- From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 15:33:23 +0200
- To: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>
- CC: SWBPD list <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Ralph R. Swick wrote: > 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 I assume this is a typo. I guess it should be Thu 16 June 1700 UTC. Guus > > 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/ > > > -- Free University Amsterdam, Computer Science De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands Tel: +31 20 598 7739/7718; E-mail: schreiber@cs.vu.nl Home page: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/
Received on Wednesday, 25 May 2005 13:33:33 UTC