- From: Libby Miller <libby@asemantics.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 05:46:34 -0800 (PST)
- To: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- cc: SW Best Practices <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
arrgh, Tom, apologies, I knew I wasn't going to make this but forgot regrets. Libby On Fri, 31 Mar 2006, Thomas Baker wrote: > > SWBPD VM 2006-03-31 telecon agenda > > Note that as of 2006-03-26, Central Europe is on "Summer Time"! > > Friday, 13:00 UTC -- 14:00 London -- 15:00 Berlin > http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#D20060331 > Zakim: +1-617-761-6200 > Conference code 8683# ('VMTF') > irc://irc.w3.org:6665/vmtf > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > AGENDA > > As agreed on 2006-03-17, this last telecon of the VM > Task Force under the current SW BPD charter will focus > on taking stock of outstanding issues. > > At a minimum, we should discuss the issues listed below > under "Remaining Issues to Discuss". > > Time-permitting, we should look at issues from the "VM > Task Force Web page", also listed below. > > The final, edited version of this document can serve as > a point of departure for discussion in the context of a > new SW working group. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > LINKS > > Reports of recent telecons > [1] 2006-02-07: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Feb/0059.html > [2] 2006-02-14: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Feb/0115.html > [3] 2006-03-17: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Mar/0051.html > > Current draft, under discussion > [4] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/http-examples/2006-01-18/ > > David Booth's re-review comments of Feb 15 > [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Feb/0109.html > > Current VM Task Force Web page > [6] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/ > > Older, abandoned draft, not to lose sight of... > [7] http://esw.w3.org/topic/VocabManagementNote > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > OUTSTANDING ACTIONS > > ACTION (ongoing): Ralph to test recipes with W3C configuration. > > ACTION 2006-03-17 Ralph: Contact Matthew Ellison about our interest in > having STC participate in VM writing. > > AGREED 2006-03-17 to focus the last telecon on clarifying > the list of issues to be carried forward into future > chartered working groups. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > REMAINING ISSUES TO DISCUSS > > 1. David Booth's review, Point 7: "Interpretation of fragment identifiers" > Recipe 3. Hash Configuration, Extended: > I don't think the comment from my previous review was addressed: > "Because the interpretation of a fragment identifier in > the presence of 303 redirects is unclear as far as I know, I think > this recipe should note that the browser may or may not apply the > fragment identifier to the secondary URI." > > 2. Hash namespace URIs > > On 2006-02-14, Ralph pointed out [*] that the Cookbook shows > vocabulary > http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/VM/http-examples/example1 > defining classes > http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/VM/http-examples/example1#ClassA > http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/VM/http-examples/example1#ClassB > consistently omitting the trailing '#' from the vocabulary name. > > [*] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Feb/thread.html#msg105 > > "I claim this is a fundamental mistake and would argue it on the > basis of both semantics and what the RDF core specifications > state. The semantic point is that [a] should be the name of the > vocabulary while [b] is the name of a document that might (should) > describe that vocabulary." > > [a] http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/VM/http-examples/example1# > [b] http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/VM/http-examples/example1 > > 3. Longer-term issue: alignment of content-negotiation ideas > in the cookbook with TAG: > -- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#namespaceDocument-8 > -- Associating Resources with Namespaces > Draft TAG Finding 13 December 2005 > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments-2005-12-13/ > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > VM TASK FORCE WEB PAGE - as of November 2005 > > Short-term objectives > > -- To define (in a Note > <http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/keyword/Process.rdf/?keywords=Note> > or Editor's Draft) a set of good-practice "recipes" for > configuring an Apache server for content negotiation such that: > o If a person tries to dereference the URI of a class or > property (i.e. via a Web browser), they end up at the > relevant bit of human-readable documentation. > o If a machine tries to dereference the URI of a class or > property, they end up with a serialisation of a set of RDF > statements describing that class or property, with a > provenance that allows differentiation of different > 'versions' of an RDF schema/ontology. > o The dereferencing solution complies with TAG resolution on > httpRange-14. > -- To wrap those recipes in enough context to make them usable by > vocabulary maintainers to provide documentation and schemas for > their vocabularies. > > Long-term issues > > -- URIs based on PURL.ORG. DC, RSS, and vocab.org use URIs based on > purl.org, which currently responds to GET requests with 302 > (Temporarily Moved). The TAG decision on httpRange-14 > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0039.html> > requires 303 (Redirect). This was discussed in a mailing list > thread > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Aug/0037.html>. > In July, Dan asked TAG > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jul/0056.html> > whether a 302 response on a purl.org URI would be acceptable. As > of November, Alistair has included purl.org scenarios in the draft > cookbook > <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/http-examples/2005-11-18/>. > > -- Awareness of multiple representations. If content negotiation is > handled in the background and alternative representations of a > vocabulary in RDF or HTML are served up to a user seemingly > automatically -- on the basis of Apache configurations -- how > would an interested user know which other representations were > available <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/28-vmtf-minutes.html>? > Should there be some way for a user to learn about other > representations (e.g., via cross-references or an overview page)? > --Notion of a "Definitive RDF description". Peter Patel-Schneider > has questioned the focus on one "definitive RDF description" for > each RDFS/OWL class, property, or individual -- as opposed to an > RDFS description, an OWL description, or multiple "definitive" > descriptions > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0075.html>. > > -- Provenance and URIs. Provenance is supported by using the final > URI from the chain of redirects as the name of the graph; > different URIs represent different versions of a vocabulary. Tom > has noted that, in practice, "date-stamped" URIs are often used > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0078.html> > and suggests we explicitly acknowledge both that URI strings are > in theory opaque and unparsable and that there are de-facto social > conventions for using date stamps or version numbers. > > -- rdfs:isDefinedBy. Clarifying the dereferencing options provides > an opportunity to clarify good practice for the use of > rdfs:isDefinedBy > <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#isDefinedBy>. Instead of > relying on URI string manipulation in an attempt to heuristically > locate a namespace, namespaces should be declared with > rdfs:isDefinedBy. > > -- Change management for RDFS/OWL ontologies. > There was discussion on whether this should more properly be > called "change management" or even "version documentation". > Current DCMI practice > <ftp://ftp.cenorm.be/public/ws-mmi-dc/mmidc148.pdf> has been > described. The emerging consensus is that it is best to version > the description of a property (i.e., the RDF statements about it), > not the property itself. I.e. each 'version' is a named graph; > provenance information can then be used to distinguish between > different descriptions of a property. Alistair notes that the > issues of versioning and change management are coming to the fore > in the OWL community. > o Part 1. Naming > <http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/cvs-public/~checkout~/swbp/vm/change-management/part1.html> > > o Part 2. Metadata > <http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/cvs-public/~checkout~/swbp/vm/change-management/part2.html> > > -- Principles of Good Practice (see Wiki draft > <http://esw.w3.org/topic/VocabManagementNote>). > o Identify Terms with URIs. > o Articulate and publish maintenance policies for the Terms > and their URIs. > o Identify the historical version of a Vocabulary or its Terms. > o Provide natural-language documentation about the Terms. > o Declare the Terms using a formal, machine-processable schema > language. > > See also > > -- 2005-11-22, Vocabulary Management Task Force progress report > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0122.html>. > > Dependencies > > -- SWBP Thesaurus Task Force (THES) > <http://www.w3.org/2004/03/thes-tf/mission> > -- TAG decision on httpRange-14 > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0039.html> > -- SWBP response to TAG decision on httpRange-14 > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0010.html> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ISSUES ALREADY DISCUSSED - David Booth's re-review [5] > > -- Point 1: As decided on the Feb 20 BPD telecon, Tom added > text about URIs coined using the > http://thing-described-by.org 303-redirect service [a,b,c]. > > [a] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Mar/0027.html > [b] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/http-examples/2006-01-18/#other > [c] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/http-examples/2006-01-18/#redirect > > David's point: Using a 303-redirect service, while quite > new as an approach, would theoretically be simpler to > implement than the recipe in the Cookbook claimed to be > "the simplest". Suggests adding an editor's note. Tom took > this as an action on the Feb 20 telecon and followed up > by adding some text [5], which David Booth approved. > > Alistair is not convinced that using 303 redirects is > actually simpler; he hasn't written up his thoughts yet. > A 303 redirect service is not new; that's exactly what > purl.org is. He is also not sure that 303 is simple > for slash namespaces -- see recipe 2a. You still need a > rule that catches multiple targets. It is similar to the > partial redirect problem in purl.org. If t-d-b could be > configured then lots would be easier, but without that > t-d-b is functionally equivalent to purl.org partial > redirects; and t-d-b relies on the persistence of 2 URIs > whereas purl.org only relies on the persistence of one > (purl.org) URI. This option has not been fully explored, > so we should look more closely at the supposed simplicity > of the 303-redirect solution and consider whether TDB is > really the best alternative. > > -- Point 2: "Title of Section 3" "Big-picture overview of > server configuration steps" David suggests some text to add > [2]. > > -- Point 3: "Title of Section 3" > Currently called "Some considerations when choosing a URI > namespace". David suggests: "Choosing a namespace URI: hash > versus slash". > > Alistair opposed to renaming the section to include > "hash vs slash" text (Ralph agrees): we want to take out > all references to past quagmires and think about readers > coming to document for first time - they want clean, > concise look at problem. > > -- Point 4: "Wording in Section 3" > David suggests a change of wording in one sentence in line > the new title (see 3 above). > > Ditto for wording of section three: better not to bring up > old arguments about hash versus slash. > > ACTION Ralph: Contact Matthew Ellison about our interest in > having STC participate in VM writing. > > Matthew Ellison <matthew.ellison@email.com>: represents > Society for Technical Communication (STC), a W3C that is > providing volunteer resources for a range of W3C writing > and eLearning development activities. These activities > include editing specifications, developing tutorials > for W3C tools and technologies, and writing summaries on > emerging W3C technologies and specifications. > > -- "More-helpful comment line in the recipes" > Suggests a few more words. > > -- Point 5: "Pros and cons of > hash versus slash URIs". David requests > "more-explicit guidance on hash versus slash URIs" -- > additional discussion of Pros and Cons. > > Alistair: Text of David's suggested editor's note isn't > quite correct. Also, prefer to keep this document at the > need-to-know level. If some pros and cons are to go into > this document, they ought to be as simple as possible and > gently worded. Would prefer if all document on making > choices were made externally to this document (i.e., > in another document), then just cite it. > > Ralph: Hard to keep this document both simple, and detailed > enough for people curious to look under the hood. Feels > right to have an entirely separate discussion document. > > -- Point 8: Numbering of sections is requested. > > -- Point 9: s/URI namespace/namespace URI/ throughout > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ISSUES ALREADY DISCUSSED - Structure of Cookbook document as a whole > > -- Tom proposed putting the requirements at the top, etc: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Mar/0048.html > > Tom: As currently written, there is nothing in the > introductory sections that simply says: "This document shows > you how to publish both machine- and human-readable versions > of a vocabulary." The requirements need to be expressed > up-front in some form, if only in a sentence or two. > > Alistair: Deliberately put the "Requirements" section at > the back of the document because it is not need-to-know > for the reader -- it's really there for the WG. I'd rather > the Requirements were not there at all. > > Ralph: Putting in alot of editorial notes, then stripping > them out in the final product is not a bad process. > > Alistair: the "Apache Configuration" section is another > thing that could be moved to an Appendix. The important > section is Choosing a recipe -- we want to get the reader > there as quickly as possible. Introduction, then Choosing a > Recipe, directly. > > Tom, Ralph, Alistair agree: Need to provide the motivation > for this specification in the introduction. Alot of the > detail could be pushed to appendix: URI namespaces; the > second Apache configuration. We need to decide what to > expect of readers - will help us decide what to keep in. > > If we physically move stuff down, then flavor becomes > "we don't think you want to see the details..."... > That tone is a dramatic change from what we have now. > Diagrams helped us, but may not be necessary for the > intended users. Simple visual images could perhaps convey > these choices with less detail. > > -- Recipe 6 is still a placeholder [*]. > [*] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-swbp-vocab-pub-20060314/#recipe6 > > -- > Dr. Thomas Baker baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de > SUB - Goettingen State +49-551-39-3883 > and University Library +49-30-8109-9027 > Papendiek 14, 37073 Göttingen > > >
Received on Friday, 31 March 2006 13:47:05 UTC