W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sweo-ig@w3.org > November 2006

Minutes: SWEO first face-to-face

From: Lee Feigenbaum <feigenbl@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 16:06:45 -0500
To: public-sweo-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFC454EA46.13F4B795-ON85257229.0073E004-85257229.0073F95B@us.ibm.com>

Please enjoy. There's a link or two missing that I'll follow up with when 
I get ahold of it.

Lee

Meeting: SWEO Face-to-Face
Date: 2006-Nov-14 and 2006-Nov-15
Chair: Susie Stephens
Scribe: Lee Feigenbaum
Attendees: Ivan Herman (W3C), Karen Myers (W3C), Susie Stephens
(Oracle), Lee Feigenbaum (IBM), Wing Yung (IBM), David Rooks (Segala),
Frank Chum (Chevron), Sandro Hawke (W3C), Jeff Schiffel (phone,
Boeing), Alan Ruttenberg (independent guest), Jaidev (Oracle)

Susie Stephens: Welcome to SWEO. Very important time for W3C to be
starting SW education and outreach group. Recent article in NY Times,
CEO of MySQL AB discussing semantic web concepts w/o awareness of SW
-- points to this being a great time to do work to accelerate adoption
of SW.

==Agenda: Getting Acquainted==

Introductions: personal and organizational interests in the Semantic
Web.

Personal interest closely tied to Oracle's interest. Joined Oracle in
2002 in Oracle Life Sciences -- met with customers who requested RDF
support in Oracle database. Provided support for RDF followed by
support for OWL. Going forward, interested in relational-to-RDF
mappings. Also: what other Oracle products (e.g. middleware) could
benefit from semantic capabilities?

I am Oracle's contact point for W3C for SW activities. I coordinate
the SWHCLSIG BioRDF task force in addition to chairing SWEO.

Ivan Herman: W3C Semantic Web Activity lead and staff contact for SWEO
IG.  Before June, I was head of W3C offices. Spent a lot of time
travelling and giving presentations and tutorials on SW. I've come
across all of the problems in delivering the SW message during these
travels.

Karen Myers: I work with marketing and communications with the W3C.
Have been doing marketing/communications for technology for many
years. Experience testing messages, putting forward new
concepts/technologies to technical and business decision makers.
Official role is development officer for W3C (member relations, member
recruitment into groups, encourage new companies to join).

Lee Feigenbaum: <talking so not scribing> -- please see my intro email
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sweo-ig/2006Oct/0024.html

Wing Yung: I work with Lee; personally, I'm interested in the SW as a
set of technologies to bring together the data in the world which is
not currently easily accessible.

Dave Rooks: I work wtih Segala -- accessibility and testing company in
Ireland & UK. Recently compeleted W3C work towards accessibility
content labels. Have developed Firefox plugin to allow users to search
based on accessibility requirements.

Frank Chum: I work with Chevron. Have an AI background, always
interested in search. 25 years ago I was working with semantic
databases and other semantic technologies. Previously piloted SW techs
for supply chain integration at a retail firm. Now looking into SW
applicability in handling of toxic/hazardous materials. Many
legislation requirements for disclosing / tracking / etc. and I think
that SW technologies may be useful in this sort of knowledge
management area.

Sandro Hawke: I work with W3C. My interest in SW comes from
database-in-the-sky approach. Mostly interested in communications
applications. Was W3C staff contact for OWL WG and now for RIF WG: my
interest is rules as a way to map ontology data. I don't expect to be
participating a lot in SWEO. **Ivan, I would like to be on the SWEO
mailing list.**

SS: Another companies are very interested in participating in SWEOP
but still arranging internal logistics to join. Small group now but
there will be more people joining shortly.


==Agenda: Introduction to SWEO==

SS: As an interest group (rather than a working group), we have
flexibility to diverge somewhat from our charter as our interests
dictate.

*SS reads through SWEO scope, SWEO deliverables*

IH: Some of the resources which are SWEO deliverables are not starting
from scratch (e.g. W3C ESW wiki already contains tools list)

FC: "Reaching out to industry" -- is that specific to life sciences
industry?

IH&SS: No; there's nothing about SWEO which is specific to life
sciences. 

SS: End date of SWEO is February, 2008 -- this is a hard stop. So we
have about 16 months to put together our materials.

IH: Could propose -- perhaps in a year -- to extend the charter, but
it's too early to say anything about that now.

SS: SWEO should interact with other W3C groups including the SW Health
Care & Life Sciences interest group, the Device Independence WG, the
Mobile Web Initiative (MWI).

IH: We should probably have among our use cases something from the
mobile-device world. We don't currently have any
mobile-device/movile-web members, but BT might (SS: probably) join. 

Other possible interest from the mobile-web area is Nokia (no
bandwidth for SWEO), Vodaphone, Korea telecom, and China telecom.

SS: I'm pinging various potential members, but if you have ideas
yourself either let me know or contact them directly.

We also might talk with non-W3C groups: for example, SICOP - a federal
US government council with a focus on semantic interoperability.

IH: W3C is exploring the value of an eGovernment contact; that might
be an area that would be interested in SWEO work.

SS: I have a contact at the EPA who has expressed interest in working
with us at the appropriate time.

SWEO weekly telecons at 11:00 AM EST on Wednesdays.

We'll decide when it makes sense to have more face-to-face meetings;
perhaps every 6-9 months or so.

SWEO will split its work into short task forces (2-4 months). Output
from TFs is often in the form of materials such as W3C Notes. It's
important for this group to get collateral out there and be very
visible. 

Currently SWEO members are W3C members -- it may make sense at some
point to use the W3C invited expert status to invite non-W3C-members
to participate for production of specific collateral materials.

<general discussion: should non-members / non-participants be able to
be on and post to the SWEO mailing list? Consensus is that it should
be limited to people able to participate actively towards the SWEO
deliverables.>

ACTION: Susie to contact Danny Ayers and David Cearley (Gartner), and
Helen C. (Agfa) and Alan R. to clarify participatation status.

(short break)

==Agenda: Semantic Web Technology==

IH: <presents slides available at
http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/CorePresentations/State_of_SW>

Part of the messaging problem in some areas is that the RDF
specification documents (other than the primer) are highly technically
demanding. The primer, on the other hand, is a good document.

SS: TimBL at ISWC spoke of reification as a mistake. Is reification in
the primer?

IH: I'm not sure.

LF: I think so, but wouldn't swear to it.

IH: Reificaiton and RDF collections/sequences do not have
well-specified semantics. 

SH: The feeling I get is that the primer contains a fair amount of
material which is now considered junk / not in favor. When presenting
this material to people, it's important to make sure they do not dwell
on these old, deprecated features.

SS: Is there value in seeing if we can produce an updated / polished
primer-type document?

Jeff Schiffel: I'm in Wichita and work for Boeing. <joins on the phone>

SS: Could we represent the list of RDF tools itself in RDF?

IH: The list is on the Wiki which is Moin Moin wiki which does not
easily have a way to present and produce RDF data. Perhaps we could
the Semantic Mediawiki work?

<IH continues SW technologies presentation>

LF: When I talk about SPARQL, I like to emphasize three properties of
it that separate it from other query languages:

  + distributed data -- SPARQL can query multiple sources of data
  identified by URI within a single query
  + ragged data -- SPARQL has an "OPTIONAL" keyword which allows a
  query to handle heterogeneous data within a single query
  + unpredictable data -- SPARQL queries can explore the relationships
  (predicates) within unfamiliar data (a la being able to use SQL to
  query for what columns are in a table with a particular primary key)

<IH continues SW technologies presentation>

<lunch>

<IH continues SW technologies presentation -- SW messaging problems>

SH: When people use RDF as a database serialization/interchange
format, where does the "semantic" in Semantic Web come in?

IH: I think we're too late to change the umbrella term.

SS: People have started using "semantic technologies" instead of
"semantic web technologies"

IH: I think the Web part is important to the overall Semantic Web
message.

SH: There is a bit of a split between "semantic web" as a research
topic (vis a vis funding, grants, etc.) and semantic web as a space in
which products exist. Should we be careful as to who claims this term?

SS: In the database world the term "database" is used both by
researchers and products. I view the layer cake as having products at
the bottom and research as you go up.

<IH continues SW technologies presentation -- emphasize use cases,
data integration>

SH: Are we striving to get people to share their (RDF) data or are we
trying to get people to build their corporate intranet using RDF?

SS: I think that the latter is a good first step, after which we can
try to demonstrate the value of exposing the RDF data itself.

IH: From my point of view, I'd like to have the last section of my
presentations -- on use cases and applications -- be much more
developed and convincing than what I have now. I'd like to know what
each application does and what does semantic web technologies bring to
each application?

FC: Are any of these patentable? Do big companies mine these for
patents?

IH: We hope that the core SW technologies are not patentable at this
point.  The other aspect that will come up is businesses wishing not
to divulge use cases because they involve business strategic secrets.
The best way to get some public use cases may be to pursue internally
within your own company so that you can determine what information can
be made public.

SS: I would think that the model that large companies commonly use to
write up success stories might be a good model for SWEO to use in
approaching companies to gather use cases.

IH: Those writeups are often too vague to include details on how
semantic web technologies solve problems that would have been
difficult to solve otherwise.

SS: In Oracle, we take an approach where we contact the source with a
set of questions (value? ROI? ...) to be answered. If they cannot
answer (for example) 70% of the question then it is not a good
example.

<KM begins presentation on Semantic Web Messaging available online @@>

KM: My work deals with technical people who are also managers making
decisions based on standards and what standards will solve business
problems. We need a much cleaner snapshot of the SW technologies.

The decision-makers at the CIO/CTO need a crisp, polished presentation
which tells a continual story: what is it? what does it solve for me?
how much does it cost in money and other resources?

WY: Are there a set of documents that accomplish these messaging tasks
very well?

KM: Yes; in my role as a "consultant" for SWEO I would like to provide
that sort of help.

ACTION: Karen to provide examples of successful messaging materials.

Alan Ruttenberg: My experience with SW began with BioPAX -- pathway
database in OWL. My SWEO involvement is in part looking in advance of
the new OWL WG and to help educate upfront with respect to OWL.

<Group: there is almost an expectation that when semantic web comes up
someone or someones are critical of it. This might come from the
association of SW with AI and with the hype to which AI has never
lived up.>

<KM continues Semantic Web Messaging presentation -- key questions to
which SWEO needs answers>

IH: This summer I put effort into creating a Semantic Web FAQ. Most of
the answers there came from my own head with some help from Sandro,
Karen, Ian, and others. But perhaps SWEO can rework this to help here.

LF: It's important to often answer the same question with 2 or 3 or
more answers, depending on the audience.

KM: Yes, "click here if you are an IT professional", "click here if
you are a line of business user", etc.

IH: When eve discussing simple questions such as "what is RDF?" even
people at the same technical level do not have a single answer. It's
multifaceted.

SH: As a reader of a FAQ, I like to see answers which acknowledge
different interpretations and opinions.

KM: That's probably appropriate for a somewhat technical audience, but
not for answers for a CIO/CTO level audience.

<KM continues Semantic Web Messaging discussion -- looking at
descriptions of SW and how they might fall short of a common
denominator elevator pitch which could target a whole range of
audiences>

KM: Search, business intelligence, and data mining are other points of
confusion which people ask about when presented with semantic web
ideas.

KM: I think that a more robust Semantic Web Messaging audit is in
order, perhaps for one of the SWEO task forces.

<break>

==Agenda: Task Force Prioritization==

SS: Some possible areas that we could focus on for task forces are:

Resource gathering -- what's out there in terms of tools and software
and educational materials? Focuses on the collation of information
into one central space (and in the process finding out what people are
doing).

Collateral creation -- this can have different focuses (e.g.
educational or business use cases or demos)

Who are our target audiences? There may be many target audiences.
Examples: CTO/CIOs, lines of business, developers, Web 2.0 hackers,
influencers (media, analysts)

What will the technology focus be? Search? Data integration?
Reasoning? Rules?

What industries will we focus on and with what messaging? e.g. oil and
gas, financial services, ...

What geographical areas will we focus on?

Should we have a vertical focus? (e.g. R&D, ERP, CRM)

Should we focus on ROI?

One possibility is a matrix-style approach (industries vs.
applications and target audiences)

IH: We need to be careful not to do more than, say, three task forces
at a time. The group is relatively small and we can't spread ourselves
too thin.

SS: An alternative way to approach this is to play to our strengths.
(e.g. oil and gas industry (Frank))

IH: Regarding demos: I'd be very careful with that as we have a
limited number of people and doing demos well requires quite a lot of
work. We should avoid unrealistic goals.

AR: One audience that hasn't been mentioned are people learning about
computer science. Ideally, we'd like them to graduate knowing the SW
vision--

JS: I agree with that; especially as IT starts moving more and more
towards new graduates. engineering technologies have a very long cycle
and are often a generation or two behind. The new stuff comes out of
the universities and we should size on that.

AR: Consider things like the Google Summer of Code. Perhaps connect
students with member organizations.

SS: I'm not aware of the mechanisms by which we can influence many
universities at once (without having to approach them one by one). I
also think it is hard to change curricula. 

IH: In the UK, for example, the universities consider the courses the
property of the university (IP-wise). This may be a practical
difficulty.

AR: At MIT in January, for example, there's a Tim Berners-Lee plus Jim
Hendler course.

JS: It's definitely a tough nut to crack; if we start in the graduate
schools as research initiatives it will filter down to undergrads.

WY: Perhaps we could put together an organized set of tutorials and
other materials and call it a "course" which we could distribute as
such.

KM: Perhaps we could put together a workshop targeted at students and
educate them to go spread the vision at a grass roots level.

SS: The O'Reilly boot camp / hackathon model might be something to
copy.

AR: I think that the first thing to get straight is what this all
means to *us*.

KM: I see message auditing and agreement on what we think the message
is.

AR: "shared understanding"

<creation and discussion of
http://thefigtrees.net/lee/sw/sweo/faceted-cube2.jpg >

ACTION: IvanH to contact the guy he knows in Norway re: oil&gas

eGov we'll leave pending for now (no contacts). HCLS we'll ignore for
now (covered by SW HCLS IG). 

KM: Entertainment: there has been some interest in semantics from
Disney Interactive. 

Retail: we have the Nat'l Ass'n of Convenience Store. They are also
tied to the oil & gas industry (tangentially at least).

Telecom: Vodaphone. Nokia does not have bandwidth.

AR: We've come up with a lot of inside-the-company approaches. I'm
wondering if we'll lose the "connected" aspect of SW benefits. Are we
too inward facing?

KM: I'm not so sure. Financial services have CRM (customer-facing)
interests, for example.

IH: What about the legal industry? Our only contact right now is a
company in Spain.

KM: Law firms tend to be slower technology adopters. It's very
fragmented. I think there's an opportunity in the services industry
providers. Put legal along with the content providers, perhaps.

ACTION: IvanH to contact people at Southampton re: EU projects about
environmental issues

<Discussion of how to appeal within businesses vs. how to appeal to
the Web 2.0 / "hackers" community>

<Lengthy discussion of the relative merit of targetting messages at
executive level first or at developer level first> 

<Discussion of what areas everyone would prefer to work in>

==Day 2==

==Agenda: Summary from Day One==

SS: We agreed yesterday that these would be good SWEO activities:

+ Better understand current market position
+ Identify core messaging that works
+ Apply core messaging to target industries, application areas (data
integration, search, regulatory comliance), audiences
+ Gather existing resources, e.g. demos, tutorials, books
+ Recruit additional people to SWEO, e.g. vendors, enterprises,
universities (Susie, with help from anyone else interested)
+ Focus on Web developers and enterprises
+ Brain storm incorporating semantic web into undergraduate and
graduate training

FC: How will new/joining members of SWEO get involved with the work of
the task forces?

SS: Via the mailing list and weekly teleconferences; using minutes to
catch up on past meetings and decisions. 

SS: Task forces -- 2-6 months (4 month max?) to produce a deliverable
for SWEO and then move on to the next thing. If desirable, individual
task forces can have separate (additional) telecons.

Task force email conventions suggest placing a tag that identifies the
task force within square brackets at the beginning of email subjects.
For example:
  [OIL] Use Cases

SWEO Wiki for sharing documents and for collecting task force
information.

IH: Be careful with Wiki: there is a danger that a huge amount of
small pages may be created which make it difficult to navigate and
find information.

SS: The W3C wiki system allows Wiki pages to be categorized (as, for
example, "SWEO Doc"). These categories can later be used for finding
information.

WY: Are we still considering looking into some of the semantic Wikis
out there?

IH: We should look into them but we don't have experience setting them
up.

WY: We could look into what's involved.

IH: There is a group working on a semantic version of MediaWiki such
that you can tag information and get data out as RDF. 

ACTION: Wing to investigate installation and use of Semantic
MediaWiki.

==Agenda: Good W3C Meeting Habits==

SS: 

  1) Minutes: It's very important that minutes are taken at all W3C
  meetings and calls.

  2) Introductions: People should know who each other are on calls;
  start calls with new participants introducing themselves

  3) Regular participation: Signing up to be part of SWEO activities
  leads to an expectation of fairly regular participation. W3C
  maintains "good standing" status for those who participate
  regularly.

IH:

  4) IRC: W3C uses IRC in parallel with the telephone for telcos.
  Minutes are taken on IRC. More information at:
  http://www.w3.org/Project/IRC/

  W3C has homegrown IRC bots (Zakim and RRSAgent) which help run the
  telecons. 
   Zakim teleconference system: http://www.w3.org/2002/01/UsingZakim
   Zakim IRC bot: http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot.html
   RRSAgent IRC bot: http://www.w3.org/2002/03/RRSAgent
   Tips for taking minutes: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/minutes.html

  After meetings, I will clean up the autogenerated minutes and write
  them to W3C web space. 

SS:
  There are different ways of accessing IRC. I use WebIRC. [lee: see
  above w3c links for alternative IRC client programs]

IH: The mailing list is controlled, but the archives of mailing-list
communications is public. 

DR: How does action tracking work?

IH: For the time being, minute taking includes recording action items.

LF: Will we have any sort of formal decision making process for
examining deliverables produced by task forces?

SS: I imagine we will take things as they come, but we will seek to
get community review and overall SWEO review and approval. Perhaps we
will share deliverables with the Semantic Web Interest Group.

IH: Yes, I think getting consensus on deliverables is important. Some
documents might becomes published W3C Interest Group Notes to help
gain visibility and attention. If we do this, we may and probably will
receive comments from the public. Perhaps we will then establish a
separate public mailing list for such comments.

SS: It would be nice to maintain a SWEO FAQ on the wiki to help people
familiarize themselves with the activities of the IG.

IH: And I will maintain the homepage similarly. The IG homepage is
actually a b2evolution blog which we can use as a tool soemday for
appropriate announcements. We're still unsure how we'll use that.

==Agenda: Identify Work to be Done==

SS: Better understand current market position

We'd like to find out what people not involved in the semantic web
think about it. (only for universities? AI only? etc.)

LF: Does that include a message audit of what's already being said
about the semantic web?

SS: I see it as a bit different; we'd like to know what the people
already talking about the SW are saying, but also we'd like to know
what other technical people who are not involved at all with SW think
about it.

FC: Perhaps this is something that Gartner could help us with?

Chevron has a subscription to Gartner -- we can do an inquiry and ask
their analyst to answer. I'm not sure how public that information is
once its been gathered. 

SS: Another option might be to see if Oracle has already done this
sort of polling or surveys on the SW.

IH: I'd imagine that vendors who have put moeny into semantic web will
have done this sort of research.

<Discussion of which IG vendors might have already done research into
market feelings on SW>

LF: Any research that we might be able to gather from vendors will be
on the enterprise side of the fence; determining the Web developer
feeling is a different task.

IH: How can we gauge opinion of the Web developer community? 

SS: There seem to be two approaches -- "spying" on select mailing
lists and forums, or perhaps tageted contacts (e.g. Timo Hannay at
Nature Publishing) to see they're feel.

IH: Danny Ayers may be a very good person who is a good starting point
to explore the Web developer and blogosphere communities.

LF: Eyal Oren (ActiveRDF developer) might be a good person on the
boundary between Web developers and SW community to gauge feelings.

IH: Another possibility might be Brian Suda, who is involved in both
microformats and GRDDL.

ACTION: Susie to contact Danny Ayers
ACTION: Susie to contact Timo Hannay
ACTION: Lee to contact Eyal Oren (ActiveRDF)
ACTION: Susie to contact Brian Suda
ACTION: Susie to contact Ian Davis (Talis)
ACTION: Susie to contact Amsterdam UVA

SS: Try to identify primary, secondary, and tertiary tasks:

Primary (whole SWEO group together):
  Better understand current market position and identify core
  messaging

  Gather existing resources, e.g. demos, tutorials, books,
  applications

  Recruit additioanl people to SWEO e.g. vendors, enterprises,
  universities

Secondary (split into task forces):
  Apply core messaging to target industries, application areas,
  audiences (web developers/enterprises)

Tertiary:
  Brain storm incorporating semantic web into undergraduate and
  graduate training

Analysts:

ACTION: Karen to contact Gartner
ACTION: Susie, Wing, and Karen to contact FOrrester
ACTION: Susie to contact IDC
ACTION: Susie to contact TopQuadrant
ACTION: Susie to contact Mill Davis

Vendors:

ACTION: Lee and Wing to contact IBM
ACTION: Susie to contact Oracle
ACTION: Susie to contact Siderean
ACTION: Kingsley (Idehen) to contact OpenLink
ACTION: Susie to contact HP (Brian McBride and ...?)
ACTION: Lee to contact Sun - Henry Story
ACTION: Susie to contact Sun - Eduardo ?
ACTION: Susie to contact Altova (IH to find AC rep)
ACTION: Susie to contact Apple (IH to find AC rep)
ACTION: Susie to contact Asemantics (IH to find AC rep)
ACTION: Susie to contact Digital Harbor International (IH to find AC rep)
ACTION: Susie to contact iLog
ACTION: Susie to contact Inferware
ACTION: Susie to contact Ontology Works (IH to find AC rep)
ACTION: Susie to contact Opera (IH to find AC rep)
ACTION: Susie to contact Profium
ACTION: Susie to contact Sandpiper
ACTION: Susie to contact Siderean
ACTION: Susie to contact Talis
ACTION: Susie to contact webMethods (IH to find AC rep)

W3C companies (understand usage and views of SW):

ACTION: John Davies to contact BT
ACTION: Frank to contact Chevron
ACTION: Jeff S to conact Boeing
ACTION: Susie to contact AstraZeneca
ACTION: Susie to contact BBC
ACTION: Susie to contact CitiGroup (Ivan to find AC rep)
ACTION: Susie to contact Elmundo (IH to find AC rep)
ACTION: Susie to contact Deutsche Telekom (IH to find AC rep)
ACTION: Susie to contact Ericsson (IH to find AC rep)
ACTION: Susie to contact Fair Isaac (IH to find AC rep)
ACTION: Susie to contact Google (TV Raman)
ACTION: David R to contact Hutchinson
ACTION: Susie to contact ETRI (IH to find AC rep)
ACTION: Susie to contact Merck
ACTION: Susie to contact Nokia
ACTION: Susie to contact Fujitsu (IH to find AC rep)
ACTION: Susie to contact Ordnance Survey
ACTION: Susie to contact Pfizer
ACTION: Susie to contact Partners
ACTION: Susie to contact Siemens (IH to find AC rep)
ACTION: Susie to contact Yahoo! 
ACTION: Susie to contact ASTRI (IH to find AC rep)

Non-W3C Companies:

ACTION: Susie to contact Huawei
ACTION: Susie to contact China Mobile (IH to provide contact)

LF: So what do we ask all these companies?

SS: Perhaps two different questionnaires: one for enterprises and one
vendors?

<group discussion emerging with:>

For non-vendor enterprises:

  Does your organization using Semantic Web technologies now (e.g. no
  usage, research, pilot, production)?

  What sources of information influenced your decision?

  What were the perceived advantages and disadvantages of SW
  technologies?

  Please provide a brief description of the nature of any SW projects.

IH: We should run this past Ian Jacobs before using it.

IH: Do we really want to separate questionnaires by vendor/non-vendor?

SS: I think so; we'd like to find out what made vendors feel that the
market is mature enough.

<Discussion of "vendor" questionnaire as a superset of the non-vendor
questionnaire, emerging with:>

  Do you use Semantic Web technologies internally? (e.g. no usage,
  research, pilot, production)

  Do you use Semantic Web technpologies in your products?

  How do customers perceive your usage of the Semantic Web?

  What sources of information influenced your decisions?

  What were the perceived advantages and disadvantages of the SW
  projects?

  Please provide a brief description of the nature of any
  implementations.

<lunch>

IH: Can we discuss time limits on actions? First we should probably
draft the mail and send it to the SWEO list and to Ian.

ACTION: Susie send draft of questionnaires to SWEO list and to Ian (by
Nov-22)

ACTION: Ivan: Identify all missing contacts

SS&IH: Timetable:

 1. Lee distributes [these] minutes Nov 15 (Lee)
 2. Send email to SWEO list and to Ian regarding questionnaires and
 polling by Nov 22 (Susie)
 3. By Nov. 22 Ivan to identify all contacts (Ivan)
 4. Response from Ian by approx. Dec. 1 (Ian)
 5. Send out mails by Dec. 15 (Susie and others)
 6. Feedback by Jan. 15 (various)
 7. Compiled results by Jan. 30 (Wing and Jeff)

SS: We also need to approach analysts for informal conversations that
will feed back into our results. Target for that is middle of
December.

Similarly, target for contacting Web developers contacts is middle
December.

<Discussion moves to: Resource task: Gathering Existing Resources>

IH: There are some non-w3c sites that list resources (Dave Beckett's
resource page linked off our wiki page, Chris Bizer's list of software
tools), this is something we should be aware of. Ivan had some
difficulty categorizing tools on our list. Elias Torres collecting
RDFa/GRDDL tools.

For textbooks I tried to be selective and include only SW-related
books. Might be good to cross-check this. Also, my coverages is
limited to English, French, German, and Hungarian. No coverage for
other languages (e.g. Italian) currently.

Tutorials - SWBPD group had a list of tutorials. Ralph or Chris could
give more information on how this list was managed and if there are
plans to maintain it.

Demos and applications - there are quite a lot of demos out of ISWC
(e.g.  SemWeb challenge). I am afraid of listing things which are
university projects, cute projects, but which do not get maintained
and disappear after a while. I'd prefer to see applications which are
more stable. 

LF: Should we be gathering comprehensive lists or "best of" lists?

IH: Best-of lists are difficult for legal reasons, controversy
reasons, selection reasons, and maintenance reasons. Comprehensive
lists are probably a better first step for SWEO.

SS: For demos, perhaps having a more stable representation of the
demos with screenshots and a brief description in addition to a link
to the possibly-working demo would be a good idea.

IH: It's more realistic for the people who created the demos to
actually create stable snapshots of it. We could setup a wiki setup
for this and advertise them to developers to add their demos in a
long-living way.

I think that for demos and tutorials the SWBPD group started to create
lists but they got lost and could not be reconstructed.

ACTION: Ivan to dig up SWBPD work for tutorial lists and application
lists and determine current status

IH: I would welcome people looking at the tools and books list with
careful scrutiny towards organization.

ACTION: Dave to review Ivan's list of books by December 1

NOT-YET-AN-ACTION: Danny A to review list of tools for completeness
and categorization

ACTION: Frank to investigate/review SW books in Chinese by December 1

ACTION: Wing to review tools list for completeness and categorization
by Dec.  1

<Discussion of demo list: we do not want to hsot it on Moin Moin>

DR: Do we want the demo list to be a Wiki page? Are we concerned that
low quality demonstrations would demote SW technologies rather than
promote them?

LF: That's a good point; I think we can use a Wiki setup to gather
demos and see what we end up with. If necessary we can move the demos
that we would send around and promote to a Web page under stricter
control.

ACTION: Lee investigate Dave Beckett's reference of tools and books
etc. 

<Discussion of Danny Ayers' SWEO suggestions
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sweo-ig/2006Nov/0009.html >

<Adjourn>

------------------
Action Items
------------------

ACTION: Susie to contact Danny Ayers and David Cearley (Gartner), and
Helen C. (Agfa) and Alan R. to clarify participatation status.

ACTION: Karen to provide examples of successful messaging materials.

ACTION: IvanH to contact the guy he knows in Norway re: oil&gas

ACTION: IvanH to contact people at Southampton re: EU projects about
environmental issues

ACTION: Wing to investigate installation and use of Semantic
MediaWiki.

ACTION: Susie to contact Danny Ayers
ACTION: Susie to contact Timo Hannay
ACTION: Lee to contact Eyal Oren (ActiveRDF)
ACTION: Susie to contact Brian Suda
ACTION: Susie to contact Ian Davis (Talis)
ACTION: Susie to contact Amsterdam UVA

ACTION: Karen to contact Gartner
ACTION: Susie, Wing, and Karen to contact FOrrester
ACTION: Susie to contact IDC
ACTION: Susie to contact TopQuadrant
ACTION: Susie to contact Mill Davis

ACTION: Lee and Wing to contact IBM
ACTION: Susie to contact Oracle
ACTION: Susie to contact Siderean
ACTION: Kingsley (Idehen) to contact OpenLink
ACTION: Susie to contact HP (Brian McBride and ...?)
ACTION: Lee to contact Sun - Henry Story
ACTION: Susie to contact Sun - Eduardo ?
ACTION: Susie to contact Altova (IH to find AC rep)
ACTION: Susie to contact Apple (IH to find AC rep)
ACTION: Susie to contact Asemantics (IH to find AC rep)
ACTION: Susie to contact Digital Harbor International (IH to find AC rep)
ACTION: Susie to contact iLog
ACTION: Susie to contact Inferware
ACTION: Susie to contact Ontology Works (IH to find AC rep)
ACTION: Susie to contact Opera (IH to find AC rep)
ACTION: Susie to contact Profium
ACTION: Susie to contact Sandpiper
ACTION: Susie to contact Siderean
ACTION: Susie to contact Talis
ACTION: Susie to contact webMethods (IH to find AC rep)

ACTION: John Davies to contact BT
ACTION: Frank to contact Chevron
ACTION: Jeff S to conact Boeing
ACTION: Susie to contact AstraZeneca
ACTION: Susie to contact BBC
ACTION: Susie to contact CitiGroup (Ivan to find AC rep)
ACTION: Susie to contact Elmundo (IH to find AC rep)
ACTION: Susie to contact Deutsche Telekom (IH to find AC rep)
ACTION: Susie to contact Ericsson (IH to find AC rep)
ACTION: Susie to contact Fair Isaac (IH to find AC rep)
ACTION: Susie to contact Google (TV Raman)
ACTION: David R to contact Hutchinson
ACTION: Susie to contact ETRI (IH to find AC rep)
ACTION: Susie to contact Merck
ACTION: Susie to contact Nokia
ACTION: Susie to contact Fujitsu (IH to find AC rep)
ACTION: Susie to contact Ordnance Survey
ACTION: Susie to contact Pfizer
ACTION: Susie to contact Partners
ACTION: Susie to contact Siemens (IH to find AC rep)
ACTION: Susie to contact Yahoo! 
ACTION: Susie to contact ASTRI (IH to find AC rep)

ACTION: Susie to contact Huawei
ACTION: Susie to contact China Mobile (IH to provide contact)

ACTION: Susie send draft of questionnaires to SWEO list and to Ian (by
Nov-22)
ACTION: Ivan: Identify all missing contacts

ACTION: Ivan to dig up SWBPD work for tutorial lists and application
lists and determine current status

ACTION: Dave to review Ivan's list of books by December 1

NOT-YET-AN-ACTION: Danny A to review list of tools for completeness
and categorization

ACTION: Frank to investigate/review SW books in Chinese by December 1

ACTION: Wing to review tools list for completeness and categorization by 
Dec.
1

ACTION: Lee investigate Dave Beckett's reference of tools and books etc. 


-- end --
Received on Friday, 17 November 2006 21:07:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:34 GMT