- From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 08:54:12 -0400
- To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
The record of the 19 May SemWeb Best Practices and Deployment WG
telecon [1] is ready for review.
[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes
A text snapshot of revision 1.2, $Date: 2005/05/20 12:51:59 $ follows.
-Ralph
----
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
SemWeb BPD WG
19 May 2005
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005May/0108.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-irc
Attendees
Present
David Wood, Alistair Miles, Ralph Swick, David Booth, Libby
Miller, Elisa Kendall, Natasha Noy, Gavin McKenzie, Guus
Schreiber, Mike Uschold
Regrets
Brickley, McGuinness, McBride, Nanni, Rector, Wallace, Govoni,
Nguyen, Pepper, Garshol, Vitali, Presutti, Gessa, Gandon, Ng,
Pan
Chair
DavidW
Scribe
Ralph
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Admin
o [6]Next F2F
o [7]Alternative telecon times
o [8]Briefing of WWW2005
2. [9]Liaison
o [10]httpRange-14
o [11]XML Schema Last Call
o [12]OMG: ODM review
3. [13]TF Updates
o [14]PORT
o [15]OEP
o [16]WordNet
o [17]XML Schema datatypes
o [18]Vocabulary Management
o [19]RDF-in-XHTML
o [20]ADTF
o [21]RDFTM
o [22]Tutorial Page
o [23]SETF
* [24]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________________
1. Admin
[25]previous 2005-05-05
[25] http://www.w3.org/2005/05/05-swbp-minutes
DavidW: welcome to David Booth of HP, new WG participant
RESOLVED to accept [26]http://www.w3.org/2005/05/05-swbp-minutes as
the minutes of the 5 May telecon, per
[27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005May/0045.ht
ml
[26] http://www.w3.org/2005/05/05-swbp-minutes
[27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005May/0045.html
RESOLVED to accept [28]http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-swbp-minutes as
the minutes of the 21 April telecon, per
[29]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005May/0039.ht
ml
[28] http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-swbp-minutes
[29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005May/0039.html
PROPOSED next telecon 17 June 1700 UTC
Ralph: Guus asked for an agendum to change the times of the telecons
DavidW: yes, but given light attendance we need to wait on time change
Ralph notes that David Booth is the author of the [30]script that
reformats irc logs to be presentable ]
[30] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
RESOLVED next telecon 17 June 1700 UTC
Next F2F
[31]f2f straw poll results
[31] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35495/ftf2005/results
14 of 21 prefer Galway, everyone can live with Galway
Natasha: there's a [32]workshop proposed for the days after ISWC, so
f2f makes more sense before ISWC; the first ISWC workshops are 6 Nov
[32] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005May/0111.html
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) [recorded in
[33]http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes.html#action01]
[33] http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes.html#action01
<aliman> any of the november dates are ok with me
Alternative telecon times
Guus: almost every other time of week is better for me than the
current time
Natasha: any day of week is ok but 1700 UTC is best for me except
Wednesday
DavidW: 1700 UTC works best for me except Friday
Ralph: Wed 1700 UTC not good for me either
<aliman> 1700UTC is ok time for me, anyday except friday
Ralph: I could only do 80 minutes on Tuesday at 1700 UTC. I would
prefer Monday 1700 UTC
MikeU: I could manage Mondays
DBooth: propose a straw poll for Mon/Tue/Wed
ACTION: Guus to start a straw poll on new meeting day; Monday,
Tuesday, or Wednesday -- all at 1700 UTC [recorded in
[34]http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes.html#action02]
[34] http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes.html#action02
Briefing of WWW2005
Guus: [35]W3C track was well-attended
... DavidW talked about applications
... Jeremy talked about RDF in XHTML, was very well done
... Guus talked about Topic Maps
... the RDF/A material gave rise to lots of comment
... Dave Beckett talked about GRDDL afterwards
... some people commented that SemWeb was less visible but I found
SemWeb in most every talk, so thought it was quite visible
[35] http://www.w3.org/2005/01/w3c-track05.html
DavidW: agree, SemWeb very visible
Guus: TimBL gave a [36]new version of his SemWeb layer cake
... some of the veterans present objected to the new formulation
... the version with DLP and Rules next to OWL
[36] http://www.w3.org/2005/Talks/0511-keynote-tbl/#[$1\47]
DavidW: there was a paper in which OWL-lite plus something had been
implemented with rules
Guus: Jeremy presented a good paper on signed graphs and provenance
... and a paper from DERI on OWL-Flight
... didn't really attend Dev Day
DavidW: big paper on Dev Day was [37]KAON2 rule-based OWL system
[37] http://kaon2.semanticweb.org/
Guus: I gave a talk on the first workshop day
... workshop day was poorly attended
... my talk was to Japanese developers
... there were many interesting workshop talks
... I recommend looking at the workshop proceedings
... ISO registry may be of interest to this WG
<libby> David Wood's panel got some attention on japanese blogs
apparantly (according to kanzaki-san)
2. Liaison
2.1 httpRange-14
ACTION: Chairs to discuss the httpRange-14 issue at the coordination
level [CONTINUES]
Guus: not much progress at Coordination Group
DavidW: TimBL and DanC seemed to be clear that as SWBPD WG was not
presenting new technical content the issue was not likely to make
progress. So now what?
Guus: one of our main points was that the TAG should move the issue as
it was blocking us
Ralph: is my recollection of the [38]March f2f discussion correct that
there was a sense that any of the 4 options we identified were
acceptable? Do we want to apply any ordering at all?
[38] http://www.w3.org/2005/03/03-swbp-minutes#item09
<aliman> what were 4 options again?
Guus: that was my sense -- any of the 4 options were better than no
decision
Alistair: I am afraid that the 4 options were simply how I partioned
the solution space and I might not have had enough knowledge of the
problem to partition it adequately
ACTION: DavidW to identify the 4 httpRange-14 options [recorded in
[39]http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes.html#action03]
[39] http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes.html#action03
2.2 XML Schema Last Call
ACTION: Jeff to review XML schema LC draft [CONTINUES]
2.2 OMG: ODM review
[40]Summary of feedback on the ODM Revised Submission (2005-01-10
version) [Elisa 2005-04-27]
[40] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Apr/0092.html
Guus: do the two other proposals have a chance?
Elisa: unclear. the MMS guys with whom Guus met in Japan have proposed
an OWL metamodel with a different syntax
... though conforms closely to abstract syntax
... we've taken a slightly different approach in the metamodels which
do allow close relationship to RDF and OWL
... Masada-san [sp?] proposal does not maintain closeness to RDF and
OWL
... there's been some discussion on this
... so the graph model is not in the metamodel itself; it's in the
profile section that I am working on
... and we are trying to make changes to primary metamodel that Jeremy
and others have suggested
... some of these proposals have made it in and some not
... I'm still working on it
... we expect to publish a revision end of next week
... would really appreciate Guus' and others' input on that revision
... goal is for TC to present to OMG Design Taskforce meeting in June
(~20 June) but not present for a vote at that time
... take to OMG Architecture Board for vote in September
... any feedback from SWBPD WG would be very much appreciate
... doc is 300 pages; it has many metamodels, e.g. for Topic Maps, ...
... focus on the sections that interest you
Guus: my personal interest is in keeping the OWL-Full model in and not
going to OWL-DL
... also regarding RDF/Topic Map link, get Steve Pepper involved
Elisa: I believe Lars Marius helped develop the Topic Maps metamodel
in the first place but the primary author of that part of the ODM
submission is no longer with AT&T and I haven't heard much from him
Guus: we should ask Steve Pepper for his strategy; it would be awkward
to have two documents with different models published
Elisa: the version in the spec to be published next week is unchanged
from the previous version
Guus: another topic is the politics around Business Rules
Elisa: there has been some work in parallel with ODM by a group of
folk calling themselves the "Business Rules Community
... the business rules folk claim their language can be used for
ontologies
... OMG said there needed to be alignment between business rules and
ODM
... I asked the business rules people to ground their logic in ODM
... that gives them a model-theoretic semantics
... I got Pat Hayes to sit with the business rules logicians at the
W3C Rules Workshop
... they have agreed to ground their logic in Common Logic
... there is work afoot to get them to agree to work with us and with
Pat Hayes in particular
... hopefully the result will be something close to a combination of
OWL and Common Logic
... we'll see what happens at the June meeting; I plan to attend their
presentation
Guus: the business rules work has been specified fairly informally
Elisa: yes, and we've said their logic needs to be grounded in
something in order to achieve interoperability
Guus: very nice of Pat, but he's offering them something that they
currently do not have
Elisa: yes, and it took some loud voices e.g. from NIST, to persuade
them they were missing a large component that was useful to people
DavidW: every time I go to a conference I see a new proposal for an
ontology language that uses part of OWL but with a different logic
subset that is incompatible
... is it your goal to try to get [the business rules] people to be
clear about their logic in order to determine whether
interoperabaility is even possible?
Elisa: yes, first goal is to be able to understand clearly what they
are saying then to see if it is compatible with ODM
Ralph: that -- knowing what people are saying -- is the fundamental
goal of RDF itself
3. TF Updates
3.1 PORT
DavidW: congratulations to PORT TF on their [41]3 new WDs
[41] http://www.w3.org/News/2005#item63
Alistair: yes, we did it! got the first 3 SKOS Working Drafts
published
<libby> yay!
Alistair: we had a slight hiccup with the [42]Quick Guide and got a
quick ammendment to it
[42] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-thesaurus-pubguide-20050517
Alistair: the version linked from the [43]news item is no longer the
latest version
[43] http://www.w3.org/News/2005#item63
Ralph: though the version linked from the news item does have a
correct '[44]latest version' link
[44] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-thesaurus-pubguide
Alistair: we had proposed that every 2 months we'd review these
document so OK to schedule a review for 17 July?
... should we ask Tom and Mark van Assem to review again?
Ralph: I think we should open the floor to other volunteers
DavidW: there is little to be gained from the same two people looking
at it every two months
Guus: the main issue now is whether there will be comments from the
public
... you may want to solicit comments from groups who have special
interest
Alistair: I may send email to lists with special interest; is there
anything special I shoudl say in such announcements?
Mike: you could point out what you can do with this
DavidW: there is no requirement and no template for such announcements
... you're representing the WG and W3C, so review your language before
you hit 'send
... it would be good to include a requested deadline for comments
Mike: I forwarded the publication announcement to our library people.
I'd like to volunteer to review one of these documents; which would be
the best to review?
Alistair: all 3 are linked
Guus: perhaps the SKOS Core Guide is the place to start; there is not
much in the Quick Guide to review. The SKOS Core Specification is not
as readable as the Guide
Alistair: the Guide introduces all of the features of SKOS Core
itself, the Specification is intended to be a reference document. I'll
set 17 July provisionally as the next review date and run announcement
mail drafts past Guus, DavidW, and Ralph
DavidW: in 2 months I will have forgotten that this agendum was to
come back up; please remind me at the tithe chairs
Alistair: Eric Miller asked us to think about machine-readable change
policies
ACTION: Alistair to think about machine-readable change policies
[WITHDRAWN]
Alistair: I'll have to talk with EricM about what he was expecting
... I will put a seeAlso reference in the RDF to the spec
... propose to drop the action
... I don't know what we'd put in the RDF
Ralph: I don't think a seeAlso meets Eric's expectations but I think
it makes sense to find out what Eric was thinking of and consider
whether the TF wants to tackle it. I suspect it's not a simple job.
... DanBri is a good author of general announcements to lists, suggest
you use him to consult
... also, the 'which document do I read first' is probably a FAQ
3.2 OEP
Natasha: waiting for Mike to finish his comments
... Specified Values to be published soon
... not aware of discussion of Time Note
... Jerry Hobbs may be turning some material he has into a draft
Guus: any idea of Jerry's time schedule?
Guus:new HP participant, David Booth; which task force were you
thinking of joining?
DBooth: I'm still thinking about that, catching up on what the WG is
doing
ACTION: Ralph help Alistair with publication process for SKOS
documents [DONE]
3.3 WordNet
Guus: I'm worried that we still haven't published a data model. I will
contact Aldo to see if we can find additional resources to work on
this
Guus: it's an important publication and I'd like to finish it before
the end of our charter
<aliman> +1 on important publication
ACTION: Aldo to propose an update the Wordnet TF description
[CONTINUES]
ACTION: Alistair e-mail group about ISO contact [DONE]
[45]ISO TC37 information, contacts & links
[45] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005May/0081.html
Alistair: Aldo said my question about the data model will be answered
when the document is published
3.4 XML Schema datatypes
[skipped, no representative]
3.5 Vocabulary Management
Alistair: TomB [46]summarized our telecon well
[46] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005May/0085.html
3.6 RDF-in-XHTML
Ralph:We had a 2 person [47]telecon this week, not mailed about it
yet, but brief
... update from html wg is that they hope to publish a new WD next
week
.. they were waiting for an xml schema for xhtml2; they got one and
should have discussed it yesterday
... been some discussions on mail recently about rdf/a in or out of
what xhtml wg publishes
.. one person has suggested it should be dropped, but this person is
not on either wg
... however the discussions have encouraged ralph
... Ralph is still a a bit concerned about whether the xhtml2
specification will explicily tie its semamtics to RDF
... and whether the specificity in the October RDF/A draft will be in
the documents published by them...perhaps not
... this wg should watch carefully and make sure that any conformance
requirements in xhtml2 spec make clear that the xhtml2 syntax use
binds you to the rdf semnatics...worried that it will be looser than
that RDF/A spec and XHTML2 spec
... little we can do at the moment because the document is an editors
draft, which we can read and comment on but the public can't see
... Ralph's suggestion is to wait to comment until published as a
working draft to persuade them to publish and so the discussions can
take place propely in a public forum
... plus the editor's draft can change before publishing though this
material is unlikely to do so
... ralph's advice to this wg is to hold tight and wait for them to
publish, though there are risks there
... the question is whether the comments would make sense without the
context of the specification
... at the moment the interested communities can't see the proposed
solution
... doesn't think there's any effective way this wg can say anything
more to xhtml wg to get them to publish more quickly
... stated holdup is awaiting xml schema for their working draft
... could go through advisory reps because xhtml wg have not done an
update to their docs in 9 months, but probably little effect
... had made a request to wg on behalf of the GRDDL editors looking
for coeditors - Dave Beckett offered to discuss it with them, which is
progress
... the wg needs to consider how much effort to put in the GRDDL
direction
[47] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005May/0025.html
ACTION: DanBri help write an rdf schema for the additional xhtml2
namespace elements [DONE]
[48][DanBri 2005-05-19]
[48] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005May/0126.html
ACTION: Gavin find out from his community and contacts if they have
use cases [CONTINUES]
3.7 ADTF
Libby: nothing to report
3.8 RDFTM
[no representatives present]
3.9 Tutorial Page
[49]FAQ draft published
[49] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005May/0048.html
Alistair: could we start an FAQ as a WiKi?
... is the idea that all FAQ submissions would go through Benjamin?
... if we put them in a WiKi then Benjamin's job could be to massage
the WiKi into a snapshot
Ralph: I like Alistair's proposal and suggest that he go ahead and
start it
<aliman> Ralph where should I put it?
<RalphS> [Alistair, I propose something like
[50]http://esw.w3.org/topic/BestPraticesFAQ ]
[50] http://esw.w3.org/topic/BestPraticesFAQ
<aliman> Ok will start that ralph, following Benjamin's guidelines
<RalphS> I suspect if you start it, Benjamin may find it useful
3.10 SETF
Elisa: [51]telecon minutes were posted
... there are still missing sections, specifically automated software
engineering, that we need help with
... [52]editor's draft has been revised a number of times
... working toward Galway workshop on software engineering; on 6 Nov
... we've gotten quite a bit of active response to that workshop
[51] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005May/0129.html
[52] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/SE/ODA/
[adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
[DONE] ACTION: Alistair e-mail group about ISO contact
[DONE] ACTION: DanBri help write an rdf schema for the additional
xhtml2 namespace elements
[DONE] ACTION: Ralph help Alistair with publication process for SKOS
documents
[WITHDRAWN] ACTION: Alistair to think about machine-readable change
policies
ACTION: Aldo to propose an update the Wordnet TF description
ACTION: Chairs to discuss the httpRange-14 issue at the coordination
level
[NEW] ACTION: DavidW to identify the 4 httpRange-14 options [recorded
in [53]http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes.html#action03]
ACTION: Gavin find out from his community and contacts if they have
use cases
[NEW] ACTION: Guus to start a straw poll on new meeting day; Monday,
Tuesday, or Wednesday -- all at 1700 UTC [recorded in
[54]http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes.html#action02]
ACTION: Jeff to review XML schema LC draft
[NEW] 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) [recorded in
[55]http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes.html#action01]
[53] http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes.html#action03
[54] http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes.html#action02
[55] http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-swbp-minutes.html#action01
[End of minutes]
_____________________________________________________________
Minutes pre-formatted by David Booth's [56]scribe.perl version 1.126
([57]CVS log)
$Date: 2005/05/20 12:51:59 $
[56] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[57] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Friday, 20 May 2005 12:54:50 UTC