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

[ALL] Draft minutes telecon 25 July 2005

From: Christopher Welty <welty@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 16:54:39 -0400
To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFFB9F0F80.AF6A846A-ON8525704C.0072CF11-8525704C.0072DAC4@us.ibm.com>

W3C
SWBPD WG Telecon
25 Jul 2005

See also: IRC log http://www.w3.org/2005/07/25-swbp-irc

Attendees

Present
    Phil_Tetlow, Ralph, David_Wood, ph, Fabien, DBooth, ChrisW, 
Alistair_Miles, 
    MikeU, Jacco, DanBri, Libby, Giorgos_Stamou, Jeremy, Jeff

Regrets
    Guus_Schreiber, Tom_Baker, Natasha_Noy, Benjamin_Nguyen, 
Deb_McGuinness, 
    Elisa_Kendall, Evan_Wallace, Jeff_Pan

Chair
    DavidW

Scribe
    Chris


Previous: 2004-07-11 http://www.w3.org/2005/07/11-swbp-minutes.html

1. Admin

PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 11 July telecon:

-> http://www.w3.org/2005/07/11-swbp-minutes.html 2005-07-11 meeting 
record

RESOLVED to accept the minutes of the 11 July telecon:

<DavidW> Next Telecon:

...Guus wanted to skip next scheduled time (in 2 weeks).
...We need to establish by end of summer targets for f2f
...and the f2f gets us near end of charter

PROPOSED next meeting 22 August

RESOLVED next meeting 22 August

2. LIAISON

<ralph> 2 requests for reviews of other docs

...web acces. initiative and sparql

<danbri> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20050721/

<danbri> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-EARL10-Requirements-20050711/

<Chris_scribe> added to agenda at end of liasons

2.1 Proposed resolution httpRange-14

<scribe> ACTION: Ralph, DavidW, and DavidB to an initial draft of TAG 
httpRange-14 resolution 

impact on semweb application developers [recorded in 

http://www.w3.org/2005/06/27-swbp-minutes.html#action02]

<Chris_scribe> agendum: 

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jul/0045.html 
DBooth's thing-defined-by 

proposal
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jul/0071.html 
DBooth expands on 

thing-described-by

<dbooth> would like proposal to be considered

 ...propose we do NOT take action on http-range-14 until so
 ... would like more input
 ... my proposal is a follow-on to tags proposal

<ralph>intend to consider DBooth's thing-defined-by idea but not let that 
me stop drafting words 

on the httpRange-14 TAG resolution

<davidw> agree with ralph

<jjc> DBooth's t-b-d proposal is more like things that IETF does
... hence an Internet Draft may be more appropriate than a BP Note
... I think Best Practice notes should only be written about established 
practices
... don't think best practice should be a proposal for a new practice

<danbri> +1 re new practice

<jjc>on http-14, inclination to stay quiet, some people seem to be able to 
live with it

<danbri> people are exhausted w/ topic, lots of email and proposals. 
Dbooth's proposal looks like 

a value-add, but no need for it to come from a w3c group

<danbri> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jul/0012.html -- 
http-range resolution - 

should we ask purl.org to make 303 redirects possible? (DC, RSS1, ...) Dan 
Brickley
 ...purl.org have a service that would require re-tooling to be compliant 
(Danbri check I'm 

getting this)

... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jul/0012.html

... [[Many pre-HTTP/1.1 user agents do not understand the 303

... status. When interoperability with such clients is a concern, the

... 302 status code may be used instead, since most user agents react

... to a 302 response as described here for 303.]]

...still drafting language in response to tag proposal.

... [reminder to re-read the actual text of the TAG's resolution too]

 ...move forward with action as stands and dbooth's proposal as sep. 
issues

... to be more concrete, we accept, conditional on TAG noting that a 302 
HTTP response is also 

acceptable (since purl.org use that, and HTTP/1.1 allows the

[searching http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#httpRange-14 for 
a pointer to the 

resolution, doesn't see one obvious]


2.2 XML Schema Last Call

<DavidW> XSCD doc:

<DavidW> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xmlschema-ref-20050329/

<jjc> I volunteer - I've read earlier docs.

<jjc> when's the deadline?

ACTION: jjc to review XML Schema last call [recorded in 

http://www.w3.org/2005/07/25-swbp-minutes.html#action02]



2.3 OMG: ODM review

<scribe> ACTION: Guus to comment on ODM [recorded in 

http://www.w3.org/2005/06/27-swbp-minutes.html#action05]

-- continues

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jul/0085.html 
ODM update [Elisa]


2.4 SPARQL

-> 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Jul/0025.html 
Last Call for 

comments on "SPARQL Query Language for RDF"

<Ralph>  SPARQL went to Last Call last week.
... some swbp input to DAWL/Sparql, feedback solicited
... We were asked last year to give input on subject and something else. 
We were requested by the 

DAWG chair to give final feedback on how our ealier feedback was recorded.

<davidw> looks like it has grown considerably
...important stuff - we need to get a review from swbp

... it would be a shame if we didn't care...

<danbri> rdf test cases were a huge part of the rdf spec - doesn't seem to 
have the same emphasis 

in sparql

...might be worth some comment

...(& _deployment_, ralph?)

<jjc> test cases in webont prceeded differently than rdf

<davidw> agrees that test cases are important for encouraging 
interoperability


2.5 EARL

-> http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10/ EARL 1.0 [WD 2002-12-06]

<ralph> from web access. initiative

...earl is a way to record the evaluations of accessibility of web pages

...seems like a natural RDF app (metadata)

<aliman> See also http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10-Requirements/ 2005-07-11

-> http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10-Requirements/ Requirements for the 
Evaluation and Report Language 

(EARL) 1.0 [WD 2005-07-11]

<jjc> This is a W3C Working Draft produced by the Evaluation and Repair 
Tools Working Group (ERT 

WG)

<aliman> See also 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/WD-EARL10-Schema-20050711.html editor's 
draft 11 

july 2005

<ralph> seems appropriate for swbp to review

<Chris_scribe> ...no formal request to review, but it is possible

<jjc> i'll do it - it'll only take thirty mins

<jjc> key line:

<jjc> EARL 1.0 will be an RDF Schema as defined by the RDF Vocabulary 
Description Language 1.0

Ralph: EARL was an RDF application at one time, I assume it might still be

<jjc> ACTION: jjc review EARL requirements [recorded in 

http://www.w3.org/2005/07/25-swbp-minutes.html#action05]


3. TF UPDATES

3.1 PORT

<scribe> ACTION: Guus ask Mark if he can review next SKOS edits [recorded 
in 

http://www.w3.org/2005/07/11-swbp-minutes.html#action04] [WITHDRAWN]

Alistair: I've contacted Mark myself

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jul/0077.html 
[PORT] review process 

[Alistair]

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jul/0078.html 
RE: [PORT] review process 

[Alistair]

<alistair> will inform guus of dropped action

...seeking feedback on the policies for reviews described above

<davidw> seems ok, note ralph's comments

<alistair> mainly concerned that reviewers have the ability to "veto" 
changes

<ralph> seemed liek proposal was asking reviewers to do the job of the TF

...see now that getting outside comments was considered reviewing

...which is fine. Main job of reviewers in SWBP is to approve next WD (or 
notes)

<danbri> yup. tf lead should report substantive dissagreements to the wg, 
but can advise wg to 

move ahead anyway...

3.2 OEP

Chris: everyone's been on vacation

<scribe> ACTION: Guus review new n-ary relations editor's draft [recorded 
in 

http://www.w3.org/2005/06/27-swbp-minutes.html#action04]

<scribe> ACTION: Ralph review new n-ary relations editor's draft [recorded 
in 

http://www.w3.org/2005/06/27-swbp-minutes.html#action03]

-- continues

Chris: the latest editor's draft is on the OEP page and has been ready for 
review

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jul/0081.html 
OEP Update from Deb

3.3 WordNet

<scribe> ACTION: Aldo to propose an update the Wordnet TF description 
[recorded in 

http://www.w3.org/2005/07/25-swbp-minutes.html#action08]

-- continues

DanBri: I think we should consider closing this TF


3.4 XML Schema datatypes

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jul/0058.html 
Re: XML Schema Datatypes 

in RDF and OWL [Dave Reynolds]

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Apr/0094.html 
comment: "XML Schema 

Datatypes in RDF and OWL" [Frank Manola]

Jeremy: with an implementor's hat, I was part of the Jena team that 
decided the xpath solution 

hard to implement
... as an editor, I took the users' perspective that the xpath solution 
was the better one

<scribe> ACTION: jeffp to draft a response to dave reynolds [recorded in 

http://www.w3.org/2005/07/25-swbp-minutes.html#action09]

3.5 Vocabulary Management

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jul/0064.html 
[VM] Telecon report - 

2005-07-19 [Tom]

<davidw> do you anticipate TF taking a stand on IRIs?

<ralph> expect there to be practical issues TF can't propose solutions for

<jjc> iri spec in RFC 3987

... [the intent of the RDF Core WG was that] IRIs are usable in the 
Semantic Web

-> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt IRIs

3.6 RDF-in-HTML (Ben)

<scribe> ACTION: Gavin find out from his community and contacts if they 
have use cases for GRDDL 

[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/25-swbp-minutes.html#action10]

<scribe> ACTION: Ralph suggest to XHTML TF that Jeremy's WWW2005 Talk be 
turned into a document 

[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/27-swbp-minutes.html#action07] 
[DONE]

-> http://www.w3.org/2005/07/19-swbp-minutes.html Report on 19 July 
telecon

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jun/0073.html 
Interest in GRDDL from 

IPTC [Tom]

<danbri> The International Press Telecommunications Council -- 
http://www.iptc.org/

<ralph> IPRC has interest in GRDDL and embedding RDF-in-HTML,

... seems to be little interest in GRDDL in SWBP

<davidW> grddl exists as a solution.

Jeremy: IPTC seems to be concerned about bandwidth
... so the GRDDL stylesheet might be too long for them


<ralph> so rdf/a may not be a solution because of bandwidth and thus grddl

..yes, compactness of encoding is an issue for IPTC but rather than that 
being an issue for GRDDL 

it is a potential advantage for GRDDL over an RDF/A solution


3.7 ADTF (Libby)

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jul/0068.html 
Semantic Web Applications 

and Demos [Libby]

<scribe> ACTION: Libby gives DanBri html fragment for wg homepage 
[recorded in 

http://www.w3.org/2005/07/11-swbp-minutes.html#action05] [DONE]

<scribe> ACTION: DanBri update wg homepage w/ pointer to doap registry 
from Libby [recorded in 

http://www.w3.org/2005/07/11-swbp-minutes.html#action06] [DONE]

<davidw> tagging apps/demos with RDF/OWL applicability issue?

<jrvosse> libby, i've been asking jeen broekstra to make a doap profile 
for openrdf.org, he 

responded he was already working on one...

<libby> some technical challenges to do with Grddl/blog interoperation


3.8 RDFTM

<scribe> ACTION: Guus send email to Steve Pepper re status of new rdftm 
draft [recorded in 

http://www.w3.org/2005/07/11-swbp-minutes.html#action07]

-- continues


3.9 Tutorial Page

Ralph: Benjamin sent regrets for today's meeting

jeffp will ping benjamin

3.10 SE TF

<scribe> ACTION: Chris and Benjamin to review SETF note [recorded in 

http://www.w3.org/2005/06/27-swbp-minutes.html#action08]

-- continues

3.11 MM TF Proposal

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jul/0066.html 
Multimedia Annotation Task 

Force Proposal [Giorgos]

<giorgos> Two work items, survey of work and best practices for annotating 
multimedia documents 

for SW

...have something to start with, can deliver by end of sept.

...for video, we have one more year (???), perhaps do something about 
transformation (of what???)

... will start with covering abstract levels of information in MM docs

...try to classify standards into these levels (e.g. syntactic, semantic, 
...)

<ralph> exciting work, share concern with chair that need to find 
realistic short-term 

deliverables

<jjc> Possible HP concern over overlap between TF and XG (incubator group) 
- still being discussed 

inside HP

DavidW: I'd like to delay formal approval of the TF until next meeting
... as Guus was instrumental

Jeremy: I've not heard any objections to this task force

<mike> How much actual best practice exists for multi-media annotation?

Ralph: a new TF does add to the WG's work load and the WG is 
under-represented at today's telecon
... I'm concerned that there be critical mass of WG participants who agree 
to work with this TF

Mike: are there existing practices to evaluate?

Giorgos: yes, there are practices to look at

David: hearing a lot of discussion, I judge that we need to defer a formal 
decision to next 

telecon

Ralph: meanwhile, feel free to use the WG mailing list to discuss the 
content

Giorgos: please take this up earlier on the agenda next time

David: yes

[adjourned]


Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Aldo to propose an update the Wordnet TF description 
[recorded in 

http://www.w3.org/2005/07/25-swbp-minutes.html#action08]
[NEW] ACTION: Chris and Benjamin to review SETF note [recorded in 

http://www.w3.org/2005/06/27-swbp-minutes.html#action08]
[NEW] ACTION: Gavin find out from his community and contacts if they have 
use cases for GRDDL 

[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/25-swbp-minutes.html#action10]
[NEW] ACTION: Guus review new n-ary relations editor's draft [recorded in 

http://www.w3.org/2005/06/27-swbp-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Guus send email to Steve Pepper re status of new rdftm draft 
[recorded in 

http://www.w3.org/2005/07/11-swbp-minutes.html#action07]
[NEW] ACTION: Guus to comment on ODM [recorded in 

http://www.w3.org/2005/06/27-swbp-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: jeffp to draft a response to dave reynolds [recorded in 

http://www.w3.org/2005/07/25-swbp-minutes.html#action09]
[NEW] ACTION: jjc review EARL requirements [recorded in 

http://www.w3.org/2005/07/25-swbp-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: jjc to review XML Schema last call [recorded in 

http://www.w3.org/2005/07/25-swbp-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Ralph review new n-ary relations editor's draft [recorded in 


http://www.w3.org/2005/06/27-swbp-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Ralph, DavidW, and DavidB to an initial draft of TAG 
httpRange-14 resolution impact 

on semweb application developers [recorded in 

http://www.w3.org/2005/06/27-swbp-minutes.html#action02]
 
[DONE] ACTION: DanBri update wg homepage w/ pointer to doap registry from 
Libby [recorded in 

http://www.w3.org/2005/07/11-swbp-minutes.html#action06]
[DONE] ACTION: Libby gives DanBri html fragment for wg homepage [recorded 
in 

http://www.w3.org/2005/07/11-swbp-minutes.html#action05]
[DONE] ACTION: Ralph suggest to XHTML TF that Jeremy's WWW2005 Talk be 
turned into a document 

[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/27-swbp-minutes.html#action07]
 
[DROPPED] ACTION: Guus ask Mark if he can review next SKOS edits [recorded 
in 

http://www.w3.org/2005/07/11-swbp-minutes.html#action04]
Received on Thursday, 28 July 2005 20:54:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:10 UTC