#action05] [DONE]

   -> [38]Review of EARL requirements [Jeremy 2005-10-03]

     [38] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0020.html

   Jeremy: shall I send this to PFWG as my personal comments on behalf of
   the WG?

   Ralph: yes

   ACTION: Alistair and Guus to help the WAI Protocol and Formats WG on
   their vocabulary [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action07]
   [CONTINUES]

   <guus> sorry, no progress on 2.4

   <aliman> guus how do you think we should approach liason with PFWG? I
   read their initial message but its not very specific.

3. FTF Preparation and future of WG

   (see discussion under [40]Admin above)

   [41]MM TF Schedule for f2f meeting in Galway [Giorgos 2005-10-03]

     [41] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0004.html

   [42][PORT,OEP] SKOS f2f and end-of-charter goals

     [42] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0079.html

4. TF Updates

4.0 MM TF

   Giorgos: see [43]mail from Jacco -- first draft of a deliverable has
   been produced
   ... would like to schedule 2 telecons; this Wed and 21 Oct
   ... would like to have 2 reviewers review a document 1 week before the
   f2f
   ... Mike Uschold has volunteered to be 1 reviewer

     [43] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0138.html

   Jeremy: TF participants should read this draft before first telecon,
   is Wednesday too soon?

   Jacco: the idea for the Wednesday telecon is to distribute the work

   Ralph: refer to [44]Teleconference How-To for telecon reservation
   instructions

     [44] http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/TeleconferenceHowTo.htm

4.1 PORT

   Alistair: Ralph sent his review of SKOS Core proposals and we're
   following up on his suggestions

   <aliman> [45][PORT] update on 2nd review

     [45] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0021.html

   <aliman>
   [46]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0079.ht
   ml

     [46] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0079.html

   Alistair: see my [47]mail for f2f planning

     [47] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0079.html

   <Zakim> aliman, you wanted to ask ralph about language variants of
   SKOS Core spec

   Alistair: when we publish a revised SKOS WD, should we publish all the
   variants or can we publish just the English version?
   ... it would be nice to publish all the translations as a set but I
   don't speak all the languages

   Ralph: publishing a WD is a great way to solicit those comments. The
   Task Force should advise readers of the spec which words to consider
   to be normative, however.

   Jeremy: the practice in W3C is that the [US] English version is
   normative

   <jjc> On translations - the Ruby recommendation, which is primarily
   targeted at Japanese, was published on 31st May 2001, and translation
   came out 3rd August 2001. Conclusion: even when Japanese would have
   been a well-motivated normative language, the rule of US English first
   was followed

4.2 OEP

   <ChrisW> nothing to report

   <ChrisW> all actions continued

   <aliman> chrisw is the QCR note ready to review?

   <ChrisW> yes

   <aliman> where's the version I should review?

   <ChrisW> oh, wait, I take that back - QCR note is NOT ready to review
   (sorry)

   <aliman> ok, will wait on ChrisW to nudge me when QCR is ready

   <ChrisW> ack

   Natasha: we're working on Semantic Integration, may have something
   ready for f2f

   ACTION: GUUS to approve new version of simple part note going to first
   WD [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2005/09/05-swbp-minutes.html#action06]
   [CONTINUES]

   Natasha: waiting for Guus' comments on N-ary relations

   ACTION: Alistair to review Qualified Cardinality note
   [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action09] [PENDING]

     [49] http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action09

   ACTION: Guus to review OWL Time note [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action10]
   [CONTINUES]

   ACTION: Jeremy to ask HP folks about reviewing Semantic
   Integration note, which will be ready for review near the F2F
   [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action11] [DONE]

   Jeremy: I've asked for a reviewer, don't yet have a response

   ACTION: Libby to review OWL Time note [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action12]
   [CONTINUES]

   <ChrisW> OWL TIme is ready for review

   <ChrisW> definitely

   <Jacco> i cannot find a url for owl time in the minutes...

   <Jacco> can you put up one?

   <ChrisW> go to the [53]OEP web page

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

   <ChrisW> all the notes & drafts are there

   [54]OEP Editor's Drafts

     [54] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/#edrafts

   <Raphael> [55]OWL Time

     [55] http://www.isi.edu/~pan/SWBP/time-ontology-note/time-ontology-note.html

   <Raphael> [56]Time Zone

     [56] http://www.isi.edu/~pan/SWBP/time-zone-note/time-zone-note.html

4.3 WordNet

   (no representatives)

4.4 XML Schema datatypes

   Jeremy: we have a working draft that presents alternatives

   Jeremy: we've had a response (from HP) that one of the alternatives is
   not a good choice

   -> [57][XSCH] F2F thoughts [Jeremy 2005-10-03]

     [57] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0010.html

   ACTION: JeffP to draft a response to dave reynolds [recorded
   in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/25-swbp-minutes.html#action09]
   [CONTINUES]

4.5 Vocabulary management

   -> [59]Tom's report on 27 Sep VMTF telecon

     [59] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0012.html

   TomB: we reached consensus on a deliverable to help people understand
   what to serve at a namespace URI
   ... we expect to be able to document a common solution between Dublin
   Core, SKOS, and FOAF
   ... this would create a nice example that others can follow

   <Zakim> aliman, you wanted to mention [60]URI dereferencing stuff

     [60] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0116.html

   <aliman> I sent a [61]proposed URI dereferncing policy for SKOS Core
   (a 'hash' RDF namespace) ...

     [61] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0116.html

   Alistair: I've shown [62]how to implement content-dependent redirects
   in apache

     [62] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0024.html

   <aliman> and [63]described how to implement this policy using apache
   directives ... would very much appreciate comments (i.e. do this/don't
   do this) from WG

     [63] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0024.html

   DBooth: is this using 303 redirect?

   Alistair: yes
   ... redirect is based on the content-type requested
   ... would like feedback on whether this is or is not a good idea

   TomB: DCMI has a problem with 303 redirects for historical reasons, as
   we depend on the purl.org service

4.6 RDF-in-HTML

   -> [64]meeting record: 2005-09-27 RDF-in-XHTML TF telecon

     [64] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Sep/0024.html

   Ralph: the TF is discussing a proposal for a syntax that would permit
   expressing both URIs and QNames within an XML attribute

   ACTION: Jeremy write a formal description of the CURI proposal for WG
   consideratoin [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2005/10/03-swbp-minutes.html#action12]

   Jeremy: the proposal also addresses the blank node issue

   ACTION: Gavin find out from his community and contacts if they have
   use cases for GRDDL [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2005/10/03-swbp-minutes.html#action13]
   [WITHDRAWN]

   ACTION: DanBri to ask TF for sign-off on putting the draft xhtml vocab
   to the WG for review. [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2005/09/05-swbp-minutes.html#action09]
   [CONTINUES]


4.7 ADTF

   Ralph: we've decided that the machine break-in at MIT was
   non-destructive and intend to put the blog back on the Net.
   ... so for the present, there is no need to move the content

4.8 RDFTM

   (no representative)

4.9 Tutorial Page

   ACTION: Guus to ping Benjamin and Jeff about the Tutorial Page
   [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action08] [DONE]

   <Benjamin> was this regarding an old action ?

   <Benjamin> I made a post in july regarding jeff's ping

   <Benjamin> status is the following

   <Benjamin> page is up and I made all modifications received up till
   july

   <Benjamin> I have received nothing more to add since then

4.10 SE TF

   (no representative)

   next meeting Monday, October 17

   [adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: David Wood draft SPARQL Language review on behalf of the
   WG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/03-swbp-minutes.html#action17]

   [NEW] ACTION: Jeremy write a formal description of the CURI proposal
   for WG consideration
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/03-swbp-minutes.html#action12]

   [NEW] ACTION: Ralph check on possibility of remote participation for
   f2f
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/03-swbp-minutes.html#action02]

   [NEW] ACTION: Ralph report WSDL 2.0 resolution to DAWG (after 24
   hours)
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/03-swbp-minutes.html#action18]

   [PENDING] ACTION: Alistair and Guus to help the WAI Protocol and
   Formats WG on their vocabulary
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action07]

   [PENDING] ACTION: Alistair to review Qualified Cardinality note
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action09]

   [PENDING] ACTION: Brian to review SPARQL Last Call document
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action04]

   [PENDING] ACTION: DanBri to clarify rules for IG to propose new
   mailing lists for its TFs
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/05-swbp-minutes.html#action10]

   [PENDING] ACTION: DanBri to ask TF for sign-off on putting the draft
   xhtml vocab to the WG for review.
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/05-swbp-minutes.html#action09]

   [PENDING] ACTION: Guus to review OWL Time note
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action10]

   [PENDING] ACTION: Guus to approve new version of simple part note
   going to first WD
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/05-swbp-minutes.html#action06]

   [PENDING] ACTION: JeffP to draft a response to Dave Reynolds
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/25-swbp-minutes.html#action09]

   [PENDING] ACTION: Libby to review OWL Time note
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action12]

   [DONE] ACTION: David Wood to review SPARQL Last Call document
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action04]

   [DONE] ACTION: Guus to ping Benjamin and Jeff about the Tutorial Page
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action08]

   [DONE] ACTION: Jeremy to ask HP folks about reviewing Semantic
   Integration note, which will be ready for review near the F2F
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action11]

   [DONE] ACTION: Jeremy to brief the WG on use of IRIs in SPARQL
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-minutes.html#action05]

   [DONE] ACTION: jjc review EARL requirements
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/25-swbp-minutes.html#action05]

   [DONE] ACTION: Ralph create a registration page for the November f2f
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-swbp-irc.html#T17-13-32]

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

   [End of minutes]

   Change History
$Log: 03-swbp-minutes.html,v $
Revision 1.4  2005/10/04 02:51:11  swick
Remove a gratuitous in-your-face URI

Revision 1.3  2005/10/04 02:43:57  swick
Clean out a bit more extraneous bits.

Revision 1.2  2005/10/03 20:20:09  swick
Cleanup for first publication

     _____________________________________________________________


    $Revision: 1.4 $ of $Date: 2005/10/04 02:51:11 $
Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2005 02:54:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:44 UTC