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

[F2F] tentative scribing to complement danbri's irc

From: Benjamin Nguyen <Benjamin.Nguyen@inria.fr>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 16:31:24 +0100 (CET)
To: SWBPD <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0511041630010.13300-100000@login-linux.inria.fr>

Guus: online scribing is off. We try to fix asap. Even wire has a problem.

Dbooth:  reviewed also, like it, use cases were good. 1- unclear in 
reading where the work is going. Could this be made a bit clearer. .This 
was interesting, but what next?.
Jacco: there are .what next documents.
Dbooth: the title seems broader than the actual paper. I suggest narrowing 
the title a litt.
Jacco: need to think about it. The goal is not only doing use cases. There 
is more info in other papers.
Raphael: links : these will be maintained for at least 4 years.
Jacco: use a wiki
Brian: provenance of use cases. nASA.
Guus: proposal by Ralph: 1 condition: jjc action gets resolved, 2nd jane 
hunter issue (acknowledgement or joining WG)
Proposal seconded by lots of people.
Ralph: what does editorial discretion mean.
Guus: change comments by WG
Ralph: ok with integrating MU comments at later date.
Guus: named comments: Mike, jjc libby, dbooth.
Danbri: did Ralph note?
Ralph: will talk to jjc offline, not big concern.
Guus: accepted by consensus.
Action: produce a version under these rules, give version to Ralph.
Guus: next
Jacco: the proposed structure of interoperability. Main issue is 
interoperating with standards that will not go away (existing standards). 
Need to address the issue of interoperating with already existing 
standards. They do not use the same syntactic rules than in the SW.
Giorgos proposed to divide the interoperability into 2 sections 1- 
syntactic level, and 2- semantic interoperability. What particular 
standards should be addressed ? There are a lot of standards out there. 
discussing all the mappings from one to another is too much. Other issu is 
moving to video [standards?] . 
Guus: semantic interoperability is very important, but just stick with 
syntactic, which is probably doable, and requires a limited timeframe. 
We.ve seen this with rdf already.
Jacco: many of the advantages to be described in the first document only 
apply if you address semantic interoperability. Converting to one syntax 
to rdf does not solve all the problems.
Raphael: there is discussion inside the TF already. Not sure the problem 
should be addressed in this way.
Guus: take MPEG 7. Describe what would be a best practice for using that 
in rdf.
Raphale: there are currently 3 versions of mpeg7, that do not model the 
standard in the same way : this is semantic interoperability.
Guus: the standard is ambiguous, so this is semantic interoperability, and 
not syntactic. It is therefore impossible to do the conversion if the 
community has no consensus.
Jacco: we can describe the issues.
Chris: we are talking about formalizing the semantics of things that were 
not formalized yet.
Guus: this gives an argument for putting semantic interoperability into 
the document.
Mike: we should not use those terms. We just want to be interoperable, do 
not lable what is syntactic and semantic.
Jacco: we should provide classification. This needn.t be syntactic vs. 
semantic, but need one.
Mike: wait and see, do not chose yet.
Jacco: we took this approach with vocab document, where the structure of 
document needed to be rewritten, so we.d like to avoid this. Different TF 
members mean different things.
. need clear examples of transformations from one standard to the other, 
and vice versa
MPEG7 is big, complicated, ambiguous, need to be clear on feasibility + 
propose guidelines. Get a discussion going on the mailing list on where 
the document should go. Any comments ?
Mike: the scope seems enormous. Unrealistic.
Jacco: timeline : impossible before feb.
Mike: why not just give interesting issues, but don.t give 
recommendations, not enough time. Write a short note 10-12 pages to lay 
out the groundwork, but don.t answer all the problems.
Danbri: fantastic to make any progress.
Jacco: how hard is the feb deadline? We can continue in an IG setting. If 
people think its worthwhile, we should do that.
Danbri: the IG has a framework for patent, intellectual property etc. 
reflecting the work of other WG into W3C I feel out of my depth. I.d like 
it to be WG and not IG that does that. Patent problems around MPEG.
Guus: *explains to Ralph due to logistics problem*
Ralph: agrees with danbri.s concern. There are other options, in 
particular, work on specific vocab. This seems like a candidate for new 
incubator group ideas, draft a proposal for an incubator group.
Jacco: post on irc link to incubator groups.
Jjc: on danbri.s point : intellectual property. The w3c patent policy only 
applies to rectrack documents. This is an argument for proposing rectrack 
status for this work, do not remain a note, since w3c patent policy is 
Ralph: agrees with jjc
Danbri: jjc is absolutely correct. IG from w3c perspective don.t cost as 
much as a WG. WG seems a natural home for something like this, not IG.
Jacco: is extension or recharter, when do we know this.
Guus: don.t know now.
Ralph: will be known when the advisory committee approves the proposal of 
reharter. Unlikely before end of January.
Jjc: usually groups get rechartered after end of charter.
Phil: is it a different WG or same group of people with same objectives ?
Guus: if rechartered, could contain new goals.
Phil: this work should be part of a new charter.
Guus: kick off meeting said MM was important, but would be hard to make 
good progress. We.ve seen this happen. Hopefully we.ll get a feeling of 
what.s needed for each task force, and understand the future better.
Phil: agrees with jjc. Should the original charter change, based on the 
maturity of the area of interest.
Ralph: I strongly recommend that this WG works within its charter 
time-wise and otherwise, but should keep working till last moment. Do not 
proceed on the assumption it is possible to continue long past January.
Jacco: defer discussion ?
Guus: at the end make a list of the status of each TF, and what they all 
imply. If we go beyond the level of the first deliverable, a 6 month 
extension is not enough for the MM TF. It needs to be part of the new 
Mike: there is overlap between OEP note and this one. There should be some 
discussion there.
Guus: the MM aspect are so particular, and affect a different standard 
community and deserve specific attention.
Mike: agreed, but illustrates some examples of semantic interoperability 
in OEP.
Guus: other option is incubator group.
Jacco: incubator is for vocab.
Guus: no need to make a decision now on the structure.
Giorgo: what is conclusion? Can we discuss the structure ?
Jacco: will be discussed at end of F2F. Structure will be discussed 
Guus: need a stab in the ground on interoperability, publish that. How far 
will it go depends on the future of the WG.
Raphael: is there already an XG ?
Jacco: move to las point.
We use DC as a standard. There is an rdf schema for DC. For images: VRA 
core. It has a biais towards artwork. Have been working to create a schema 
in owl for VRA. This is a 1 person effort. How can we move this work 
further? Is this activity to take place in this WG, or should we go to 
incubator ? Need feedback.
Danbri: DC is one of the earlier rdf schemas. There is a lot of discussion 
on cleaning up DC. There has always been an overlap in both communities.
Ralph: where you have some ideas you want to work out with a smaller group 
of peers, before proposing w3c recommendation track work. BP WGshould look 
at current practises and nominate those as BPs. We are not at that point 
with VRA.
Guus: doubts and suggestions : I wrote the first VRA schema as a test 
model. I was approached by people from the VRA group [Linda] not sure the 
group is good enough ? In terms of content it is very well done. This is 
very SKOS related. This has many of the same issues. Would connect to SKOS 
activity and not incubator group. Need to see if VRA is sufficiently 
backed by a large community.
Jacco: we use the schema in a use case, is it ok to use them?
Guus: yes
Chris: VRA is similar to SKOS?
Guus: it has to do with how to link terms of vocab together. People that 
use VRA are from same communities. (Visual Ressource Association: a 
specialization of DC. Written as a rdf schema, it is owl-full)
Jacco: *gives some examples*
Guus: it is a group of people in archives, using thesauri.
Chris: I disagree.
Alistair: DC and SKOS are seen as partners.
Chris: I thought it was being said this is an application of SKOS.
Alistait: it is important for DC and SKOS to evolve together. To have them 
related socially .
Danbri: we talked earlier about bringing some work into the IG. The more 
patents they have, the more scared I am. This is comes from DC, so seems 
OK. I don.t car if its incubator, TF, IG, or even the DC group, so long as 
it.s discussed in public. Maybe DC would be a good choice.
Jacco: how to get them all talking together.
Alistair: go for DC.
Mike: are those extensions compatible ?
Guus: this is built into DC. I have seen many DC extensions. People need 
them. They try to define them as extentions.
Danbri: lots of discussions in the DC world. This should allow cleaner 
Danbri: the vocab management TF is doing some of this work. Trying to work 
through the details in practical terms.
Guus: should this be part of VM TF?
Danbri: not up to me to decide.
Guus: ajourned

| Dr. BENJAMIN NGUYEN              |
| Université de Versailles         |
| et St-Quentin-en-Yvelines        |
| Eq. Systèmes de Bases de Données |
| 45, av des Etats-Unis            |
| 78035 Versailles CEDEX           |
| INRIA-Futurs                     |
| Projet Gemo                      |
| 4, rue Jacques Monod             |
| ZAC des Vignes                   |
| 91893 Orsay CEDEX                |
| FRANCE                           |

Tel. INRIA : (33) (0) 1 72 92 59 31
Tel. UVSQ  : (33) (0) 1 39 25 40 49
Received on Friday, 4 November 2005 15:31:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:14 UTC