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

[ALL/MM] meeting record: 2005-19-05 SWBPD / MM TF Telecon

From: Vassilis Tzouvaras <tzouvaras@image.ntua.gr>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 14:45:24 +0300
To: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001001c5d56b$c573e150$8eb8fea9@FARFALINA>
SWBPD list,
Please find the minutes from yesterdays (19/10) ' SWBPD MM TF telecon,
in plain text below.
 
    --Vassilis
 
 
-------------
 
SemWeb Best Practices and Deployment WG, MultiMedia TF Teleconference
 
19 Oct 2005
 
   Attendees
 
   Present
          Giorgos Stamou, Jacco van Ossenbruggen, Raphael Troncy (on
IRC),
          Chris Halaschek-Wiener, Jeff Pan, Vassilis Tzouvaras,
          Nikolaous Simou,
 
   
 
   Chair
          Jacco
 
   Scribe
          Vassilis
 
Contents
 
     * Topics
         1. General disussion of the 1st deliverable
         2. Section 3
         3. Section 4, 5
         4. ToDos
     
     _____________________________________________________________
 
1.
Jacco: changed section  4 according to Nick
 Jacco: worried about the size of the document
 Jacco: inserted a resource page
 Giorgos: agrees also about the size
                suggests a small core and examples
Raphael:  agrees with the resource page
Raphael: but it is not yet available ...
Jacco: only three of us have cvs access
           we should have more people
           giorgos must get cvs access
             you can ask Ralph and also provide ssh key
Nick: I want one too
Jacco: will ask Ralph
Giorgos: what about the versioning?
Jacco: that what cvs is for
Giorgos: one person must be responsibe for the content
Jeff: I suggest only three (Jacco, Giorgos and Jeff) can change the
content and the rest of people send e-mails
Jacco: difficult to find the changes in html
Raphael: agrees with Jeff
Raphael: there is plenty of possibilities to highlight the content of
each contribution    when sending email, just use some colors :-) so we
can differentiate what is new and should be changed !

decision: local changes to editors. We use the local change proposed by
jeff and all have access to the resource list
Jacco: Jane is working on the second use case
             ... mike provided some comments
             ... some worries about section 3-4
Chris: if we remove 3 and 4 then what it remains?
Giorgos: we can also have vocabularies and tools  examples
Jacco and Chris agree
Raphael: you would like to move the whole section 3 and 4 on the
resource page ?
 
 
2.
decision: reduce Sec 3 for only overview
Raphael: but the vocabularies we address in section 3 are quite stable
and it is unlikely that plenty of new ontologies appear ...
             ... move the individual tools out
Raphael: could you explain a little bit more the decision ?
Raphael: what remains in the section 3 ? the section 4 disappear ?
JeffP: leave global but remove specific ones
Jacco: Decision is to make section 3 and 4 overview sections
             with discussing the rationale for the categorization
             so we move the discussion of the individual tools to a
separate page
             so we can update the page with the tools and the ontologies
without 
             publishing a new version of the main document
             so we are only moving stuff
             not throwing anything away
Raphael: ok, this is what I have understood
             but for section 3, what we keep: multimedia ontologies ?
             there is nothing more ... so I don't see what goes out ?
 
3.
Jacco: nick can you give us an overview on your work?
Nikos: m-ontomat annotiser couldn't be tested because the ontologies are
in owl
             and the tool is in rdf
Raphael: rdfs you mean ?
             we can easily convert owl-2-rdfs ontologies, keeping just
the taxonomy ?
Chris: all we have are owl, not rdfs
Jacco: can we use Wordnet just as an example?
Nick: what about other use cases?
Jacco: I responds to mike this morning
             ... mike thinks it should be more general, but I think it
is good to have concrete information 
Raphael: I will comment that rdfs ontology are owl ontology ! so
M-Ontomat is relevant to be tested
Jacco: nick, can we use wordnet?
Nick: possible
             ... I can try
Jacco: use foaf to define an ontology and use wordnet to provide the
values
Raphael: I can provide you with plenty of ontologies in RDFS ...

Chris: not sure the difference of rdfs and owl affect or not
Raphael: if you need some 
             no it didn't Chris and we should address the 2 cases
Jacco: Raphael, just send us anything you have that relates to the use
cases 
Jeff: are the ontologies in OWL-DL or OWL-FULL?
Chris: have to ask, probably in OWL-DL
Raphael: for the multimedia ones, it is specified in the section ...
Jacco: we are looking for domain ontologies
Giorgos: also look the tools that Jane proposed
all: agree
Raphael: I can provide soccer and cycling ontology
             if there is a need
 
3.
Giorgos: 2 use cases 1. medical and 2 press
Jacco: Jane is doing the medical and Raphael is doing the press
Giorgos: look the table of contents and see the job allocation
 Intro: Jacco responsible and send mail for the list of terminologies
Use cases: waiting for the contribution of Jane and Raphael
Raphael: is it possible to send by next Monday?
Jacco: Yes
vocabularies: the main part should go similar as the tool is a good idea
            maybe use the same table as in tools
            and only modifications are needed
Giorgos: need some work since it is important section
Jacco: agree
Jacco: do it together
Raphael: agree too
Jacco and Giorgos responsible for section 3
section 4: Nick does the clean up
Jacco: I'll do the splitting and Nick is after
Examples: lots of work is needed
Jacco: each solution separate page
             ... and write section 5 from scratch
Jacco: a volunteer for section 5
Jacco: Raphael, could you help out with section 5?
Jacco: With my help?
Vassilis: I am doing section 3 with Giorgos
Raphael: I am doing section 5  with Jacco
Raphael: is the section 3 still the section on multimedia ontologies ?
Jacco: non rdf relevant work is going to resource page
Raphael: if yes, i should also contribute ...
Chris: to provide more references
Raphael: is the section 3 still the section on multimedia ontologies ?
<- what is the answer ?
deadline: split document tomorrow morning
Chris tomorrow afternoon
Jacco: section 3 will stay as an overview but will link to a separate
page with the individual ontologies
Jacco: What we need for section 3 is a list of characteristics like we
have for the tools section
Raphael: ok
Jacco: Raphael, does this make sense?
Raphael: yes I think so
Raphael: the criteria for distinguishing them are however difficult to
find
 
---------------------------------------------
Vassilis Tzouvaras
Researcher
Image Video and Multimedia systems Laboratory
National Technical University of Athens
Tel. +30-210-7723039
Mob. +30-697-7924824
url. www.image.ntua.gr
----------------------------------------------
 
 
 
 
Received on Thursday, 20 October 2005 11:45:36 UTC

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