- From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 12:49:28 -0400
- To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
The record of the 16 June SemWeb Best Practices and Deployment WG
telecon [1] is ready for review.
[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-swbp-minutes
A text snapshot of revision: 1.3 $Date: 2005/06/17 16:43:41 $ follows.
-Ralph
----
SemWeb Best Practices & Deployment WG
16 Jun 2005
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jun/0041.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-swbp-irc
Attendees
Present
David Wood, Ralph Swick, David Booth, Alistair Miles, Jeff Pan,
Mike Uschold, Elisa Kendall, Phil Tetlow, Natasha Noy, Chris
Welty, Benjamin Nguyen (IRC only)
Regrets
Brian, Deb, Jeremy, Libby, TomB
Chair
DavidW
Scribe
Ralph, Chris
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Admin
2. [6]Liaison
o [7]2.1 Proposed resolution httpRange-14
o [8]2.2 XML Schema Last Call
o [9]2.2 OMG: ODM review
3. [10]TF Updates
o [11]3.1 PORT
o [12]3.2 OEP
o [13]3.3 WordNet
o [14]3.6 RDF-in-XHTML
o [15]3.10 SE TF
* [16]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________________
<DavidW> IRC only: Benjamin N
<BenjaminNguyen> I'll be phoning in if I have anything long to say
David.
-> [17]previous meeting 2005-05-19
[17] http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes
Admin
RESOLVED to accept [18]http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes as
the minutes of the 19 May telecon
[18] http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes
ACTION: Guus to start a straw poll on new meeting day; Monday,
Tuesday, or Wednesday -- all at 1700 UTC [DONE]
-> [19]straw poll on telecon day and [20]results
[19] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35495/telecontime/
[20] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35495/telecontime/results
<aliman> monday 1700 UTC fine for me
Mike: I'm happy with Monday 1700 UTC
Elisa: works for me too
<BenjaminNguyen> I didn't vote, all is fine
RESOLVED to move the WG telecon time to Mondays 1700 UTC (1800 UTC in
the non-DST period)
ACTION: Ralph post telecon date resolution to the list
RESOLVED next telecons: Monday 27 June 1700 UTC and continue bi-weekly
as usual
ACTION: Ralph to start a poll on Thu/Fri 3-4 Nov vs. Fri/Sat 4-5 Nov
vs. Fri/Sat 11-12 Nov. (noting the 11-12 dates conflict with OWL
workshop) [DONE]
-> [21]Galway f2f dates poll and [22]results
[21] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35495/swbp051101/
[22] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35495/swbp051101/results
DavidW: 15 responses; shows weak preference for the Fri&Sat before
ISWC
<aliman> i don't mind about f2f dates
Elisa: Evan and I have a workshop on the 6th and Evan preferred to
have a day break in between
RESOLVED: next face-to-face in Galway Fri-Sat 4-5 November 2005
Jeff: there is an ODBase conference on ontologies 31 Oct to 4 Nov in
Cypress
... not sure if it affects me directly, though we submitted some
papers
Liaison
2.1 Proposed resolution httpRange-14
ACTION: DavidW to identify the 4 httpRange-14 options [DONE]
-> [23]httpRange-14 Options
[23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jun/0051.html
ACTION: Chairs to discuss the httpRange-14 issue at the coordination
level [CONTINUES]
Alistair: recall Dan Brickley's note "[24]Some Things That Hashless
HTTP URIs Can Name"
[24] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/httpclass/1
Ralph: the response thus far from the TAG is that they can't move on
this issue without further technical input. Path of least resistance
would be to endorse Tim's solution, then decide what to do about
well-known vocabs that do not follow that.
DavidW: Need to address the issue of server-side processing at the
same time though, as many see it as intertwined.
Phil: is there a deadline on the httpRange-14 issue?
David: we've been talking about httpRange-14 for a while, no pressing
deadline
post-meeting note: the TAG found a [25]resolution to httpRange-14 at
its 15 June meeting.]
[25] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/15-tagmem-minutes#item04
2.2 XML Schema Last Call
ACTION: Jeff to review XML schema LC draft [DONE]
Jeff: I've read the draft and don't have any additional comments to
post. The XML Schema WG might not be aware of our requirements for
schema datatypes. Jeremy has been talking with them about this
Ralph: If we want the spec to change materially during the Candidate
Recommendation phase, we should point to an implementation that fails
to do something important because it is missing a feature. Otherwise
unlikely to get changes enacted.
Jeff: Is there time for us to make more noise on this?
Ralph: Last Call ended in April, so either they're dealing with a long
list of issues or they think they're done. I don't know which.
ACTION: DavidW ask about the XML Schema Component Designators LC
status at the SemWeb CG meeting
2.2 OMG: ODM review
Elisa: I'll send a pointer to the latest document revision
... we've incorporated most of the feedback received
... more feedback is still welcome
... expect one more round on the document between now and August
... expect to use MOF Query View Transformation to represent all the
mappings
... look forward to an OMG vote in December
... current draft does incorporate NIST feedback
post-meeting note: Elisa sent [26]mail regarding latest ODM
specification]
[26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jun/0055.html
TF Updates
3.1 PORT
Alistair: comments on SKOS Core have started to trickle in;
... we now have two [27]open proposals; ([28]1) bug fix, ([29]2) some
changes in documentation properties
... re: documentation properties, it makes sense to have a single root
property and use dcterms:audience
... continuing to discuss DanBri's idea to have a property to relate
SKOS concepts to OWL individuals
... we've been asked about how to extend SKOS Core; we expected to
describe this at a later date, either in a separate note or in the
Core Guide itself. My current thought is a separate note
... also questions on how to relate SKOS Core to XML Applications; in
particular, how to write an XSD for SKOS Core
... OWL has an alternate XML syntax; does it get used?
[27] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/proposals
[28] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/proposals#subjectIndicatorUse-1
[29] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/proposals#notes-2
David: yes, I've seen the alternate OWL XML syntax used
Alistair: NewsML is revising their schema
... will be hard to use the RDF/XML syntax in these applications
... I may start to float some ideas
DBooth: regarding a new XML syntax, are you thinking of one that is
already in use or design a new one?
Alistair: I'm thinking of designing a new syntax that is XML Schema
constrained but GRDDL-able
DBooth: do you expect an XLST transform to be part of the design?
Alistair: yes
Ralph: I'm think that design of a new syntax that is as extensible as
RDF/XML yet XML Schema validatable is a lot of work
Alistair: I'm encouraged by the direction of RDF/A
3.2 OEP
Chris: [30]Specified Values became a WG Note on 17 May
... still working on n-ary relations document [31]editor's draft]
... talking about publishing a vocabulary to support n-ary relations
note
... so people who want interoperability between RDF and higher-arity
systems have a way to do automatic translation
... simple part-whole note still pending
... Jerry Hobbs is now participating and we're talking about turning
the [32]OWL Time document into a Note
... may have something by the end of the month
... Evan says he has some initial work not yet posted on units of
measure
... "argument number" property was included in the [33]n-ary relations
vocabulary to support translation to other formats
... some people felt this vocabulary to support translations to other
languages was out of scope for the note
[30] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-specified-values/
[31] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/n-aryRelations
[32] http://www.isi.edu/~pan/OWL-Time.html
[33] http://smi-web.stanford.edu/people/noy/nAryRelations/n-aryRelations-2nd-WD.html
DavidW: can you satisfy both camps by using this vocabulary in a
non-normative example?
Chris: anyone wanting to translate RDF to a higher-arity system would
need such a vocabulary
Phil: I would like to see this included, as it's important to many
Chris: the question is about scope; the OEP Note is about particular
patterns, not about translation to other languages
DavidW: Best Practices gets to be practical about dealing with issues
that are important
Phil: ordered n-ary patterns are an identifiable pattern
Natasha: I felt this was out of scope because the Note is not about
mapping
... argument numbers won't satisfy UML mapping
... Developers would need an additional vocabulary for mapping to
languages that represent n-ary relations in other ways [than argument
numbers]
Ralph: It's useful to have examples that help explain this. Need to
have a vocabulary for those examples. The boundary here is whether the
WG proposes a specific vocabulary or only provides examples.
Natasha: there were two parts to the vocabulary and I felt the
specific parts dealing with the mapping were out of scope
Phil: ordered n-ary relations are a valid specialization
Chris: if we decided it is out of scope for this Note, we could write
a separate Note
... so the question is whether to expand the N-ary relations Note or
write a separate Note
Mike: would it make sense to use the vocabulary in the examples of the
first note and later write a separate note about the vocabulary?
Natasha: I had two concerns; whether a mapping vocabulary belonged in
the N-ary relations note and the systems not covered by the current
vocabulary
... we might want to tackle other things such as association classes
as well
Mike: I recommend including [only] things that are needed to explain
the current N-ary relations note
Ralph: keep it simple
Chris: the vocabulary is there for n-ary relations. Separating it into
another document may make it harder to find.
... saying how to represent higher-arity relations in RDF is part of
this Note
Mike: could also write an appendix of what this might look like and
the appendix might eventually expand to a new document
Chris: I'd rather not take that approach
Mike: if the material exists, it makes sense to have it all in one
place
Chris: I wouldn't want a half thought-out appendix suggesting a fuller
version would follow later
Ralph: but the partial solution is partial only in that it doesn't
cover other cases, as Natasha cites, but you're comfortable for the
cases it does cover, right?
Chris: yes
Phil: I feel a separate note is better
3.3 WordNet
ACTION: Aldo to propose an update the Wordnet TF description
[CONTINUES]
3.6 RDF-in-XHTML
ACTION: Gavin find out from his community and contacts if they have
use cases [CONTINUES]
-> [34]meeting record 2005-06-14 XHTML telecon
[34] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Jun/0029.html
Ralph: new [35]XHTML2 WD clarified more about their WG process
... good news is there is a WD
... In my opinion not sufficient progress from last spec; I preferred
the more explicit wording of the October RDF/A whitepaper
... no TF telecon for a while, telecon attendance low, though I missed
the previous telecon
[35] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xhtml2-20050527/
DavidW: should we get SWPB volunteers to review draft?
Ralph: we need help, sure
... problem with b-nodes. Thought the authors would have additional
attributes for b-nodes
... something analogous to nodeID attribute in rdf/xml
... WG seems to prefer xptr scheme for bnode
... which scheme will win -which is more natural for HTML authors
... no new input on GRDDL question
... should WG take up GRDDL as a task or endorse it still an open
question
... do have a document from XHTML WG that is close (modulo bnode
issue)
... waiting for JJC to come back
... language may not be precise enough
Phil: why did the XHTML wg change its stance
Ralph: (around bnodes) not really a change, wasn't sufficiently
addressed in previous (October) note (ie it was a bug)
... four solutions on table and need to pick one
DavidW will Ralph review new WD?
Ralph: Yes
... the TF considers reviewing this draft a high priority
... need Jeremy for this too
3.10 SE TF
-> [36]Minutes of SETF Telecon 07-06-05
[36] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jun/0027.html
Phil: we'd like reviewers for Composite IFPs draft in 3-4 months
... using more than one resource to identify a resource
... we'd like reviewers for current [37]Ontology Driven Architectures
and Potential Uses of the Semantic Web in Software Engineering now
[37] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/SE/ODA/
DavidW: recommend asking on the list, since attendance here is light
... I may be willing to be one reviewer
<BenjaminNguyen> I am interested also, depending on review deadline
Chris: I'm willing to review but I'm listed as a contributor
Phil: your contributions were very early on
Phil: Benjamin's offer accepted, there's no particular urgency so 4+
weeks to review OK
<BenjaminNguyen> fine
RESOLVED: SE draft reviewers are Chris and Benjamin with DavidW likely
to comment
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] [38]ACTION: DavidW ask about the XML Schema Component
Designators LC status at the SemWeb CG meeting
[NEW] [39]ACTION: Ralph post telecon date resolution to the list
[40]ACTION: Aldo to propose an update the Wordnet TF description
[41]ACTION: Chairs to discuss the httpRange-14 issue at the
coordination level
[42]ACTION: Gavin find out from his community and contacts if they
have
[DONE] [43]ACTION: DavidW to identify the 4 httpRange-14 options
[DONE] [44]ACTION: Guus to start a straw poll on new meeting day;
Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday -- all at 1700 UTC
[DONE] [45]ACTION: Jeff to review XML schema LC draft
[DONE] [46]ACTION: Ralph to start a poll on Thu/Fri 3-4 Nov vs.
Fri/Sat 4-5 Nov vs. Fri/Sat 11-12 Nov. (noting the 11-12 dates
conflict with OWL workshop)
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [47]scribe.perl version 1.126
([48]CVS log)
$Revision: 1.3 $ $Date: 2005/06/17 16:43:41 $
[47] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[48] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Friday, 17 June 2005 16:50:36 UTC