Re: SWD Charter

Hi Dan,

> I'd like to see it continue somehow. Other options beyond SWD could 
> include an Incubator Group (as with the multimedia work), or a taskforce 
> / mailing list under the SW Interest Group umbrella...

How can we explore these options further, what/where would be the 
relevant platform to discuss this?

> What exactly remains to be done? How much could be standards-track, as 
> against experimental / research / groundbreaking?

I am not sure how to separate the two. But ToDo's and Issues worth 
exploring are (see also [1]):

- maintenance
- publishing new versions
- relation between versions
- 303 redirects or not
- URIs as primitive queries
- discuss with Princeton if we did it correctly, and what to do with the
errors we found in the original data.
- practical experience/feedback: check if e.g. the RDF is practically 
usable enough.
- The distinction between Full and Basic should show its worth
- what are the relevant triples to return on HTTP GETs? Do the relevant 
chunks vary per vocabulary? See also [2]
- how to validate the correctness of data (in OWL Full), best practices 
on how to keep it correct
- mapping to SKOS
- should the semantics in the Frames be made more explicit and how
- Full and Basic partition the total set of of triples into two 
partially overlapping sets; is this a valid way to serve different 
'flavours' in one namespace?


Cheers,
Mark.

[1]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wn-conversion.html#issues
[2]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006May/0122

> Dan
> 
>> With regards,
>> Mark van Assem.
>>
>>
>> [1]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/swap3/deployment-charter
>>
>> -- 
>>  Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
>>        markREMOVE@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark

-- 
  Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
        markREMOVE@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark