- From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 12:31:37 -0400
- To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Here are minutes of our 1 April meeting, with two corrections from
the irc record. In irc I recorded that
ACTION DanBri get rdf-thes contacts from Guus
was completed, however Brian correctly noted that this action is
not complete until Guus provides the data. I have thus changed
this to 'continued'.
Also, Mike Uschold noted that I mis-recorded his comments, which
were intended to be:
There was NO agreement on metaclasses or on any other specific
issues. The agreement was on how to present our advice, [if we ever
reach agreement]. Specifically: being non-judgemental in our advice,
to emphasize consequences of modeling choices, and to avoid preaching.
-Ralph
----
[1]W3C
SemWeb Best Practices and Deployment WG
1 Apr 2004
See also: [2]IRC log
Attendees
Present
Guus Schreiber, Ralph Swick, Pat Hayes, Dan Brickley, Libby Miller,
Jeremy Carroll, Marco Nanni, Natasha Noy, Brian McBride,
Jacco van Ossenbruggen, Aditya Kalyanpur, Deb McGuinness,
Tom Baker, David Norheim, Jos De Roo, Alistair Miles,
Jen Golbeck, Mike Uschold
Regrets
Jim Hendler, Bernard Vatant, Aldo Gangemi (Aldo watched
on irc, however, and commented on what was recorded therein.)
Chair
Guus
Scribe
Ralph
Contents
* Action Item Review
* Summary of New Action Items
* Summary of resolutions
* Agenda
1. Admin
2. Task Force Template
3. Application and Demo TF
4. World TF
5. WordNet Task Force
6. OPEN TF
_________________________________________________________________
Action Item Review:
ACTION DanBri ask SemWeb CG about constraints and advice re WD, Note, etc.
-- completed in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-semweb-cg/2004Mar/0000.html
ACTION Ralph talk with Guus and create a straw poll form for meeting times
-- continued; to be done in next 7 days
ACTION Guus to propose a format for TF description
-- completed in [15]; on today's agenda
ACTION JimH write description of WorldView TF
-- completed in [17]; on today's agenda
ACTION ChrisW write description of OPEN TF
-- continued
ACTION Aldo describe Wordnet TF
-- completed in [18]; on today's agenda
ACTION DanBri get rdf-thes contacts from Guus
-- continued, though DanBri has started a page
[14]http://www.w3.org/2004/03/thes-tf/mission
ACTION Aldo e-mail WordNet update to mailing list
-- completed; see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004JanMar/thread.html#114
ACTION guus read bernard's e-mail with draft TMAP msg
-- continued
ACTION guus to finalize TMAP e-mail, notify cg, and send out msg
-- continued, with the following discussion:
Ralph; the CG asked that the message include explicit language
that this was not yet a formal request for liaison
Jeremy: is it possible to have a representative from the ISO TC on our
Task Force without it being a formal liaison?
Ralph: my opinion is that yes, it is possible for the Task Force to
include ISO TC members without it being a formal liaison
ACTION DanC to send mail requesting feedback on RDF/XHTML & GRDDL
to both lists
-- completed; see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004JanMar/0098.html
and
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2004Mar/0010.html
ACTION DanBri investigate publication of Turtle as SWIG note
-- continued
ACTION ChrisW present his time ontology in the next telecon
-- continued
Summary of New Action Items:
ACTION Guus ask Aldo if someone from Princeton is willing to participate
-- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/04/01-swbp-irc#T18-58-41
ACTION Guus talk with Aldo about WordNet and produce a short-term plan
for option 1
-- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/04/01-swbp-irc#T19-05-38
ACTION Natasha look at classes-as-values DC:Subject issue
-- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/04/01-swbp-irc#T19-21-50
ACTION Deb propose a simple pattern for OEP
-- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/04/01-swbp-irc#T19-23-23
ACTION Jeremy write TF desc for XML Schema
-- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/04/01-swbp-irc#T19-30-29
Summary of resolutions:
RESOLVED Minutes of the 18 March telecon [13] accepted with correction
that Dan Brickley's action re: consulting SemWeb CG about Notes vs WD
was completed.
[13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004JanMar/0100.html
-- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/04/01-swbp-irc#T18-13-12
RESOLVED Date & time for next telecon 15 April 1400 UTC.
-- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/04/01-swbp-irc#T18-19-24
RESOLVED Template for Task Force descriptions [15] accepted.
-- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/04/01-swbp-irc#T18-27-39
Agenda:
[11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004JanMar/0209.html
Admin
<Scribe> PROPOSED date & time for next telecon 15 April 1400 UTC
Pat: this time clashes with Data Access WG
Jeremy: Japan is under-represented on the call now
<Scribe> Ralph will get working on his action to get straw poll done
<Scribe> RESOLVED date & time for next telecon 15 April 1400 UTC
Task Force Template
[15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004JanMar/0208.html
draft task-force template [Guus 2004-03-31]
DanBri: This template looks good. I have already started to wrap
this in HTML for the WordNet TF.
<Scribe> RESOLVED: template accepted
Application and Demo TF
[16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004JanMar/0133.html
On a possible role for the applications and demos task force
[Brian, 2004-03-25]
Brian: my objective was to start some discussion
hoped this TF might act like previous Test Cases task forces
Jos: test cases have my support
Guus: reaction from Knowledge Web perspective?
Marco: too early to say; need a more clear definition before
starting work; there are many topics from which to select
Libby: I support the idea of showing code fragments
Guus: would FOAF fit here?
Libby: yes, possibly
Pat: the analogy with code is misleading; code does what it does,
whereas ontologies do more
Brian: important to have other task forces should sign up to provide
illustrations while I floated the idea, I'm not yet signing up to
coordinate the TF
David: also support this, but also will have to limit my participation
Jeremy: I am happy to sign up for XML Schema TF
Guus: I expect to sign up for Porting TF
Libby: I am willing will to help coordinate ADTF for a while
Brian: willing to help Libby flesh out a proposal
World TF
[17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004JanMar/0143.html
"World" TF description (informal) [JimH, 2004-03-25]
Guus: two Notes; the first Note is intended to be more business cases
and the second Note is intended to help those who are confused in
where to start
Pat: I expect to be involved in this task force. I worry that the first
Note might have too much "drum beating" and not enough "practice";
that it might turn into an advertisement
Guus: expect the document to be short; a maximum of 5 pages
Mike: read Jim's summary, looks OK to me
Deb: I also volunteered to Jim that I would help on this
DavidN: I would especially like to help with the first document
Pat: might be good to have more representation from others in the WG
who have different views
Jeremy: document 2 needs participation from the DL community
Mike: I think I can represent the business perspective
Deb: I consult with some startup companies and can represent the
startup perspective
David: we know something about the business perspective also
Jos: happy to review, but won't be able to participate in this task
force
Jeremy: will also review
Marco: France Telecom would like [to provide] feedback. We are
willing to try out a draft document within FT
WordNet Task Force
[18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004JanMar/0114.html
WordNet Task Force - work outline [Also 2004-03-23]
Guus: see Aldo's recent msg
[19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Apr/0017.html
Aldo presents an important option 2 choices of representation (1) take
the principal representation as-is and create an RDF Schema for it,
without adding features (2) do a translation and introduce some RDF
constructs
<AldoG> Above all, (1) does not try to "interpret" the original
Wordnet schema in terms of ontologies. (2) tries a mapping from
the original schema to ontology data types (classes, individuals,
properties, subClass, etc.)
DanBri: my translation only took the nouns; this allows markup that
looks nice
Guus: my personal opinion is that in principal if there is a
representation we should translate it as literally as possible and
leave interpretation to the user
Pat: this issue is broader than just WordNet
<aldoG> I agree with Pat: it applies also to thesauri
Pat: agree with a translation that takes everything as an individual
and makes the fewest assumptions
<aldoG> the problem with (1) is that we actually renounce to derive
useful ontologies from wordnets and thesauri, which is the current
trend of research in both academic and industrial/organization
contexts
Libby: we followed the simple approach in calendaring
Ralph: agree with starting simple.
Can we get participation from Princeton?
<aldoG> (2) is not necessarily "complex". For instance, Dan Brickley
has ported (a part of) WordNet using (2)
ACTION: Guus ask Aldo if someone from Princeton is willing to
participate
<danbri> From [20]http://www.w3.org/2004/03/thes-tf/mission (just
drafted), "Document strategies for representing Thesaurus-like content
using RDF/OWL --- Produce guidelines for transforming an existing
thesaurus (or classification system, or similar concept-based
taxonomy) into an RDF/OWL representation. Guidelines should describe
strategies for converting into an RDF representation of thesaurus-like
structures, as well as strategies for re-describing in RDF/OWL the
content originally conveyed in the Thesaurus."
Pat: others have done major work on aligning Cyc with WordNet too
<aldoG> Christiane Fellbaum is interested in following the work, but
she cannot ensure a lot of attention
Guus: I don't agree with Aldo's "the problem with (1)..." -- these can
be added later
<aldoG> CYC2WN, as well as Sensus, SUMO2WN and DOLCE2WN (OntoWordNet),
follow approach (2). In fact in [21]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Apr/0017.html
I propose to deliver (1), which is almost ready, and then move to (2)
Pat: re Aldo's (2), there are tradeoffs
Jeremy: it is plausible to do this in two phases
Guus: re Christiane Fellbaum; if she could nod agreement that would
be nice and even make the TF work part of their distribution
<aldoG> Yes, I agreed with Jeremy (I have even proposed 3 phases,
since (2) can be done in a 'simple', or in an "enriched" mode)
Brian: a key test of commitment from the WordNet folk is maintenance
as WordNet changes
Guus: this was part of my thoughts; make it part of their distribution
<aldoG> Versioning is a major issue for every ontology production
lifecycle ... we should also think on procedures to easily port new
versions of wordnets and thesauri. Indeed, this issue has been very
relevant in the fishery ontology project with UN-FAO ...
<danbri> [the class-based approach has merit where you want to mix
wordnet w/ other vocab, eg <Pig x:name="Porky"/>...]
Jeremy: I don't hear any dissent on the first (simple) proposal
ACTION: Guus talk with Aldo about WordNet and produce a short-term
plan for option 1
<aldoG> I will include the proposal to make the OWL port part of the
distribution in the open letter to WN developers, also mentioning the
alternatives
DanBri: We made a namespace for WordNet version 1.6; it would
be simple to make another namespace for subsequent versions.
My original notion was to conflate all the versions in one
namespace, but it seems that won't fly. I would like to see
guidelines for converting thesaurii to RDF structures
<aldoG> Only one namespace could be unacceptable for lexicographic
people
DanBri: WordNet could be examples in such a note
<aldoG> Yes, Dan, (2) is a way of arriving to a common methodology to
port terminological resources to SW
Guus: most of the translations that have been done are not complete.
I propose that any translation we do should be complete; e.g. only
noun trees and only a few relationships there are about 20
relationships. We should do all the relationships under option 1
Jeremy: that should be a goal, but don't overconstrain those doing the
work in the TF
Guus: ok, a goal -- not a requirement
<aldoG> In (1) it is very easy to do all the relationships. In (2),
we'll need to distinguish among rels holding classes, individuals,
words
<danbri> [aldoG, did you see the SKOS vocab aliman worked on? do you
think that could be extended for use in describing w/net?]
<aldoG> [yes, Dan, I heard about SKOS, I'll go through it asap]
OPEN TF
MikeU: There has been lots of discussion in the past few weeks.
Agreements have not been reached on metaclasses, or on any other
specific issues such as when to use classes as instances.
Mixing part-of and subclass relationship also had some discussion.
Consensus is emerging on how to present our advice; to avoid
judgemental calls but to identify representation/modelling choices
and explain consequences of the choices, without saying "bad" or
"good". In cases where we can agree that an outcome is probably
a desirable one or not a desirable one we can say so.
MikeU: Next steps: agree to pick a single thing to try the
non-judgemental approach, pick a candidate for a best practice
move forward on some simple low-hanging fruit
Guus: would be good if this TF can produce a short note from a use
case perspective
MikeU: Deb wrote a paper [Living with CLASSIC] a few years ago
Deb: section called "tricks of the trade";
when do you model something as a concept or as an individual, when to
use classes as instances. Classic pointed out positive and negative
implications of some choices. The TF will propose a format for
interchange; will need several iterations. I will look over
Living With Classic paper to see what can be lifted. We are not
likely to attempt metaclasses to start
Natasha: classes for DC:Subject have been discussed -- this is
actually a technical problem propose to describe tradeoffs rather
than say 'good' vs 'bad'
Deb: this doesn't sound like a short one to me
Guus: anyone who has tried to combine Dublin Core and OWL has been
faced with this problem
<aldoG> maybe we could also try to give some idea of alternative
general choices concerning categories of content, like my LAB has done
in the EU WonderWeb project [22]http://wonderweb.semanticweb.org,
specially (public) deliverable 18
Guus: I support this (Dublin Core) topic as a note
MikeU: we agree it is useful, concern about how long it might take
Natasha: do 2 topics, one simple
<jacco> deb: sounds like the GOF design pattern template ...
Deb: a template for explaining tradeoffs
<aldoG> obviously, alternatives of content should be given even within
the Living with Classic case, or wrt Dublin Core, anyway very simple
cases
Deb: a format that would help point out consensus quickly will help
Mike: useful for all TFs to look beneath the surface of email and
notice that there often is a kernel of agreement
ACTION: Natasha look at classes-as-values DC:Subject issue
<aldoG> Having a GOF for trade-offs would be great
Natasha: note that classes-as-instances is a different issue
<aldoG> Natasha, do you mean classes as concrete data types?
therefore, the 'annotation' approach ...
Deb: The Task Force would like to change from OPEN to OEP;
Ontology Engineering Patterns. This name change will facilitate search
<Scribe> ACTION: Deb propose a simple pattern for OEP
Guus: I only put on the agenda those TFs that were getting active
discussion from the Cannes notes, another TF I'd like to see get
attention is PORT - Porting Thesaurii to the Web
Alistair: I am working on thesaurii conversions right now
Guus: I am working on this as well, expect to involve someone else
from my lab
<golbeck> i would like to be involved in port as well
DanBri: I posted a draft today
<Guus> DanBri Alistair this paper might be of interest:
[23]http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/papers/Wielinga04.pdf
<aliman> public-esw-thes has Stella Dextre-Clarke and Leonard Will
from a team working on new british standards for thesauri, also
doug tudhope from glamorgan + some others
DanBri: would the WG prefer to use an existing public-esw list or
start a new one?
Guus: if a separate list, would like to have regular summaries sent to
the WG list
DanBri: agree
Guus: What about the XML Schema TF?
Jeremy: not urgent, though New York is an opportunity to have informal
talks
<jjc> ACTION: jjc, write TF desc for XML Sch
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Deb propose a simple pattern for OEP
[NEW] ACTION: Guus ask Aldo if someone from Princeton is willing to
participate
[NEW] ACTION: Guus talk with Aldo about WordNet and produce a
short-term
plan for option 1
[NEW] ACTION: jjc, write TF desc for XML Sch
[NEW] ACTION: Natasha look at classes-as-values DC:Subject issue
_________________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [24]scribe.perl 1.67 ([25]CVS
log)
$Date: 2004/03/26 19:59:12 $
References
1. http://www.w3.org/
2. http://www.w3.org/2004/04/01-swbp-irc
11. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004JanMar/0209.html
12. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004JanMar/0209.html
13. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004JanMar/0100.html
14. http://www.w3.org/2004/03/thes-tf/mission
15. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004JanMar/0208.html
16. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004JanMar/0133.html
17. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004JanMar/0143.html
18. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004JanMar/0114.html
19. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Apr/0017.html
20. http://www.w3.org/2004/03/thes-tf/mission
21. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Apr/0017.html
22. http://wonderweb.semanticweb.org,/
23. http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/papers/Wielinga04.pdf
24. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribe.perl
25. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/scribe.perl
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2004 12:30:16 UTC