- From: Uschold, Michael F <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
- Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 11:22:43 -0800
- To: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
<Mike Uschold Scribing> Future Plans PORT TF Alistair - * Should work continue? Yes. 0 Should it be a recommendation? Probably. * There are existing documents 1 There is a list of issues. * Relationship between SKOS-like stuff and owl ontologies, how co-exist? How migrate from one to other. Need to know how this works to do SKOS right. Many different scenarios to look at, other than living side by side. Relationship between taggers and formal ontologies. 1 Community Involvement: Need to make sure people coming to this community know where to start. Need engagement form maintainers and users of SKOS. DanBri: this work is needed before other red-track work starts on this topic. 2 Multi-linguality - lexical issues * Other work worth doing: YES. * Mapping of SKOS-like stuff. (started in SWAD Europe) Maybe take some existing mapping stuff from other communities, and rdf-ize it. Multi-linguality also needs mapping. Welty Wisecrack: Do you mean OWL and RDF are different languages? WORDNET TF: Aldo Must finalize draft ASAP. Waiting for reviewers feedback. Issues: * 2nd note on WN uses aimed at application developers Guus: goal is to get draft out into community, to get feedback, how can application developers use it? * Community consensus, collaboration with Princeton * Make available as Web service * Comprehensive lexical markup (link to LNF) Time Frame to completion: one year after end WG MULTI-MEDIA TF: Need extension of WG to finish interoperability document. (need 6 months extension) New notes: * video (requires new WG or new charter (1-2 years time frame to do same deliverables for Video) * VRA note: try to merge into future SKOS activity ( longer term issue, depends on community consensus) TOPIC MAPS: Valentine: * Interoperability guidelines document: (6-12 months time frame) RDF in HTML, RDFA: Jeremy Not clear how XHTML community can have input from Semantic Web community after the SWBPD WG disbands. (1 year) Should be Semantic Web tools that can read XHTML2, notes to write (more than one year) SOFTWARE ENGINEERING: Phil More notes: * Compound Keys (6 months) * Java implementers (9-12 months) * Jeff Pan: Automated software engineering (1-2 years) experts in software engineering, how can sw technology be used... -- XSD: Jeremy Will finish on time. Future: input for RDF/OWL revision (one fine day) ADTF: Libby - will finish on time. Input to SWEO New TF (ish) - TUTORIALS * input to SWEO (proposed) VM - Vocabulary Management [ Alistair ] Bite sized bits: should finish HTTP URI soon. * How does ... solve expressivity problem. How publish ontology when different users want different expressivity OWLS lite, dl and full. Documentation of current practice [ 6 months] * Change management / versioning for vocabularies [1 year] * Good practice for HTML documentation for vocabularies [6-12 months] Want to tie into OWL documentation. Human readable documentation for ontologies/vocabularies. OEP: 13 New documents suggested form people outside OEP ( some may belong to SWEO). On OEP Web page. LEFTOVER IDEAS that may not have been addressed, that were on original list of things to do for SWBPD WG. * use of RDF label, etc * tools index (for SWEO?) out of scope for us * units and measures * ontology design issues (covered in OEP note ideas) So just one idea to pursue from original list. NEW IDEAS: * study link between conceptual graphs and RDFS/OWL * survey existing mappings 1 find common core of graph family (CGs, RDFS, RDF etc) 2 usage note * good practice for internationalization features for RDFS/OWL, what is there, what is missing, how to use it? LOOKING TO THE FUTURE: how/whether to continue the work being done in this WG. Look at different scenarios for extending SKOS work. * Separate SKOS WG, and then on to Rec track * Continue in extended SWBPD WG, then on to Rec track Ralph: why should specific rec-track work like this be in a WG? Alistair: 1st, to ensure that SKOS work stays in tune and connected with the ontology community. 2nd: people not directly SKOS folk, but who come into SKOS also get a link to the wider Semantic Web community. Two scenarios, to recharter or not to recharter, that is the question. Re-Charter: max period of ? Ralph not think there is any limitation on this. 2 years would be a reasonable proposal. Different from asking for shortish extension. For each scenario, how would the work proceed? Scenario A: do NOT recharter How to continue SKOS? * rec track * link with VRA work WN has a problem, cannot finish all work in time, may continue in SW Interest Group (SWIG) DanBri: this could work, would have to be more visible to wider community. SWIG: xx means not well placed in SWIG SWIG is a loose open forum, not a tradition of publishing notes in formal way. SWIG is a community, makes more work for the coordination group (SWIG chairs). Would be taking over job of Guus and DavidW * WN * MM Video * RDFTM * X - RDF-In-XHTML ill fit, because too important to be in just an IG. * SE - rest Phil: fits in short term, but this area may grow too fast, would fester in an IG ChrisW: there is an argument for keeping it here, for sake of outreach Phil: I agree with that. * VM: change management & documentation * OEP rest Jeremy: how do we justify to our bosses that we do this work. Harder in an IG than in a WG. Less of a problem, if there are clear deliverables. Phil: having TFs in a Best Practices WG, sends a strong signal to the world, not nearly the same clout, just being in an IG is not nearly as good. Guus: I like suggestion that SE notes go into SWEO. BP Extensions * WN, MM interoperability 0 RDFTM - interoperability 1 SE - compound keys 2 VM: RDF/OWL 3 OEP * Closure axioms 1 Guidance on domain/range restrictions * Idea: bring OEP under SKOS activity? Alister: Chris: you belong to Meee! Discussion that OEP is much broader than SKOS, only a modest sized overlap. Scenario B: DO recharter SWBPD-2 * SKOS (REC?) * OEP- guidelines vs. particular vocabularies/ontologies * VM * Semantic Web language core Guus: need clear technical reason to be in this group. Phil: link to UML is key Guss: yes, but link to ODM not needed. Phil: these are essentially the same thing. Aldo: relationship between linguistics and Semantic Web is important. It is under-represented in this WG. SWIG Liaison activity seems to be common thread. Is it strong enough for separate WG? Guus: Liaison was one of the original goals of the SWBPD MM: needs out reach beyond Semantic Web community. DanBri: scared of having this in SWIG. Other's agree. New Group Names? * Semantic Web Liaison Activity: MM, TM, ODM (SE) * Ontology and Vocabulary Management: naturally includes SKOS, OEP, VM, SWL Core ChrisW: we need stronger focus, too broad now, hard to get anything done in telecons Jeremy: much work is sub-critical mass, becomes possible to continue, if have the WG, may fall apart otherwise Alistair: I like idea of focus, as well as idea of liaison. ChrisW: I disagree with Jeremy, to scattered hinders work Jeremy: That's true, too. ChrisW: can we recharter SWEO to add the liaison activity?\ MikeU: great idea! DanB: that would be too much like SWBPD CW: no, SWBPD not has not liaison activity. Guus: I think not appropriate place CW: we change charter, so it is appropriate DavidB: I don't think appropriate. DanB: I don't want to have a SKOS-only WG, too thesaurusy Jacco: I want technical feedback, SWEO may not be very useful for that Alistair: what would be products of they liaison work? A: Jacco: same deliverables as MM now, but for videos A: Guus: same pattern as usual, survey, standards, and usage guidelines Stamou: please tell me more about SWL core A: Guus: place to collect changes, changes, etc of OWL/RDF specs Stamou: need more datatypes Guus: MM not fit under ontology and vocabulary management WG. MikeU: maybe have new WG called Ontology and Vocabulary Management and Liaison Activity. Guus: alternate telecons MikeU: that solves telecon/focus problem BrianM: classis situation, lots to do, don't try to do them all. Must have focus. Decide what NOT to do! I propose dropping liaison, it spins out of control. Jeremy: clapping... ChrisW: amounts to where to fit work, organizationally. Guus: we have gotten much work, spin out of control not actually happened. DanB: incubator idea... W3C members can take up forum that does not take up W3C staff time. This can result in report, which can lead to more formal outlet. Q: how differ form SWIG? A: DanB: good question. ChrisW: can you use w3C-supported zakim telecon in an incubator? Stamou: we are putting MM in liaison... there are other problems. Is part of work of MM that should be done inside Semantic Web area. Guus: can we cast it as ontology/vocabulary management? Stamou: advantages of Semantic Web is: you can have more powerful semantics Vasilis: there is lots of stuff not just closely related, but the same thing as Semantic Web. Datatypes, temporal reasoning, ... Guus: I consider those things that are MM-specific ... if there are particular representational issues, then they fit in ontology/vocabulary management. Stamou: example... MPEG7 - started with new language, dropped some of their work and took XML Schema, so they might actually pull in RDF/OWL as well. Needs liaison activity for this. MM conclusion: two options 1) if we have O/V management group, then the liaison activity will not be done there. 2) if we have focused BP group, then can have incubator group for MM MikeU: this can split the coherence of the MM folk, splinter into two groups. DanB: a different approach...more freeform, mailing lists, yahoo groups whatever, wait to see what comes, see if reports etc are produced. Can be published through W3C. This is possibly last resort, if something at risk of falling into the bin. Guus: in any short extension of this current group, I am willing to chair it, if re-chartered for a new longish period, it will be needing a new chair, I will step down from that role.
Received on Sunday, 6 November 2005 19:22:48 UTC