- From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:56:04 -0500
- To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
draft minutes in http://www.w3.org/2004/11/01-swbp, text snapshot below.
Note that per agreement of the 28 Oct meeting, the telecon previously
scheduled for later today (11 Nov) has been canceled. The next telecon
is scheduled for 18 Nov, as decided at the f2f.
----
SemWeb Best Practices and Deployment F2F
1-2 Nov 2004
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Oct/0163.html
See also: [3]day 1 IRC log, [4]day 2 IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2004/11/01-swbp-irc
[4] http://www.w3.org/2004/11/02-swbp-irc
Attendees
Present
Ralph Swick, Jeremy Caroll, Phil Tetlow, Brian McBride, Libby
Miller, Guus Schreiber, David Wood, Alistair Miles, Dan
Brickley, Jeff Pan, Felix Burkhardt, Andreas Harth, Steve
Pepper, Benjamin Nguyen
Present by telecon for part
Deb McGuinness, Tom Baker, Chris Welty, Ben Adida
Regrets
Evan Wallace, Deb McGuinness (partial), Marco Nanni, Tom Baker
(partial), Natasha Noy, Gary Ng, Fabien Gandon, Ben Booth, Jos
De Roo, Lars Marius Garshol
Chairs
Guus Schreiber, David Wood
Scribe
Dan, Libby, Andreas, Alistair, David, Jeff, Ralph
Next Meeting
18 November, 1900 UTC (2pm Boston)
Contents
* [5]Topics
Day 1
1. [6]PORT TF
2. [7]Wordnet TF
3. [8]ADTF
4. [9]XML Schema Liaison
5. [10]HTML TF
6. [11]VM TF
7. [12]OEP Task Force
Day 2
1. [13]RDF/OWL and Topic Maps
2. [14]discussion of breakout groups
3. [15]Breakout Report - RDF/TM
4. [16]Breakout Report - RDF/HTML
5. [17]Breakout Report - Wordnet
6. [18]Wrapup
* [19]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________________
Day One
Agenda Adjustments
<danbri> Re Restaurant, I think it is here, but jjc will confirm:
[20]http://www.conradatjamesons.co.uk/location/index_location.htm
[20] http://www.conradatjamesons.co.uk/location/index_location.htm
<libby> yep that's the one
propose to swap RDF-in-HTML and ADTF slots, so Bristol folk can move
to the teleconf room
RDF-in-HTML will be discussed at 1530 UTC, ADTF will be discussed at
1330 UTC,
tomorrow afternoon discussion on breadth of work and ways to bring in
other participants
PORT TF
<RalphS> [ PORT (aka Thesaurus) TF description is
[21]http://www.w3.org/2004/03/thes-tf/mission ]
[21] http://www.w3.org/2004/03/thes-tf/mission
al: brief intro to skos core spec
... [22]SKOS Core is an RDF vocabulary for thesaurii
... vocabulary is managed like FOAF; each property in the vocabulary
has its own level of stability
... classes and properties summarised in a table, with their
properties
... and a brief mention of the management policy for skos core
... and a brief note re community involvement
... list of vocab details
... that bit of document generated from the schema itself, hence table
created from script
... navigation at side of document
[22] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/
ralph: stepping back briefly...
... feeling a bit out of sync with this task force
... how does this vocab serve as being the most important answer right
now to get thesauri ported to the semweb
... what's the feedback you've got that makes you confident in this as
a solution
al: coming from the other point of view, within dig library community,
for thesauri alone there is currently no dominant interchange format
... so v little reuse of tools etc within that community
jjc: how much is skos yet another format that won't be a standard
al: will answer that one later
... skos is part of a family of similar systems, thesauri, subject
heading schemes, glossaries, which have all been developed with walls
in between them
... they all share a lot of common features
... another thing in the thesaurus community is that moving beyond
print environment is still a new thing
guus: do you have indication how many of the vocabs out there have
such a structure that can be usefully mapped to skos
... eg mesh not something that you can...
al: i'd say 98%
DanBri: work that is written-up here [SKOS] has a heritage back to
other work, including a write-up I did for the W3C Query Workshop in
1998
... vocabulary as written is good
... some commentors suggest it could be more term-centric
... this is low-hanging fruit
... could relate to future Topic Map discussions
al: i've presented this at a few digital library workshops
... the single feature that i've picked up on that people have
liked...
... use of rdf means people can add new features, and extensible, you
can specialise classes and properties
... v attractive as people want to refine thesauri standards to be
more precise
phil: i'm kinda concerned that this might be a closed community
ralph: why are Wordnet and MESH hard examples for SKOS?
guus: wordnet isn't a conventional thesaurus in the ISO sense
... nor mesh
... but in the library world, ppl have been making thesauri for ages
ralph: can we target a specific thesaurus?
al: sure. we already have gemmet(?) who use a prev version of skos
... also uk govt categories
... in swad-e we did a cycle of review/test/etc
ralph: i didn't realise it had been used, wasn't clear from the docs
al: is linked from the swad-e pages
<libby> [23]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/thes/
[23] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/thes/
<libby> usecases:
[24]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/thes/usecase.html
[24] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/thes/usecase.html
DanBri: the Digital Library community likes this because RDF allows
them to use many representation types and specialize
... worries me because of a view toward "facet modelling"
... I think they don't realize what can be done with OWL
... in the RDF & OWL world we can say "subClassOf"
... in the thesaurus world they are accustomed to want to say
'broader' and 'narrower'
Al:SKOS attempts to not replicate things that are already in OWL
DanBri: 'denotes' relationship bridges models
... [25]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/thes/8.8/
... subtle distinction between modelling in RDF and OWL over modelling
thesaurii -- will be important for us to explain this
[25] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/thes/8.8/
al: of whole skos core vocab, the broader property is the most
important one in there
david: al, you said the thesaurus community only recently thinking
beyond print... can you expand?
... what are the changes?
al: single biggest impact of that, working in the print community, you
have a thesaurus which is a book, terms, record cards...
... you fill terms from thesaurus into record card
... so term-centric
... as people working with this
... a problem with that, 'cos in a thesaurus you have two kinds of
term, preferred descriptors and non-preferred terms
... a descriptor is a main label for a concept
... ...so confounding of term as unique id vs usage in natural
language
david: i'm with you ... but ... so what?
al: althought a thesaurus is supposed to be concept oriented, in
practice it is term oriented
<Benjamin> WN draft might be :
[26]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wordnet-sw-20040713.h
tml
[26] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wordnet-sw-20040713.html
guus: all these communities have built vocabs, they're v domain
specific, terms represent agreements within a community
... if people commit to this particular terminology
al: as we move into networked world
Guus: even within a community there will be conflicts and
disagreements in usage
al: where two vocabs collide in networked world, this is a new
problem/issue to pre-electronic version
<Guus> sure!
david: can you make that explicit in the document
ACTION: Alistair make explicit in skos core doc the fact that you're
trying to deal with potential for multiple thesauri using the same
terms, overlap etc., different from paper publishing world
Steve: this is an area in which Published Subjects might be helpful
guus: not sure ... that this is specifically work for this tf
... happy to see port tf to propose a skos-based convention for
represnting real-life thesauri in rdf/xml
... could be very short
... my main problem is ?size of doc / quickstart / primer
DanBri: note comment from Brad @ Siderean
phil: you're looking at having multiple independent domain specific
thesauri, but not at detailed cross domain mappings
... are we looking at the problem of translating across domains; e.g.
medical to something else?
Al: that's part of SKOS Mapping
DanBri: faceted browser for Dublin Core was built using a term-centric
approach
... the developer said the term-centric approach was easier to deal
with, though less elegant
ralph: this discusssion positions what you've done better for me, in
space of problem we're trying to solve.
... is particularly important to emphasise the point that guus just
made, perhaps in skos core guide, that the motivation be given right
up front...
... with examples
... there's a risk that community rivalry might project from perceived
qualities of a thesaurus to skos itself
... so show several!
... so skos would be more persausive if described this way
... so important distinction, between basic thesaurus representation
versus fancy stuff on mapping
... get basics out asap, showing some use for thesaurus world without
getting bogged down in mapping
phil: suggesting that words on these constraints needed in the doc?
ralph: not sure we need to write it that explicitly, just make sure we
work through real use case examples
... by implication this shows our priorities
jjc: felt to me that al's later examples could have been more
prominent
guus: i was visiting sound and vision institute
... tv and radio archive of the netherlands
... dutch
... simple textual file, i just want to have a document to give them,
to translate that
... simple use cases are there
... another one, dutch royal library, GOO (general object something)
... v simple, uses 3 or 4 things from skos
... term, broader term, related, ...
... give them something to allow their developers something to build
an rdf representation
ralph: so speed is important?
al: totally agree; with skos-core guide, as short and simple as
possible, ...
<danbri> [libraries-> web not sw; blogs, instances]
al: suggestions welcomed
DanBri: several things going on here; lots of historical context for
wanting to help migrate things to Semantic Web
... librarians want to see their role in Sem Web
... many cheaper and scruffier examples being generated
... SKOS is interesting because it is right in the middle
... it fits with the light-weight data sharing things like FOAF but it
also fits into the library world
... I'd like to see 2 classes of examples; a dump syntax for thesaurii
and syntaxes that mix into the rest of the RDF world
... with the move from print to electronic, what's changed in the
library world is how they operate
... there now are blog operators that create thousands of categories
that point to a page
... hierarchical categories in SKOS have been shown to work nicely
... can now show to the library world that their work on thesaurii can
show up in this new blog category world
phil: a point about pragmatics
... a solution space for semantic tech for library world
... as they're potentially an early adopter, could be some pain there
... is it within our remit to help with take up
... ? there's some responsibility within this team to act as a
reference point, or respond to, frustrations from early adopters
... is that a wg responsibility?
david: this is our constant problem. charter is v broad. i wouldn't
say that it is the wrong thing to do. potentially too hard for the
group as it currently stands.
... we could do less of something else we're doing, or else find
someone out there to help with this
phil: from my standpoint in industry, when you're trying to become an
early adopter of this technology, BP seems to be an ideal home for
channeled frustrations
jjc: i disagree
david: a pain registry would be good in theory...
... but because i'm sensitive to what this group is being asked to do
DanBri: the people who participate in WGs are not generic reassignable
resources; they have some role in their host organization
... for example, those of us funded by EU are here to create
supporting materials
... when this goes out to WD, the WG has the responsiblity to respond
to public comment
ralph: SWBPD wg charter is, for better/worse, v broad
... i view the intent of the charter of this wg to help the real world
use the sw tech
... migrate to it, etc
... we can't afford to take on every user community whose pain we feel
... but we should be confident that everything we work on addresses
some genuine user community problem
... what i've been pushing here is for the materials that we deliver
to show the real world problem that is being addressed
... depending on the prob, we may or may not be able to demonstrate we
solved it all
... so be clear about what probs we want to be seen as solving
... agree w/ phil that some of that is needed, but also +1 david's
point re resource limitations
david: ralph likes to (rightfully I think!) pick up the concept of use
cases... If a discussion comes up, Ralph will remind us to define a
use case, also in document review. This is a really good idea. When we
talk about what use cases we're going to do, the same short list comes
up; It's always FOAF and DOAP. We have a short list of a common
candidates for use cases
<DanBri>: [DOAP vs DOPE]
drug ontology thing
<libby> DOPE: [27]http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/swc/dope.html
[27] http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/swc/dope.html
david: if we use same list across all our note candidates...
... eg. we could look back and say, 'we did xyz to bring foaf into
mainstream fold, ...
... so we should probably come up with list of these use cases
jjc: back to phil's earlier point... i think it is important that we
don't do support of individual users
... ralph talked about communities not individuals
... we do latter on jena-dev list
phil: I agree
David: I see indivs supported in IG; communities supported by WG
steve: re topicmaps angle... this skos looks like a v interesting
project
... collab, make sure whatever we do in the rdf/tm tf is consistent
al: thanks, agree; Kal Ahmed, ...[missed names] have been active w/
skos
... re Published Subject Indicator, currently discussing whether to
have a PSI property in SKOS
... re spec document, people seem ok with that, concerns have been
with the guide document
... guide is at an early stage, built from our wiki content
... feasible to publish for end of november
guus: more discussion tommorrow?
al: might be useful to run new features of skos core past the WG
... because of the subject indicator discussion
guus: so i hear two issues; 1st is potential examples, 2nd is to talk
about topic maps [& denotes property]
... ie. open issues within task force; alongside discussion of rel'n
to topicmaps tf
ralph: david commented about standard use casees
... guus has emphasised that there are use cases; please lets pick
some.
... concern i have with foaf is that it is simple and intuitive
... but foaf is already developed, and rdf friendly
guus: foaf is a description template, not a vocab
ralph: not clear useful to list foaf as a skos use case
... anything we do, there's some community out there, who we should
know about and whoese needs we should address
al: I could've written this by showing classic print thesauri followed
by skos version; could do that, but foaf developer folks wouldn't
follow. There are different communities who need different kinds of
example.
guus: who is main community? digital library?
al: point is that this is skos core guide... is that the right title
for the right document?
... another point is a primer specifically for using skos w/ thesauri
<RalphS> "Expressing Your Thesaurus in the Semantic Web"
guus: how about not having skos in title
Steve: not just thesaurii; also controlled vocabularies, subject
headings
(various proposals uncaptured; discussion of whether just thesauri
...)
all: great work alistair!
<DanBri>: RalphS, I believe the intro to
[28]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wordnet-sw-20040713.h
tml explains how SKOS, Wordnet, and RDF/OWL fit together. Would be
great if you could review that bit of the doc in particular.
[28] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wordnet-sw-20040713.html
Wordnet TF
Guus: history: history wordnet in rdf several times - but none
endorsed by princeton
... phase one - wordnet datastructures in RDF/OWL - no changes, make
it so that everytime wornet is updated, get an rdf/owl version too
... Brian has been working on a draft:
[29]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wordnet-sw-20040713.h
tml
... details to be worked on: wordnet has synsets, a group of terms.
many linguistic relationships between the synsets and the terms
... main problem with the phase one conversion is lack of people's
time: more work on the document and then liase with princeton
... Christianne Fellbaum someone was definitely interested in working
on this
... which maybe enough
[29] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wordnet-sw-20040713.html
<RalphS> [ WordNet Task Force description is
[30]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/tf ]
[30] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/tf
guus: issues: what shoudl the base uri be for wordnet; how shoudl
updates be handled? and how shoudl words be repreesnted
... this is the only document we have really. focus discussion on how
to get more effort into here
danbri: everyone wants to do the exciting stuff not phase one stuff:
this is hard wor
guus: would love to do it if he had the time
danbri: good for all to review the introduction to this...easy to
confuse the differnt tasks, e.g. could skos grow to address any of the
wordnet tasks?
... some of these are research questions e.g. similarity of structures
between thesaurus and a lexical database
jeremy: maybe just a few terms to connect those...maybe in a separate
namespace
brian: issue in modelling wordnet is : what is it you're modelling - a
lexical concept, a sequence of characters?
<RalphS> [Christiane attended our 27-May WG meeting to talk about
WordNet-SWBP collaboration; see
[31]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004May/0149.ht
ml ]
[31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004May/0149.html
brian: people using it in RDF want a large set of classes not "the
word bicycle"
danrbi: yes - two traditions
guus: we decided to do the lexical one first and the classes one in
phase 2
some text from guus: [32]http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/public/wn.txt
[32] http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/public/wn.txt
jeremy: we could just discuss the resource issue?
david: do it with skos?
jeremy: complexifying stage 1
guus: problem is too many representations and people like a common
reference
ralph: has princeton endorsed any rdf reepresentations?
benjamin: decker one linked form their page
david: but none of these are complete representations
<danbri> [they'll list anything that uses wordnet; they don't QA those
links]
jeremy: could a grad student take this document through the process?
guus: it's not just a grad student exercise....
ralph: but we could help answer some of teh harder questions
... any candidates? even at princeton maybe?
guus: might have a candidate, btu would need a group to ask questions
of
ralph: a student might drive the group by asking specific questions
david: do we gain anything as a wg by using skos for
this/investigating this link
guus: doesn;t think there's much of a link betwewen skos and stage 1
david: librarian case - their terms have a lexical route, they might
benefit
guus: librarians and wordnet are distinct communities
... wants to get something out fast
aliman: agrees that 1st step, skos not appropriate. pragmatic point -
people don;t want two solutions for one problem: cleaner at first
anyway to offer one solution
danbri: agrees with that. also peopel confuse teh powers of skos and
the powers of rdf, lots of education to do there. cobining the two
will confuse matters even more.
... already acknowldged in teh docs that these could become closer
later, leave it at that
... wordnet is a model of the english language - work in other places
to generalize the model to other languages e.g. euroowordnet, japanese
danbri: be exiting to have this language neurtral stuff later. plenty
of simple work for now
ralph: generalization can make it less attractive to a particular
community; specialization in documents helps us more in deployment
<danbri>
([33]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/talks/200404-nict/Overview-2.htm
l I plugged wordnet (class model) to NICT folks nr Kyoto)
[33] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/talks/200404-nict/Overview-2.html
guus: we just say: use this one (with princeton) - and not say why
ercept ina background document
danbri: "use this one" worries me - as there are naturally 2
... you (guus) are talking about adding to the lexical version with
classes later....
guus: class representation is too difficult, one taht we all agree
on...
danbri: make it a brutish one
guus: the revisions are the issue
... agreement in the TF telecon is to work wioth princeton to help
with representation at the lexical level plus discuss with them
transformations tools that could help with different versiosn
... in the maintenance phase the schema doesn;t change, just the
content; for the rdf classes version the schema does change
ralph: do we know the mechanics of how they update the database?
danbri: they do a release every 6 months or so
<aharth> ftp download at ftp://ftp.cogsci.princeton.edu/pub/wordnet/
brian: 4things to do in TF: basic schema; talk to people whove done
other represerntations and involve them; needs to interact with
princeton, getting them to include it in their distribution etc;
finally build some tools to create the RDF representation
... all depends on the first one
... lots of work in this TF above producing the document
guus: first step is critical but not the only thing
brian apologises for not having got further with this. happy for
someone to pick it up and finish it; otherwise brian will find the
time to get a first cut by the end of the year
danbri: q for brian: do you ahve a sense of how much more work needs
ot be done on the document before a pre-working draft release of teh
document. impacts on interacting with other producers
brian: betweeb 2 weeks (grad student) and end Dec (brian, given his
time contraints)
ralph: would it be harmful to toss a coin to pick an existing
representation?
... would like to keep the tf around until we get more resources
rather than suspend it
guus started with the swiss one... [scribe missed name]
scribe: we're very close to that one
danbri: my version is not a lexical version, can't use that
<libby>[[
- KID Group, Univ. of Neuchatel, OWL representation
[34]http://taurus.unine.ch/GroupHome/knowler/wordnet.html
]]
[35]http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/public/wn.txt
[34] http://taurus.unine.ch/GroupHome/knowler/wordnet.html
[35] http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/public/wn.txt
<danbri> [as are half the others; this WD-draft is as good as it gets,
I think]
<danbri>
[36]http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think6.html
... article by Uche coding to Melnik's version
[36] http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think6.html
<libby> [Univ. of Neuchatel version is the one the TF drafts are close
to]
ralph: perhaps there is soemthign in jeremy's suggestion for a grad
student to do
guus: steve - is there a link between PSIs and this work?
steve: yep
guus: could use these as publisheed subjects
steve: yep
<RalphS> i.e. if there is content that Guus and Brian already have
that is not yet represented in a new version of the Working Draft, it
sounds like there's a place for an editorial resource to help
danbri: might be interested in contacting say uche, re contacting
developers
guus: Univ. of Neuchatel version is a more complete version of the
melnik version
danbri: would like a few words on the spec about lexical vs class
representation - could do this text
ralph: design rationale - useful but not essential...
guus: would be nice
ralph: basic design would not wait for the design rationale
brian: danbri's offer to interface with develeopers in this area would
be very useful
ACTION: brian and danbri need to talk about what need to do for
Wordnet document to be good enough
guus: review the decisions that need to be taken on this document
tomoorw? 11.30 -1
[missed brian's comment sorfry]
danbri: worried about not knwoing when we've got it right
guus: this what the working draft will do
... considers all the other parts as very important, incl class
representation, how to use the lingistic representtaion for annotation
of images, say
<RalphS> [yes, publication of the working draft will get visibility
for the design which then gets feedback on the correctness]
--break for lunch
ADTF
guus: people want to see showcase applications that show added value
of the technology
... some nontechnical examples to make that point
<RalphS>
[37]http://esw.w3.org/mt/esw/archives/cat_applications_and_demos.html
[37] http://esw.w3.org/mt/esw/archives/cat_applications_and_demos.html
guus: semantic web challenge 2003: AKTive Space, DOPE, Building
Finder, Museum
<RalphS> [ADTF description is
[38]http://esw.w3.org/topic/SemanticWebBestPracticesTaskForceOnApplica
tionsAndDemos ]
[38] http://esw.w3.org/topic/SemanticWebBestPracticesTaskForceOnApplicationsAndDemos
guus: things in common: integrate different large data sources,
RDF/OWL used for syntactical interoperability
... storage and access issues the main things to worry about
... schema mapping required
... use of owl:sameAs was an issue
... information integration and presentation is an issue
... unfortunately only in-house because it's about computer science
...DOPE: very typical based on a thesaurus
... uses EMTREE thesaurus based on mesh
... 5M Medline abstracts, 500k full-text articles
... disambiguation of search terms an issue
... use case: search for information about aspirin
... medicine is important area, professionally used
... won a technology award recently
... BuildingFinder:> USC
... use various sources (satellite images, roadmap info, address
information)
... BuildingFinder: reverse address lookup not possible in some eu
countries
... image alignment algorithms
... point to a satellite image and find out the name of the person who
lives there
... combination of structural and image processing techniques
(multimedia info)
... Finnish museums on the web
... BuildingFinder: unfortunately in finnish
... weblog providing us already with some decent material, maybe not
sufficient
<RalphS> [Longwell would be another good addition to
[39]http://esw.w3.org/mt/esw/archives/cat_applications_and_demos.html
; [40]http://simile.mit.edu/longwell/ ]
[39] http://esw.w3.org/mt/esw/archives/cat_applications_and_demos.html
[40] http://simile.mit.edu/longwell/
<RalphS> -> [41]http://atlas.isi.edu/semantic/servlet/SemanticServlet
BuildingFinder
[41] http://atlas.isi.edu/semantic/servlet/SemanticServlet
libby: presents weblog
... how to get rdf descriptions out of the weblog
... weblog started out of part of the swad-e project weblog
... plan to use the weblog as part of the skos effort
... application page: title, uri, descriptions about projects
... who to contact, more information, categories
... 17 applications in the weblog already
... bit cumbersome to fill in the template
... because of spans in the template it's possible to use GRDDL and
XSLT to extract the information
... uses doap (description of a project) vocab to encode information
about the projects
... mixed-and-matched with dc and foaf
<danbri> ah, <html xmlns="[42]http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
[42] http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml
<danbri> <head
profile="[43]http://swordfish.rdfweb.org/discovery/2004/06/adtf/#">
[43] http://swordfish.rdfweb.org/discovery/2004/06/adtf/
<danbri> ...in head of
[44]http://esw.w3.org/mt/esw/archives/cat_applications_and_demos.html
[44] http://esw.w3.org/mt/esw/archives/cat_applications_and_demos.html
libby: uses swed: ns for categories
<danbri> DOAP, see [45]http://usefulinc.com/doap
[45] http://usefulinc.com/doap
<danbri> (not to be confused with DOPE?)
libby: swed (semantic web environment and directory): facetted browser
<RalphS> SWED is at [46]http://www.swed.org.uk/swed/ ]
[46] http://www.swed.org.uk/swed/
libby: contains environmental information
... SWED browser worked quite nicely for the semweb applications and
demos
... SWED uses SKOS to describe categories
... categorization by name, and other properties
... build-in harvester can be used to add data from remote sites
<danbri> example of Redland w/ SKOS and DOAP descriptions... [another
great swad-europe deliverable :-]
<RalphS> [I wonder if SWED has any provenance yet]
libby: possible to add data and filter on properties
... creation of records about projects could be done by the
application authors themselves
<jjc> [47]http://swordfish.rdfweb.org:8080/adtf/ is top level uri for
what libby is presenting
[47] http://swordfish.rdfweb.org:8080/adtf/
libby: then harvested
... doap uses freshmeat categories for software projects
jjc: question about harvesting and control policy
libby: possible to trust a certain domain name
ralphs: maintaining provenance data?
libby: really uses SWED as an application, keeps track of trusted
sources and other sources
... jen golbeck's work is related
davidw: difficult for users to accept is presentation of raw uri's
... we are providing human-readable labels
... non-technical users focus on longish uris
ralphs: that's what rdfs:label is for
danbri: truncation mabye?
<danbri> [aside: recent sobering experience re slipping into geek
assumptions; the woman sat next to me on plane on friday hadn't heard
of iPods/MP3, and I found myself realising I was suprised]
ralphs: in this case truncation doesn't work
Guus: OpenDirectory is the closest existing categorization
davidw: open directory is used for categorization, but is not really
appropriate
<RalphS> [yes, left-most truncation on the DOAP category example Libby
was projecting contains the only human-interpretable information; that
freshmeat and sourceforge were part of the classification]
libby: need labels and uris
davidw: having demos that are compelling to end users tucana is
interested it
aliman: got a student who's looking at a wiki tool for building a
thesaurus
guus: demos page is a demonstration in itself
... how to operate this?
<Zakim> danbri, you wanted to seek confirmation that we're happy with
community project self-description (trust ppl not to be vain
selfpromoting dorks)
guus: 18 new applications in the semantic web challenge
... what areas are missing?
danbri: what's the motivation for making vocabularies owl dl friendly?
guus: most applications use rdf and owl:sameAs
... maybe it's too early for owl applications, takes two years for
applications to use new stuff
jjc: maybe have options on what semantic web technologies are used in
the applications
ralphs: maybe a bit technical
... what's the process of maintaining the software package?
<danbri> [for listing RDF vs OWL DL vs Full etc., I find narrative
content ("what we did was...:") much much more valuable than simple
checkboxes ("we use OWL DL.").]
guus: later on maybe do a survey, keep the barrier low for data entry
... have to depend on ongoing projects that showcase applications
<RalphS> saying what technologies are used is also liable to be
out-of-date; will someone remember to update the "Now uses full OWL"
entry when they go beyond the DL subset?
guus: owl and xml datatype discussion
XML Schema Liaison
<RalphS> [XSCH Task Force description is
[48]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Apr/0125.ht
ml ]
[48] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Apr/0125.html
jjc: issues the task force is addressing came up in the webont and RDF
Core wg
... two questions about how to use XML Schema datatypes with RDF
... current situation is a compromise between what's ideal and what's
possible
... user-defined datatypes
... issue here that there's no agreement what uris to use for
user-defined datatypes
... when are two type literals the same
... issue here: are 0 as a float and 0 as an integer the same?
... rdf and owl testcases don't include testcases on this question
... datatypes come from xml schema, not part of the semantic web
activity
<RalphS> [JJC discussing
[49]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Oct/att-0049/x
sh-sw-note.html ]
[49] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Oct/att-0049/xsh-sw-note.html
jjc: some response from the xml schema wg
... need the buy-in of the xml community, but need to progress as well
... xquery/xslt are also working with the xml schema datatype
... a lot of w3c groups are potentially involved
<Guus> Related issue: numeric ranges require iser-defined datatypes:
[50]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Apr/0066.ht
ml
[50] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Apr/0066.html
ralphs: producing a sketch that people can comment on maybe a good
idea
jjc: possible solutions;
... the DAML+OIL solution works for datatypes that has a name
... using name attribute to fragID the xml schema descriptions
... however, not in conformance with RFC2396 and xml schema mime type
... for sw people, this solution is better
...alternative: xml schema component designators wd
... powerful solution to navigate in the schema using xpointer
... however, quite complex
... possible solution: use both id and name
ralphs: it's important to distinguish between a concept and a
particular description of the concept
danbri: made the conflation using uri's for identification and getting
the description by dereferencing the uri
jjc: xml refers to syntactic objects, on semantic web the resource
that denotes itself is interesting
... uri of a description is the uri of the thing described
ralphs: other ways of constructing an uri: bnode xpointer scheme?
jjc: both the id solution and the xscd solution could work
... next item: comparison of values
... comparison between float's and int's
... simplest possible solution: all the types are different
... but somewhat counterintuitive
... long and int are derived from the same primitive type
guus: number datatype would help
davidw: we have super datatype of number
<RalphS> XML Schema 'decimal' type is
[51]http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#decimal
[51] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#decimal
davidw: implemented in product because of customer demand
<RalphS> XML Schema 'float' type is
[52]http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#float
[52] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#float
jeffp: what are the current answers from the xml datatype spec?
jjc: no consensus within the xml schema group regarding the issues
... the document should be clear about that though.
[53]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Nov/att-0092/0
4-num-hierarchy.png
[53] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Nov/att-0092/04-num-hierarchy.png
jeffp: is it a subsumption hierarchy or definition hierarchy?
jjc: two extremes: all types are different vs. strong mathematical
representation
<danbri> [ context:
[54]http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20041012/#extendedte
sts ]
[54] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20041012/#extendedtests
jjc: xpath 2.0 documents mention the eq operator that says "2.0 eq 2"
is true
... xslt have typed literal objects and operations can be done on
these literals
guus: what next steps need to be taken?
jjc: key question: publish a document without xml community?
... continue to work on the document and then ask for input on an
editor's draft
... timeline could be distribution to the other wg's before chrismas
<RalphS> [I was unaware of the XML Schema Component Designators work
-- looking at it now, it does appear to be a strong connection with
this datatype issue]
danbri: relationship to DAWG/SPARQL and xquery operators?; see
[55]http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20041012/#extendedte
sts
[55] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20041012/#extendedtests
<RalphS> [XML Schema: Component Designators
<RalphS> [56]http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xmlschema-ref-20040716/
[56] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xmlschema-ref-20040716/
<RalphS> W3C Working Draft 16 July 2004
<RalphS> ]
jjc: following the xslt 2.0 is more likely to be in line with the dawg
group
<Zakim> RalphS, you wanted to say that mathematicians will laugh if we
adopt the viewpoint that xsd:decimal has a disjoint value space from
xsd:float
ACTION: jjc review SPARQL WD re
[57]http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20041012/#extendedte
sts
[57] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20041012/#extendedtests
HTML TF
[Ben Adida calls in for this session]
->
[58]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Nov/0003.ht
ml [HTML] Status for RDF/XHTML [BenA]
[58] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Nov/0003.html
Ben: RDF-in-XHTML-TF has been in existence since 1999
... users include FOAF, TrackBack, GEO-URL
... Dublin Core, and more recently Creative Commons
... main issue is how to embed RDF triples in HTML
... have been focussing now on the sections that are dependent on the
HTML WG's current timetable
... working in parallel on making sure we understand our requirements
<benadida> [59]http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdf-in-xml.html
[59] http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdf-in-xml.html
Ben: ... there are items in the 27 May 2003 document that we are no
longer sure still make sense
... e.g. direct embedding of RDF/XML syntax
[Tom Baker calls in at this point]
Ralph: the problem is complicated because at least 2 WGs need to
cooperate, and possibly 3.
... also, the HTML WG's charter does not allow them to request certain
changes of XML schema (for example)
... Jeremy sent proposals to make RDF A simpler
... need to offer proposals to HTML WG before last call
Jeremy: initial review (from 1 week ago) some issues came up
... have done implementation of RDF A
... serious issue: RDF A is too complicated
... some of the rules are too complicated
... the number of different ways of representing a triple in RDF A is
432
... if you run examples from spec you get more triples than the author
said
Ralph: the spec needs more work either to represent authors intent, or
to fix triples
... opportunity: the words in the spec could be simpler
... and could fix triples at same time
Jeremy: some clear simplifications but doesn't go far enough l ...
... more functionality ...
<Ralph> ->
[60]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2004Nov
/0001.html Jeremy's simplification of RDF/A
[60] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2004Nov/0001.html
Ben:it's good because can represent more complex triples, literals
... and an RDF triple in an HTML clickable way
... without duplicating anything in markup
... which is good property of GRDDL
<Zakim> danbri, you wanted to check familiarity with new W3C Compound
Documents WG
Danbri: new WG at W3C Compound Documents
Ben: lot's of important techinical detais re RDF A - please take a
look!
... Now get some initial feedback asap for html WG
... look at 3 line statement from Ben's email
... important message to HTML WG: we';re moving in the right
direction.
Ralph: This meeting output: statement that Ben put in his mail from
today ...
<benadida> statement: We find RDF/A to be a big step forward and
encourage the HTML WG to use it in place of the 22 July
MetaInformation module. Our forthcoming detailed comments and
suggestions on RDF/A are intended to perfect this work in fulfilling
the long-standing needs of the RDF deployment community to embed
semantic web data within HTML documents.
Ben: Can we all endorse that statement?
Guus: are willing to make this direction statement?
ralph: what questions does the WG want to ask of the TF before
deciding on the endorsement?
Phil: direction is superb
... pragmatics - concerned about potential abuse within XHTML user
community
... question need to push forward incolusion of metadata for XHTML 2
...rather than hold back and look at richer set of use cases
... concerned about the potential abuse of RDF/A within HTML, perhaps
focus on RDF/XML embedding
... use of metadata inside XHTML may be misinterpreted by general
public
... if I were writing metadata in web page now, would do it to drive
search engines.
Guus: this is important point, but outside scope of this WG
Ben: what do you consider abuse?
ACTION: Phil to write up concerns on email
Danbri: how strongly are we pushing this as as a new RDF syntax?
... originally to handle FOAF namespace ...
... hoped that the FOAF namespace document could be validated for RDF
content ...
... so do we support the practise that e..g. the FOAF RDF description
be written as embedded in an XHTML document?
... I.e. should we write ontologies in RDF A?
<RalphS> [me says No!]
<danbri> [in which case, 1 original FOAF use case remains unmet]
Ben: goal is to produce alternative serialisation for RDF ...
Ralph: goal?
Ben: requirement to embed arbitrarily complex RDF statements in XHTML
....to satisfy this requirement is a goal.
<RalphS> [but it would be an interesting exercise to see how much of
the expression of an ontology in RDF/A could be done]
Guus: meant to e used mainly for annotation purposes ..
Jeremy: RDF A IS a new RDF syntax ...
Ralph: but this in itself is not a goal.
... i.e. implies something wrong with existing syntaxes.
... The result is to create a new syntax
.... but this is soultion to original requirement.
... Use RDF A to express an OWL ontology? No, not a goal or
recommendation.
Danbri: what about my original FOAF use case?
... I want a single resource for both humans and machines
... my use case was to write a single document at my namespace that
could be both presentation and RDF without content negotiation
<DavidW> RDF/XML has known problems as an XML vocabulary and as a
serialization format
Phil: This new variant of RDF will become the defacto standard syntax
...
Guus: can people outside the TF support positive statement for RDFA
danbri: on the fence, wants to talk to compound docs WG
SteveP: opening a can of worms ... lead to trouble
... but in the mandate of the TF support for complete RDF
... think RDF subset for simple annotations sufficient.
... the problem is that the requirement was for complete RDF support,
not "just enough" to write metadata _about_ a document
ACTION: Steve to email on concerns for RDF in XHTML
David: should not treat RDF/XML as sacrosanct
... problems with it ... we have an opportunity to recognise that RDF
is to concept, NOT the syntax
... this proposal leads to use cases for HTML authors ... and more
... would rather clean this up than see RDF/XML fixed, or RDF/XML in
XHTML.
Danbri: In RDF Core, test cases used rigorously
... worried that design work so far happened without test case
infrastructure ...
ralph: we have an action to express all RDF test cases ...
Ben: I have an action to make sure this works with creative commons
and with FOAF ...
<RalphS> [make sure that DanBri differentiates between users of FOAF
and the FOAF namespace document]
David: we have to get formal comments to HTML WG before use case work.
Guus: very positive about this work, with reservations about test
cases
... but if going to happen, then happy.
Jeremy: political goal to be positive.
Guus: propose to make general positive statement, with technical
caveats
<danbri> me: "It's great and it's useful and it's progress... but it
doesn't address my use case (FOAF namespace documentation: RDF/XML
inside XHTML); I want to know how that'll be progressed. Shoudl we
begin a conversation w/ Compound Documents WG?"
Guus: add wording about test cases
David concurs
Danbri: fulfil SOME of the needs; who should do test cases?
Ralph: ask them to do all of our test cases
<danbri> maybe 'many of the...'
Danbri: they should be using test case driven framework.
Ralph: don't want them to feel that all test cases must be met.
Guus: rephrase the statement?
ACTION: David to reword the statement on RDF A to HTML WG.
Jeremy: they need DIFFERENT test cases
... RDF Core test cases are a starting point ... may not want to use
all ...
Danbri: framework for doing it using NTRIPLES.
Ben: HTML WG meets next week ... not all will agree to RDFA
... if impose too constraints now, they may revert to metainformaiton
approach
... can we include test cases in detailed comment s to come?
Guus: in fact test cases are implicit in any spec
... so can leave this out of comment
<DavidW> Try this one: We find RDF/A to be a big step forward and
encourage the HTML WG to use it in place of the 22 July
MetaInformation module. Our forthcoming detailed comments and
suggestions on RDF/A are intended to perfect this work in fulfilling
long-standing needs of the RDF deployment community to embed semantic
web data within HTML documents.
Guus: proposed to send this as comment to HTML WG
second Jeremy
motion carried
ACTION: Ben to send this statement to HTML WG via email
VM TF
Guus: outline current docs and issues please.
<RalphS> [VM Task Force description is
[61]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/ ]
[61] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/
Tom: sent out timetable ...
<RalphS> [Tom's timetable is in
[62]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Oct/0147.ht
ml ]
[62] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Oct/0147.html
Tom: put document on list before holidays
... Move to CVS for finer editing by January
... First public release mid Feb
... Other section try to describe some principles of good practise
... then third section discussing unclear issues
... After discussion ... there are some points could be added
... Do we have large scalse vocab to use as example of good practise ?
... or discuss this in open issues?
... but before getting into issues - is the timetable realistic, does
the outline look good?
... aim to quickly flesh out the draft with low hanging fruit
... agree on main points ... then begin refinement.
Guus: timeschedule?
... ambitious but feasible (good to be ambitious)
... also fits well with charter for TF to produce results within
2-4months
David: there has been interest re ontaria
... interest in evaluating ontologies posted on ontaria against VM
recommendations
... and posting compliance ont he site
... i.e. this is the kind of use this thing will be put to.
Tom: compliance is a heavy word
... we are trying to get agreement on some basic principles
... to evaluate ontologies against these principles could be good but
... we are talking about quite geenral principles ...
Guus: this note does say anything about 'compliance' but customers may
ask about 'compliance' ...
ralph: this WG is producing docs with are 'best practises'
... whatever can be mechanically tested will be.
Danbri: part of this TF leaving machine readable evidence for
management of a vocab
... but machines cannot tell if statements are true ot not
... wories me when people look for a big pile of 'good' or 'bad'
ontologies ...
Guus: N.B. we are talking about vocabulary management
... proper usage criteria
... we can endorse this without going into a good/bad debate.
David: there is good/bad URIs and issues without going near whether an
ontology is itself good for a specific job ...
<Tbaker> agree with David
Jeremy: can these principles say: use RDFS label?
... and re 'conformance' this says rec rather than note ... would
rather not go there.
David: we can put out a series of good ideas as a best practise group
... without taling about compliance
... but as Guus says, people may choose to evaluate compliance
relative to our note
... even though it is not a W3C recommendation.
David withdraws the word 'compliance' :)
Tom: a suggestion came up to have an example vocab that provides
example of good practise points
... examples of different types of vocabulary
... describe FOAF, DC, SKOS, .... illustrate range of vocab tyupes
... pointer to how management is done for these vocabs
... still not clear to do about the really large ontologies
... there are some big vocabs that do not use URIrefs
... what should we use re large complex ontology as example?
... e.g. FAO fisheries, wordent, NCI ..
guus: we take some simple vocab for section 2
... want to keep as simple as poss.
Tom: so OK to feature simpler vocabs in section 2
... leave high end onts for esction three?
Guus: exactly.
... which vocabs on the table as examples?
Tom: FOAF DC SKOS Wordnet
... + maybe major medical/life sciences vocab
... Wordent section 2/3?
Guus: FOAF excellent example
Danbri: good example, shares stuff with DC ...
Guus: also nice to hive more terminology style vocab
... e.g. FAO thesaurus
... I.e. maintained RDF representation by owning authority
Danrbi: two classes of thing to do:
... 1. interview people on how they managed older vocabs
... 2. manage specifically in relation to RDF representations ...
Guus: my preference would be to choose something that is already
expressed in RDF by its owning organization
Alistair: opportunity to pick something that already has a history of
evolution
David: spoke to NCI guys last week
... have 5-6 guys
... + chief editor who merges by hand changes
... process is painful
... want standard tools to handle change ... i.e. real world problem
... difficult for large onts edited by multiple peoplle
... so people appreciate guidance on how to markup an ontology
... to support change management.
<Zakim> DavidW, you wanted to ask Tom whether the VM TF has addressed
guidance for multi-user editing and merging of edits for very large
ontologies.
Guus: any more on sample vocabs?
Tom: for people coming new to W3C
... want to collect issues into one place
... this note would be helpful if could summarise in 2-3 paras
... what the major papers are, what there scope is etc.
Guus: agree
ACTION: VM TF to compile list of sample vocabs for the note ...
Guus: Candidates FOAF, DC, and one thesaurus style vocab (missing
candidate)
... look into candidate for this ...
Ralph: we need to find someone who'll keep maintaining things in good
way ...
Jeremy: also need to choose example with good modelling, even though
modelling is not the focus.
Steve: (on published subjects)
... what about vocabs where don't use URIs ...
<Zakim> RalphS, you wanted to say that in the VM case the only reason
to push to an external example (e.g. non-FOAF) is to engage some
specific community
ralph: whatever we pick for third, need to be reasonably confident
about their current practise, or that they will follow our best
practise
... OASIS may be possibility ...
<RalphS> [specifically, if we can nudge OASIS in a better direction by
involving their Published Subjects in this work, that might improve
the world]
Jeremy: published subjects good if meet quality threshold.
Steve: may meet in DC at XML conf 2004 week of nov 14-
Guus: summarising:
... positive feedback on outline and timeschedule
... endorsemenet of using DC and FOAF as examples
ACTION: VM TF with help from Guus to find thesaurus like example and
high end onts to section 3
Tom: final point: appreciate help setting up wiki.
danbri volunteers
<RalphS> [I accept the actions listed by my name in
[63]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Oct/0150.ht
ml ]
[63] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Oct/0150.html
OEP Task Force
Guus issue to discuss: how do we get additional people involved in
some task forces? e.g. Sandpiper
... according to current W3C policy it is difficult to ask people to
become invited experts from companies
Ralph: Reminds all members of W3C economics and the benefits of
joining. There are good reasons not to invite experts from non-member
companies unless they have skills we specifically need and cannot get
in another manner.
... Invited experts may also join when an organization's joining is in
progress.
Guus: Good for everyone to know policy.
Deb: This particular request was from a very small company. Joining
may be difficult for very small companies.
Ralph has an action to discuss this with the company.
David: Companies are responsible for making the decision to join or
justify the reason not to.
Guus: Editors of documents do not have to be members of WGs or W3C.
Ralph: Not sure that is a good precident to set.
David: Since Ralph has an action, we should move onto OEP business.
Deb: There are other companies who are in the same position. Should we
generate our Note with them as authors, but not members?
... OWL Time would be another note that would benefit from the
involvement of individuals who are from non-Member companies
Jeremy: I have a preference that editors and authors be bound by the
patent policy.
<jjc>
[64]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2004Nov
/0004.html was msg from DanC I mentioned half hour ago
[64] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2004Nov/0004.html
Guus: More about the priorities for the OEP work?
Deb: Reviewing [65]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/
[65] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/
Other Topics, Day 2 planning
Deb: regarding ADTF -- suggest that there be a connection to
SemWebCentral site
<dlm> [66]http://www.semwebcentral.org/
[66] http://www.semwebcentral.org/
Guus: SemWebCentral is more oriented to tools
Deb: yes, but it's a general resource for the community
Libby: I was not aware of SemWebCentral -- I will take a look at it
Guus: candidate for TF breakouts tomorrow are: HTML, WordNet, XSCH,
... Topic Maps (to draft a TF description)
DanBri: maybe this WG should work with the TAG on hash vs. slash
Guus: hash vs. slash might be on agenda for Technical Plenary
Day Two
RDF/OWL and Topic Maps
<pepe> Short background reading for RDF/TM session:
[67]http://www.ontopia.net/tmp/RDFTM-TF-DoW.html
[67] http://www.ontopia.net/tmp/RDFTM-TF-DoW.html
Steve presents [68]http://www.ontopia.net/tmp/RDF-TM-interop.ppt
[68] http://www.ontopia.net/tmp/RDF-TM-interop.ppt
Ralph: will this be a stable URI?
Steve: no, I will put it someplace more permanent after I correct the
typos
Steve: Extreme Markup staged "confrontation" between Eric Miller and
Eric Freese (in 2002) was unfortunate in that it created a perception
of a rivalry
[slide 4] TMCL is Topic Maps Constraint Language
XTM - XML Topic Maps
HyTM - SGML-based Topic Maps exchange syntax
LTM - text-based "linear Topic Maps" syntax, developed by Ontopia
Topic Maps were developed while trying to identify the underlying
semantics of a back-of-book index
RDF is resource-centric, Topic Maps are subject-centric
Steve: but with a subtle shift in the meaning of "resource", this
apparent difference becomes more dialectic than diametric
<danbri> [69]http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=seamless
[[Having no seams: seamless stockings.
[69] http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=seamless
<danbri> Perfectly consistent: a seamless plot in the novel.]]
Steve: the distinction between the symbol ("Topic") and the referent
("subject") is quite distinct in Topic Maps
... Subject is explicitly defined as "Anything whatsoever, regardless
of whether it exists or has any other specific characteristics, about
which anything whatsoever may be asserted by any means whatsoever"
Guus: re: 3 types of assertions in Topic Maps, my mental map is
association corresponds to general statements, names correspond to
rdfs:label, occurrences correspond to rdf:type statements
Steve: not quite for occurrences; there is a built-in notion of type
Guus: a kind of part-of semantics?
Steve: not really, it's like 'about' but the other way around
... occurrences are a special form of association; they are always
binary and express relationships between a concept (Topic) and an
"information resource"
... "information resource" is some kind of document in the broadest
sense
... rdf:Resource corresponds to tm:Subject
... tm:Resource is an abbreviation for tm:InformationResource
<Ralph> [re: slide 14, Ralph wonders if 'basename' is a relationship
in some built-in Topic Maps vocabulary]
Steve: in order to know the exact semantics of a particular
relationship you need to know the role that each thing takes
David: where are the definitions of these associations?
Steve: associations have types
... an association type and an association role type is a topic
... so to create a new type, you create a new Topic
... syntactically these are XML elements within your Topic Map
document
Ralph: syntactically, can you get from a document that has instances
to the XML document that defines the Topics?
Steve: yes
DanBri: are there logcial rules associated with a Topic Map that
defines, e.g., a creator association?
Steve: TMCL is the language in which to capture such constraints
<danbri> [I wonder how much of TM semantics could be captured in
something like Lbase,
[70]http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/NOTE-lbase-20030905/]
[70] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/NOTE-lbase-20030905/
JJC: reification in rdf never meant what it seemed to mean; it isn't
very usable
... RDF Core WG did not remove reification from the spec recognizing
that there is legacy use of it. But RDF Core did not want to encourage
further use.
DanBri: 2 parts to the puzzle; the reification vocabulary
(rdf:Statement, rdf:subject, rdf:predicate, rdf:object) and the
reification syntax
JJC: the bagID stuff got removed
DanBri: originally implementors thought they had to always create the
reification triples. this is no longer the case.
<danbri> cf.
[71]http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/#higherorder and
[72]http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/#model
[71] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/#higherorder
[72] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/#model
JJC: the rules for identify of literals is the task of the XSCH Task
Force
Steve: Topic Maps distinguish between "names" and "identifiers"
Brian: please define "names" and "identifiers" as you use them
Guus: let's defer that discussion
DanBri: RDF is very clear on this point
Steve: a URI attached to a topic that represents an information
resource is a "Subject locator"
... arbitrary subjects that are not information resources do not have
a subject location.
... Topic Maps uses an indirection mechanism in this case
... the information resource is the subject indicator
... the URI of the information resoruce is the "Subject identifier"
... such a distinction between subject locator and subject identifier
does not exist in RDF
DanBri: objection -- this distinction is provided at a different level
Guus: the RDF metamodel does not contain this distinction
Steve: the same Topic can have many identifiers; this expresses the
fact that the identifiers identify the same thing
... Published Subjects: a distributed mechanism for assigning unique,
global identifiers -- based on URLs -- to arbitrary subjects
Guus: are published subjects for both subject identifiers and subject
locators?
Steve: subject identifiers only
DanBri: slide 27 suggests that different URIs definitely means not the
same subject
Steve: not necessarily the same subject; you can never establish that
two things are absolutely different
<danbri> [which would create a landgrab; I could create a psi for
Ralph Swick, meaning that nobody else could. Which would destroy the
soughtafter grassroots pluralism]
<danbri> [re slide 28, I'd like to revisit Q of how a PSI provider
would help people distingushi a museum-as-building vs
museum-as-organization]
<Ralph> [I think the Topic Maps PSI mechanism differs in practice from
RDF/OWL only in that Topic Maps _requires_ that the URI be
dereferenced to determine the identity of the subject]
<danbri> [I get adequate facilities from a primaryTopic rdf property,
has v similar characteristics to those advertised for TM I think]
[Steve promises to put a version of
[73]http://www.ontopia.net/tmp/RDF-TM-interop.ppt at a more persistent
URI after corrections]
[73] http://www.ontopia.net/tmp/RDF-TM-interop.ppt
[slide 47; Procedure and deliverables]
DanBri: I think it is important to keep OWL close by from the
beginning of the discussion
<danbri> ['cos owl:InverseFunctionalProperty critical to discussion of
merging, identity reasoning etc]
Guus: focus discussion on particular steps to be taken
Jeremy: the published subject stuff is the most exciting bit of Topic
Maps work from an RDF perspective
... it would be nice to write something that permits the RDF community
to use the PSI work
<Zakim> danbri, you wanted to to offer to contrast the foaf:topic and
foaf:primaryTopic design [possible lunch topic if no time...]
DanBri: I have a strawman on a 'primaryTopic' relation
... so you can scoop up data and use OWL reasoning;
... my strawman: [74]http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/#term_primaryTopic
... "The foaf:primaryTopic property relates a document to the main
thing that the document is about."
[74] http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/#term_primaryTopic
Guus: is there a metamodel for Topic Maps? I think it would be easy to
write one in RDF Schema
Steve: a couple of people have written such metamodels but none are
viewed as sufficient by the Topic Maps community
David: some of Steven's slides that he skipped do give reasons why a
simplistic mapping should be rejected
<danbri> [aliman has some stuff in SKOS in this area, too...]
<aliman_> proposal for 'skos:subjectIndicator' ...
<aliman_> which I think (danbri?) could be inverse of
foaf:primaryTopic?
<aliman_> (skos:subjectIndicator as an inverse functional prop)
<danbri> it's related, possibly the same. i'd be happy migrating that
piece of work into SKOS rather than FOAF if functionality is being
duplicated.
<aliman_> could leave them as each others inverse in both vocabs ... ?
<aliman_> ... actually realise foaf:primaryTopic and
skos:subjectIndicator couldn't be full inverse, ...
<aliman_> because not all pages described with a primary topic would
qualify as a PSI
<Benjamin> [on the rdf topic map mapping :
[75]http://www.w3.org/2002/06/09-RDF-topic-maps/ ]
[75] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/09-RDF-topic-maps/
Jeremy: W3C WGs work better when they start with a completed proposal
-- one that is viewed as 'finished', then the WG finds the parts that
really were not finished
... may be premature to start WG work when a [full proposal for]
mappings do not yet exist
Steve: I view this as similar to DAWG where there are a number of
attempts at mappings now
Jeremy: published subjects looks like an easy piece of work to get
early success
Steve: while published subjects are important to RDF-Topic Maps
interoperability, that is not all they do
... PSI will be important for vocabulary management
Alistair: there's been a lot of discussion in SKOS about a new
predicate that would support the published subject paradigm
DanBri: does the creator of a page have to plan that page to be a PSI?
Steve: that is the recommendation -- a published subject page should
be something that was explicitly written to be a PSI
... it does not necessarily have to contain machine-readable content,
though there are recommendations regarding the content
Guus: who might be interested in participating in a TF on RDF-Topic
Maps interaction?
[Ralph sees Steve, DanBri, Alistair's hands and assert that one of
{Eric Miller, Ralph} is likely to want to participate]
discussion of breakout groups
breakouts will be:
1. RDF/TM TF description (Steve, Alistair, David, Libby)
2. RDF/XHTML issues + XML Schema datatypes (Benjamin, Felix, Jeff,
Ralph, Phil, Jeremy)
3. WordNet phase (Andreas, Guus, Dan, Brian)
Breakout report - RDF/TM
<aliman> [76]http://www.w3.org/2004/11/02-swbptm-irc#T14-24-51
[76] http://www.w3.org/2004/11/02-swbptm-irc#T14-24-51
Aliman: happy with TF description
<aliman> [77]http://www.ontopia.net/tmp/RDFTM-TF-DoW.html
[77] http://www.ontopia.net/tmp/RDFTM-TF-DoW.html
Aliman: only those in the meeting today
<danbri> [re TF membership, I have a few things I want to contribute,
not sure yet quite how much time I'll have for TF overall...]
mailist identier?
Guus: suggest rdftm
Aliman: we frame the initial statement
... to combine the two families
... to provide transformation between the two objects:
... three longer term objects
Ralph: note additional W3C Process requirements if the RDFTM TF
intends to produce a Recommendation (or a "Recommendation-track
document")
Steve: that means sth not part of the short term objectives
Alima
n: The initial focus is on features defined in ISO 13250 Topic Maps.
... Other Topic Maps-related standards (such as TMCL and TMQL) may be
considered at a later date.
Steve: we discuss on various detailed issues, and suggest consider
them later on
Alistair: DELIVERABLES
<RalphS> [discussion of dropping the word 'complete' in approach "2.
Choose one or more of these as a starting point for defining a
complete methodology." ]
Guus: what do mean by "Note"?
David: we can intent to have a "note"
Guus: WG note on this issue.
Steve: any W3C member can provide note?
Ralph: note true; member submission vs. WG note
Guus: WG note is different from recommendation
... we can use working draft
... our note is not for public review yet
Alistair: DEPENDENCIES are left updated by steve, dependency on PORT
TF for SKOS
David: by the next teleconf
... are you addressing any use case in this TF?
Guus: it might get lots of attention from other communities
... suggest two co-ordinaters; one for W3C and the other for ISO
David: not sure if we need coordinators
Steve: we can get some publications out of it
ACTION: David to contact Eric Miller re his interest in joining the
RDFTM TF.
Dan: someone might write about it at xml.com
ACTION: Steve to finish rdftm TF description
Ralph: are you soliciting public feedback?
Steve: the note should cover all the existing approaches
Ralph: WG Note implies we don't have further version of it
... otherwise it is a Working Draft
Steve: TF only produce draft?
Ralph: TF provides proposed draft
... WG decide if it can become WG working draft
Steve: what are the final output from WG
Ralph: recommendation or a WG note
... WG provides last call working draft
... provide evidence to director
Ralph: change the second point [change 'Working Draft' to 'Note']
Guus: WG consensus can lead to a WG note
... time?
... rdf/xhtml
Breakout Report - RDF/HTML & XSCH
Ralph has sent [78]notes to the mailing list
[78] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Nov/0012.html
Ralph: Phil concerned that RDF/A addresses a closed community; the
opportunity
... to express a variety of use cases around RDF/A is limited.
... Phil agrees to provide some use cases
... Jeremy says good tools are part of the solution to manage proper
usage.
... Benjamin and Jeff willing to help
... Jeff agrees to give comments of current draft
... Jeremy points out there are two related working drafts had last
call last year
... hard to get further comemnts
Guus: can we handle the late suggestion?
Jeremy: we should have done it much earlier
Guus: is it critical?
David: waht about rdf/a
Jeremy: w.r.t. the value space question, the most critical thing is
that implementors do the same thing -- which choice is made won't
matter as much
David: we should be prepared to comment on rdfa in the next few months
Jeremy: i have made all the negative points in their mailing list
David: Mark has been had his way
Ralph: we have to be persuade
<danbri> today's negative comment on rdf/a:
[79]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2004Nov
/0007.html
[79] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2004Nov/0007.html
Breakout Report - Wordnet
<danbri> see: [80]wordnet breakout: raw notes
[80] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Nov/0011.html
Guus: TF draft will be ready after their f2f meeting
Guus: we revise the TF
... we look at the prolog source of WN
... and went through the list of all issues
... requirement that URI should be humna readable
... we should do some test on URIs
... we postpone discussion on some issues
... ask Jan to write transformation into RDF/OWL
... we include wn:lexicaForm
... we also resolve Prinston team re requirements
... resolved not to add a verb group for mow
... we provide two versions of WN
... we can complte by the end of the year
... move to class-centred representation
Wrapup
Guus: 1. UML stuff
... we can also talk about location of next f2f
... teleconf is useful
... ODM group is more ambitious now
... also do metamodel mapping
... they use OWL full
... as the anchor point for translations
... other metamodels: rdf, topic maps
... also mapping to scl but only one way
... they will have a two way UML - OWL Full mapping
... mapping between ER models and OWL Full
... possible for express as well
... they expect our feedback
... we should review their draft in Dec
... we should plan in advance for review
Jeremy: HP agees to review
Dan: comments? 6 pages or 2 lines comments?
Phil: they mainly want to be awared
Guus: which part HP want to review?
Jeremy: not sure
Guus: TM TF should review the connection between OWL full and TM
... if their work is good, we can take it
Steve: we can include it into our previous work
ACTION: Jeremy Clarify which parts of UML docs HP is most interested
in reviewing
ACTION: find someone to do the review the part of UML about TM
Guus: two chapters; TM metamodels and its mapping to OWL Full
Guus: Dec will be the review period
Guus: I can do metamodel of OWL full and mapping to UML
... ask PatH to review the scl part
... who are interested in OWL full to ER?
David: Tate Jones can do that
Guus: it makes sense to help them as much as possible
David: will the OWL to ER be chapter review?
Guus: yes
next f2f at W3C Tech Plenary
<libby> 28 February- 4 March 2005, Boston, MA, USA, Hyatt Harborside
Hotel
Guus: whole week meeting; WG f2f meeting and TF meetings; up to us to
decide
Jeremy: should be working with XML schema working group etc.
Steve: we can have TF meetings first then WG meetings; i.e. 4 days of
meetings?
Ralph: we can ask
Guus: ok for everyone?
... Nov 18 next teleconf
<libby>
[81]http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=11&day=
18&year=2004&hour=15&min=0&sec=0&p1=0
[81] http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=11&day=18&year=2004&hour=15&min=0&sec=0&p1=0
Ralph: 2pm boston time
<libby>
[82]http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=11&day=
18&year=2004&hour=19&min=0&sec=0&p1=0
[82] http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=11&day=18&year=2004&hour=19&min=0&sec=0&p1=0
<RalphS> 2pm Boston is now 1900 UTC
Guus: Nov 18, 1900 UTC; after that we stick to two weeks schedule
<RalphS> 2 December 1500 UTC
Guus: www panel
<RalphS> 16 December 1900 UTC
<RalphS> (noting that 2 December is during the Advisory Committee
meeting)
David: WWW2005 May 10 2005, japan
... we need strong representation from this WG
... who will be in Japan then and want to be involved
Steve: I am tempted but need to talk to the boss
... good chance to present our work
David: panel submission dl: shortly
... Steve, Jeremy, ...
David: someone from NI ...
Guus: review
... [83]table about TF and members
... Felix agrees to help ADTF
... we decided to drop some TFs ...
[83] http://www.w3.org/2004/03/04-SWBPD
<RalphS> Guus is showing the table in the 2004-03-04 F2F minutes:
[84]http://www.w3.org/2004/03/04-SWBPD
[84] http://www.w3.org/2004/03/04-SWBPD
David: one to explain SW to developpers
Phil willing to participate in TF revise
<DavidW> WRLD TF to be considered again in March/April 2005, after
some TFs complete (maybe VM, WORDNET, RDFHTML?).
<DavidW> David, Phil, probably Jim H willing to participate in WRLD TF
next year.
thank the local host Jeremy!
very nice service!
<danbri> jjc++
We will do a good job in our first year!
Steve: thanks to Free University of Amsterdam for dinner!
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Alistair make explicit in skos core doc the fact that
you're trying to deal with potential for multiple thesauri using the
same terms, overlap etc., different from paper publishing world
[NEW] ACTION: Ben to send this statement to HTML WG via email
[NEW] ACTION: Brian and DanBri need to talk about what need to do for
Wordnet document to be good enough
[NEW] ACTION: David to reword the statement on RDF A to HTML WG
[NEW] ACTION: JJC review SPARQL WD re
[85]http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20041012/#extendedte
sts
[NEW] ACTION: Phil to write up concerns about RDF/A on email
[NEW] ACTION: Steve to email on concerns for RDF in XHTML
[NEW] ACTION: VM TF to compile list of sample vocabs for the note
[NEW] ACTION: VM TF with help from Guus to find thesaurus like example
and high end ontologies to section 3
[NEW] ACTION: David to contact Eric Miller re his interest in joining
the RDFTM TF
[NEW] ACTION: find someone to do the review the part of UML about TM
[NEW] ACTION: Jeremy Clarify which parts of UML docs HP is most
interested in reviewing
[NEW] ACTION: Steve to finish rdftm TF description
[85] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20041012/#extendedtests
_________________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [86]scribe.perl 1.90 ([87]CVS
log)
$Date: 2004/11/11 03:53:13 $
[86] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribe.perl
[87] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/scribe.perl
Received on Thursday, 11 November 2004 03:59:15 UTC