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

Meeting minutes from teleconference 2005-09-05

From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 11:06:44 -0400
Message-ID: <A5EEF5A4F0F0FD4DBA33093A0B07559008911A7A@tayexc18.americas.cpqcorp.net>
To: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

Minutes from Monday's Working Group teleconference are in HTML at
and also below in plain text.  Apologies for neglecting to post them



      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                 Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment WG

5 Sep 2005



   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/09/05-swbp-irc


          David_Wood, Phil_Tetlow, Alistair_Miles, DBooth,
          Jacco_van_Ossenbruggen, Libby, DanBri, FabGandon, Ralph,
          Rafael, Giorgos_Stamou, Brian_McBride
          On IRC only: Guus, ChrisW

          Lars, Benjamin


          DBooth, DanBri


     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]1. ADMIN
         2. [6]2. LIAISON
         3. [7]2.5 Other: Using URIs to identify non-information
         4. [8]FTF preparation and future of WG
         5. [9]4. TF UPDATES - 4.0 MM TF Proposal
         6. [10]4.1 PORT (Alistair)
         7. [11]4.2 OEP
         8. [12]4.3 WordNet (Aldo)
         9. [13]4.4 XML Schema datatypes (Jeremy)
        10. [14]4.5 Vocabulary management (TomB)
        11. [15]4.6 RDF-in-HTML (Ben)
        12. [16]4.7 ADTF (Libby)
        13. [17]4.8 RDFTM (Steve)
        14. [18]4.9 Tutorial Page
        15. [19]4.10 SE TF
     * [20]Summary of Action Items


   <guus> david, i'm at home and do not seem to get connected

   <dwood> guus: ok

   <guus> i will keep trying, but i will be on irc, at least

   <dwood> guus: No problem. I can chair.

   <ChrisW> can't make telecon sorry


   <dwood> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 22 August telecon:



   <guus> second

   DBooth seconds also.

   RESOLUTION: Minutes of 22 Aug accepted.

   <danbri> [22]http://www.w3.org/2005/08/22-swbp-minutes.html

     [22] http://www.w3.org/2005/08/22-swbp-minutes.html

   <dwood> PROPOSED next meeting 19 September

   DBooth seconds.

   <danbri> danbri likely regrets for next meeting

   RESOLUTION: next meeting 19 September

   <dwood> ACTION: Guus remind WG about participation expectations
   [recorded in
   [23]http://www.w3.org/2005/08/22-swbp-minutes.html#action05] [DONE]

     [23] http://www.w3.org/2005/08/22-swbp-minutes.html#action05

   DWood: Face-to-face preparations: TF have been asked to prepare by
   determining how they will complete their requirements and suggest
   will need continuing after the WG ends.



   <guus> if at all

   DWood: Need this done soon to plan the agenda.


   <guus> propose TF responses on the list by Sep 19

   DWood: Also there was some significant info on the Web about the F2F
   by the host: [25]http://sw.deri.org/2005/07/swbpd/

     [25] http://sw.deri.org/2005/07/swbpd/

   <dwood> ACTION: Ralph, DavidW, and DavidB to an initial draft of TAG
   httpRange-14 resolution impact on semweb application developers
   [recorded in

     [26] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/27-swbp-minutes.html#action02

   Ralph: Would like to continue that. Several conversations in which
   this is discussed.

   (DWood, Ralph and DBooth to discuss immediately after this meeting)

   <dwood> ACTION: jjc to review XML Schema last call [recorded in

     [27] http://www.w3.org/2005/07/25-swbp-minutes.html#action02

   <inserted> 2.3 OMG: ODM review

   <dwood> ACTION: ChrisW post mail to the WG about the ODM question of
   triples, Statements, and Resources [recorded in
   [28]http://www.w3.org/2005/08/22-swbp-minutes.html#action03] [DONE]

     [28] http://www.w3.org/2005/08/22-swbp-minutes.html#action03

   2.4 Protocol and Formats WG request

   <dwood> ACTION: jjc review EARL requirements [recorded in

     [29] http://www.w3.org/2005/07/25-swbp-minutes.html#action05

   <ChrisW> fyi, my action message:


   <dwood> ChrisW: Thanks

   <ChrisW> continued

2.5 Other: Using URIs to identify non-information resources

   <scribe> Scribe: DanBri

   DBooth: see
   ... 'How about using an http site such as thing-described-by.org to
   303 redirects?'
   ... a little dissatisfied w/ tag guidance, which is to use 303 or #


   [within context of http: URIs]

   scribe: proposed a redirction service
   ... much discussion
   ... main criticism was that it was too centralised
   ... made a followup proposal to decentralise, via a concept of a '303
   redirector service'
   ... write urls in that style, and write metadata saying 'i'm using
   such-n-so service, which redirects on this prefix'
   ... trying to make an easier way to mint uris that match tag
   guidelines, and are efficient to process

   dwood: how much discussion?

   dbooth: 6-10 msgs

   <dwood> The chair is concerned whether the SWBP is the right forum
   this discussion, but will discuss for a short while

   dbooth: some discussion was criticism of tag decision

   <dbooth> DWood: Concern that it outsteps the bounds of this WG.

   dbooth: why does this seem out of scope?

   <ChrisW> i agree this discussion is out of scope

   dwood: we're chartered ... arch issue of how 303s are dealt with, or
   non-info resources, ... transcends the Semantic Web
   ... not sw specific
   ... if we have sw-specific comments on concerns re tag response
   ... if we have general arch comments on the www, that's out of scope

   [I also agree its out of scope]

   <ChrisW> If anything move this discussion to the end of the call

   <ChrisW> focus priority of WG on the TF work

   dbooth: seems related to meaning
   ... if people think its out of scope, i could accept that.

   <ChrisW> we have run out of time dicussing TFs on previous calls

   dwood: can you link it to a problem w/ the sw?

   dbooth: practical issues around minting uris and efficiency of doing
   303 redirects.

   <RalphS> [for me DBooth's proposal has too much the feel of a hack
   encourages centralization rather than let people mint their own URIs]

   dbooth: if you use 303 redirection, 2 practical issues... set up
   servers that way...
   ... and doesn't scale well to do the extra network access required

   <Zakim> bwm, you wanted to ask if there is a writeup of the issues

   bwm: are the motivations written down somewhere?

   dbooth: i can dig them out
   ... was in one of my early postings

   <dbooth> DBooth: Regular 303-redirection doesn't scale well because
   extra network access required for the redirection.

   <RalphS> DanBri: I sent some initial comments in the mail thread

   <RalphS> ... in the centralized form it goes against Web architecture
   and I don't think it will really work

   <RalphS> ... could discuss this in the Semantic Web Interest Group

   ralph: was going to make a similar comment re centralisation

   <dbooth> DanBri: Suggest trying to get momentum in the IG

   ralph: we could fit it in scope, as we could do best practices re
   ... so we could treat it as in-scope, but i think the particular
   proposal is flawed
   ... wg could discuss if it chose to

   dbooth: newer proposal does address the centralisation concerns, i
   think entirely

   <dbooth> Here is the newer version:


   dwood: suggestion re interest group is a good one
   ... i'll have to look at the newer version

   <RalphS> Ralph: discussion of DBooth's proposal could be in scope as
   we are concerned about best practices for naming things

   <dbooth> Scribe: DBooth

FTF preparation and future of WG

   <dwood> SWBP after SWBP:


   DWood: Need to discuss what should happen after WG ends 1-Feb-2006.
   ... Want to close down some TFs during the FTF. If your TF is close
   completion or nearing death, plan to close it.

   <Jacco> sorry for the noise - i'm without a head set too

   DWood: Ones to continue would be those who have both value and
   momentum to continue.

   <RalphS> Previous: 2005-08-22

     [34] http://www.w3.org/2005/08/22-swbp-minutes.html

   DWood: Anything that should continue must consider whether it should
   be rec track or other, and if so what forum. E.g., strong support for
   SKOS being rec track, but not necessarily with SWBP WG.
   ... Comments? (none)

   <dwood> Revised version of MM TF proposal:



4. TF UPDATES - 4.0 MM TF Proposal

   <dwood> PROPOSED to accept this TF as a new SWBP TF.

   <Jacco> unmute Jacco

   Jacco: It makes communication with non-WG members much easier if the
   TF is accepted.

   <Zakim> RalphS, you wanted to ack about participation

   <Jacco> mute Jacco

   Ralph: In Giogos's draft of July 27, he lists 7 potential
   participants, and 5 of them are WG members. (Jacco is the only one
   currently present.)

   <guus> i'm hre :-)

   Giogos: Vasilis is also here, and Jeff and ___, and Guus.

   <dwood> RESOLVED to accept the MM TF

   RESOLUTION: Accept the MM TF as a new SWPB TF.

   <Jacco> thanks

   <guus> thx to Giorgos and Jacco for the prep work

   DWood: Please use the FTF to make as much progress as possible.

4.1 PORT (Alistair)

   <aliman> [36]http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/translations

     [36] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/translations

   <RalphS> [I apologize for falling behind on SKOS review, am working
   it now]

   Alistair: Second review of SKOS core. Submissions of translations of
   comments. Web page links to them.
   ... Hoping to ask OEP TF to review and hoping to resolve tricky
   of mapping from SKOS concepts to individuals, and should SKOS Core
   itself be an OWL DL ontology. Also want "how to extend SKOS Core"

   <RalphS> [excellent idea to use f2f time to get OEP folk involved in
   SKOS dicussions]

   <ChrisW> agree

   Alistair: After that, don't know what to say. Able to say more after
   Dublin Core conference in Madrid next week.

   Ralph: Re future of SKOS, have not spoken with Eric since Friday's
   coordination mtg. Guus suggests in the overall F2F agenda that this
   will be looked at for suggestions for followon work.

   <ChrisW> for oep: Guus, can you take an action to check new "simple
   part" editor's draft

   <ChrisW> it is ready to go to WD

   <guus> yes, action ok

   Ralph: We should expect to be asked our opinion on that, so we should
   prepare an answer.

   DWood: Would be adequate to say that SKOS has hit a nerve --
   significant utility. Issue is more the mechanism to make a rec
   right Ralph?

   Ralph: Don't disagree, but not what I was saying. Of all the work
   WG has been doing, SKOS has been getting a lot of attention.

   DWood: Alistair, please be prepared to discuss at the F2F.

   DanBri: Dublin Core conf will be an excellent way to see people's

4.2 OEP



   <dwood> ChrisW: Other comments re recent work?

   DWood: "Is a triple an RDF resource?"

   <ChrisW> "triple a resource" is ODM not OEP

   <ChrisW> OEP work continues

   <ChrisW> check out TF page

   <RalphS> ^RDF(S) triples, statements, and resource [ChrisW

   <dwood> ChrisW, Right, thanks

   <dwood> ChrisW, Comments re OEP?

   <danbri> [imho, triples, like all things... are resources...]

   <ChrisW> made my comments above

   <ChrisW> to guus - simple part note ready to go to WD

   <ChrisW> give guus the action to approve it

   <RalphS> s/W: Right/W, Right/

   <dwood> ChrisW, "give Guus" or "gave Guus"?

   <ChrisW> someone record it

   <ChrisW> ACTION: GUUS to approve new version of simple part note
   to first WD [recorded in

     [38] http://www.w3.org/2005/09/05-swbp-minutes.html#action06

   <dwood> ChrisW, who were the reviewers for the simple part note?

   <ChrisW> guus and bill mcdaniel

   <dwood> thx

4.3 WordNet (Aldo)

   DanBri: I think I was on it, but it's been quiet.

   DWood: More activity seems to have happened recently, Guus indicated.

   Alistair: Mark van Assem has been doing work on it.

   <danbri> [I should probably resign from the TF]

   <guus> Mark can work on it with comments Brian

   <dwood> Guus: May Mark join the telecons at some point to discuss?

   <guus> i would like to have version by FTF with Princeton in the loop

   <scribe> ACTION: Aldo to propose an update the Wordnet TF description
   [recorded in

     [39] http://www.w3.org/2005/04/07-swbp-minutes.html#action04

   <guus> sure, i will make him a formal participant

   <dwood> guus, thanks

4.4 XML Schema datatypes (Jeremy)

   <scribe> ACTION: JeffP to draft a response to dave reynolds [recorded
   in [40]http://www.w3.org/2005/07/25-swbp-minutes.html#action09]

     [40] http://www.w3.org/2005/07/25-swbp-minutes.html#action09

4.5 Vocabulary management (TomB)

   Ralph: Tom hopes to make progress on this soon.

   <danbri> (tom, al, and danbri will be at dc-2005 next week in madrid)

4.6 RDF-in-HTML (Ben)

   Ralph: We have not met since the last telecon. No progress to report.

   <RalphS> ["We" == "HTML TF"]

   DanBri: I got this draft note that I think is ready to roll (except
   for a prettier image). Should we solicit 2 reviewers? What's the

   Ralph: Has the TF signed off on putting it to WG review?

   DanBri: Don't remember.

   DWood: Once that TF has agreed, then just get reviewers.

   DanBri: Don't think the TF has made a formal decision to put it to
   WG. Anyone is welcome to have a look though. It's a small RDF vocab
   give semantics to link types.

   <RalphS> [Most recent meeting of the HTML TF was 16 Aug, per
   /0010.html ]


   <scribe> ACTION: DanBri to ask TF for sign-off on putting the draft
   xhtml vocab to the WG for review. [recorded in

     [42] http://www.w3.org/2005/09/05-swbp-minutes.html#action09

   <guus> i will take a look

   Ralph: For F2F, I'd like to see a schedule for RDFA. It's possible
   XHTML2 will officially be in Last Call by our F2F.

   DanBri: It's difficult for this F2F because it's a joint TF with the
   HTML folks.

   DWood: It sounds to me like there's progress on HTML links, and
   but RDFA is still the outstanding issue that needs addressing.

   Ralph: Yes, there are outstanding technical issues with RDFA. Mark
   Birbeck continues to take the major architect lead on that. It's
   unclear how he's being given sufficient input in order to make

   DWood: We will discuss at the F2F, because it relates to a charter

   Ralph: Re transcending the length of the charter, the SWBP WG
   discharge its obligation once there's an XHTML2 that we're happy
   There will be enough machinery in place to respond to LC comments.
   if there isn't a LC draft in place in time, then we will not have
   our charter.

   DWood: How can we help address the issue?
   ... What needs to happen?

   Ralph: The problem is not politics or process. It's just a matter of
   limited availability of individuals that we're depending on. There
   probably others who could continue if it were high enough priority
   them. We keep hearing that there are people who care, but we haven't
   seen anyone new join the TF.

   DWood: Can you identify open issues that need WG review?

   <RalphS> [43]RDF-in-XHTML issues list


   <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to note DC-2005 conf a good way to gather
   evidence re skos and to ask ralph who can join the TF

   Ralph: If anyone can help address these, we could use it.

   DanBri: WHo can join the TF? Can we invite Dublin Core people? Or
   they be invited experts?

   Ralph: The public mailing list allows the public to participate.
   Inviting them to meetings is a different question though.

   DanBri: I'll ask for help from Dublin Core folks.

   Ralph: Issue: People tend to use SKOS: property names, rather than
   http URIs.

   <aliman> I was just wondering the same while starting to write a 'how
   to do SKOS Core in XHTML2' wiki page ... !

   Ralph: One proposal is to accept two sets of attributes, with a bit a
   whining about why XML didn't already deal with this syntactic issue.
   ... Some constituencies feel that long URLs throughout a document is

   DWood: Do you plan to publish anything else between now and when the
   TF closes?

   Ralph: We need to, but don't have a schedule that shows us publishing
   anything else.

   DWood: How will you address that gap?

   Ralph: There is an event early in Oct that affects Mark Birbeck, and
   that may be a forcing function to help participants prioritize the

   DWood: Please address these issues head on, even if the result is
   acknowledging that more cannot be done.

4.7 ADTF (Libby)

   Libby: Not a huge amount done. Slow but steady stream of files,
   gradually putting them in our list.

   DWood: There was discussion of the value of ADTF and not wanting it
   go away, and potentially moving it to the IG forum.

   <Zakim> RalphS, you wanted to ask about a self-sustaining model for

   <aliman> ... oh, another SKOS thing ... I did a SKOS Core tutorial
   DC2005, get it from


   Libby: I'd be in favor. Could be done nicely as collaborative project
   within the IG.

   <danbri> [nice to see all the DOAP in


   <aliman> (most extensive presentation yet on SKOS Core)

   Ralph: Would be good to get advice from the TF for how to make it an
   ongoing, sustained thing.

   DWood: What mechanisms are available to make this happen?

   <danbri> [46]http://www.w3.org/2003/12/swa/swig-charter.html

     [46] http://www.w3.org/2003/12/swa/swig-charter.html

   Ralph: Read the IG charter to see how it creates tasks -- in practice
   individuals interested in doing it suggest to the IG that it be the
   home, and then it happens.

4.8 RDFTM (Steve)

   (Skipped; nobody present)

4.9 Tutorial Page

   (Skipped; nobody present)

4.10 SE TF

   <danbri> re new IG fora, [["The Interest Group home page provides the
   authoritative list of W3C email lists sponsored by the Group."
   [47]http://www.w3.org/2003/12/swa/swig-charter.html ]]

     [47] http://www.w3.org/2003/12/swa/swig-charter.html

   Phil: We now have comments from Ben's first note. Now have proposal
   for primer for OO programmers on the use of SemWeb tech. Some
   momentum. For F2F, would be nice to get our first note to be official
   document. Also need debate on the future of the TF. Seemed an
   unnatural fit with the SWBP WG. Potenially move to another WG? Don't
   know which -- potentiall the IG.

   DWood: please shop around for a forum prior to the F2F

   <Zakim> bwm, you wanted to ask Phil what specific task would be done
   in the new WG

   Brian: What do you think would be the most important task that the TF
   would accomplish?

   Phil: Get out a broad definition of how SW tech could be used. High
   level primer. We've achieved that. Having a presence to glue together
   the two communities is of value.

   Brian: IG is a good place.

   Phil: That feels right to me at the moment.

   <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to suggest danbri clarify TF transfer
   possibilities w/ SWCG re SWIG new mailing lists etc

   DanBri: There have been a couple of suggestions of work to move into
   the IG. We didn't say enough in the IG charter of how sub-fora should
   be created. In the past we'd set up mailing lists for calendering,
   ... This crops up also with geography and mapping. It isn't clear
   mechanism to use, and that results in some paralysis.

   <scribe> ACTION: DanBri to clarify rules for IG to propose new
   lists for its TFs [recorded in

     [48] http://www.w3.org/2005/09/05-swbp-minutes.html#action10

   <aliman> Fyi, relating to XHTML2 discussion, I just tried to write
   some SKOS Core in XHTML2, see
   [49]http://esw.w3.org/topic/SkosDev/SkosCoreInXhtml2 ...

     [49] http://esw.w3.org/topic/SkosDev/SkosCoreInXhtml2

   <aliman> also danbri has suggested using XHTML2 markup in examples in
   SKOS Core Guide.

   [Brief off-record discussion]

   <RalphS> [thanks, Alistair -- that sort of example development is

   <RalphS> [50]discussion of RDF/A examples]

     [50] http://www.w3.org/2005/07/26-swbp-minutes#item02

   <RalphS> [unfortunately, the (non-W3C) Wiki on which those examples
   live has had hardware trouble]

   Phil: There's an underlying theme that needs a home somewhere in the
   W3C. There already is the SW IG with a deliberately broad charter.


   <aliman> thanks everyone

   <RalphS> next meeting: 19 September

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: DanBri to ask TF for sign-off on putting the draft
   vocab to the WG for review. [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: DanBri to clarify rules for IG to propose new mailing
   lists for its TFs [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: GUUS to approve new version of simple part note going
   first WD [recorded in

     [51] http://www.w3.org/2005/09/05-swbp-minutes.html#action09
     [52] http://www.w3.org/2005/09/05-swbp-minutes.html#action10
     [53] http://www.w3.org/2005/09/05-swbp-minutes.html#action06

   [PENDING] ACTION: Aldo to propose an update the Wordnet TF
   [recorded in
   [PENDING] ACTION: JeffP to draft a response to dave reynolds
   in [55]http://www.w3.org/2005/07/25-swbp-minutes.html#action09]
   [PENDING] ACTION: jjc review EARL requirements [recorded in
   [PENDING] ACTION: jjc to review XML Schema last call [recorded in
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph, DavidW, and DavidB to an initial draft of
   httpRange-14 resolution impact on semweb application developers
   [recorded in

     [54] http://www.w3.org/2005/04/07-swbp-minutes.html#action04
     [55] http://www.w3.org/2005/07/25-swbp-minutes.html#action09
     [56] http://www.w3.org/2005/07/25-swbp-minutes.html#action05
     [57] http://www.w3.org/2005/07/25-swbp-minutes.html#action02
     [58] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/27-swbp-minutes.html#action02

   [DONE] ACTION: ChrisW post mail to the WG about the ODM question of
   triples, Statements, and Resources [recorded in
   [DONE] ACTION: Guus remind WG about participation expectations
   [recorded in

     [59] http://www.w3.org/2005/08/22-swbp-minutes.html#action03
     [60] http://www.w3.org/2005/08/22-swbp-minutes.html#action05

   [End of minutes]


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [61]scribe.perl version 1.122
    ([62]CVS log)
    $Date: 2005/09/08 14:25:03 $

     [62] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/


David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
Phone: +1 617 629 8881
Received on Friday, 9 September 2005 15:11:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:12 UTC