Re: meeting record: 2005-05-19 SWBPD telecon

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