- From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 14:42:42 -0400
- To: public-swd-wg@w3.org
Tom has asked that the email announcing the minutes of
each meeting have both a summary of the meeting and a
text copy of the full HTML meeting record. Including the full
HTML is a convenience for those who want to scan or search
off-line and also makes it easier to copy excerpts into a reply.
Note that the W3C site has an HTML-to-text tool [2] that produces
nicely wrapped text with link references in context. The easiest
way to invoke this tool is to append ",text" to a (public) URI;
e.g. [3]. That's how I produced the text below. ,text uses the
default options of [2] (nothing checked) which is what many of
us prefer and is the form used to mail the Member newsletter.
[2] http://cgi.w3.org/cgi-bin/html2txt
[3] http://www.w3.org/2006/10/10-swd-minutes.html,text
Accordingly ...
----
The [1]record of today's SemWeb Deployment WG telecon is ready for review.
A text copy follows below.
[1] http://www.w3.org/2006/10/10-swd-minutes.html
Topics:
1. Admin
2. 1.3 Teleconferences
3. 1.4 W3C Process
4. Review of Charter / Work Planning
5. WG Organization
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Ralph communicate to January meeting planners our desire to keep the option for f2f open for a couple more weeks [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/10-swd-minutes.html#action01]
The next telecon is scheduled for Tuesday, 17 October, 1500 UTC
-Ralph
----
SemWeb Deployment WG
10 Oct 2006
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2006Oct/0001.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2006/10/10-swd-irc
Attendees
Present
Tom Baker, Ralph Swick, Guus Schreiber, Sean Bechhofer,
Fabien Gandon, Bernard Horan, Daniel Rubin, Diego Berrueta,
Antoine Isaac
Regrets
Ben Adida, Elisa Kendall
Chair
Tom, Guus
Scribe
Ralph
Contents
* Topics
1. Admin
2. 1.3 Teleconferences
3. 1.4 W3C Process
4. Review of Charter / Work Planning
5. WG Organization
* Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
-> [11]WG home page
[11] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/
Admin
Guus: in "W3C speak", the term "member" means an organization and
the term "participant" means individuals like you and me
1.3 Teleconferences
Guus: Bernard has already expressed difficulties with this
teleconference time
... intention is that UTC time is not fixed; we will shift by an
hour when the US changes its clock
... this year both US and Europe change on 29 October
... at present we have no Asian participants
... W3C tradition is that scribe duties rotate around the WG
... we scribe in irc
... if you don't have an irc client, you can use a Web browser with
the W3C cgi-irc interface; I've been using it successfully for
several years
<TomB> I use [12]ChatZilla - as a plug-in for Mozilla
[12] http://www.hacksrus.com/~ginda/chatzilla/
Guus: this WG operates in the public view
... so Member Access is not necessary for any WG materials, only for
other protected things such as Coordination Group records
Tom: I live in Berlin
-> [13]Tom's introduction
[13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2006Oct/0006.html
Ralph: I live an hour outside of Boston
-> [14]Ralph's introduction
[14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2006Oct/0007.html
Sean: I live in Manchester, UK
... participated in WebOnt
... interested in delivery of SKOS
... have a connection to KnowledgWeb
-> [15]Sean's introduction
[15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2006Oct/0009.html
Fabien: I live in Cannes
... am a member of INRIA
... team has background in knowledge representation and knowledge
management
... also participate in the GRDDL WG
Bernard: work for Sun Microsystems Labs and reside in the UK though
I report to Sun in Burlington MA
... working on COHSE project with Sean in Manchester
<Bern> COHSE project -- [16]http://cohse.semanticweb.org/
[16] http://cohse.semanticweb.org/
Daniel: I work at Stanford Univ as part of Center for Biomedical
Ontology
... also participate in HCLSIG
Diego: I work in the Semantic Web project at CTIC in Spain
-> [17]Diego's introduction
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2006Oct/0010.html
Antoine: work at Vrije Universitat in Amsterdam and also on a
national archives project
-> [18]Antoine's introduction
[18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2006Oct/0008.html
Guus: I also work at Vrije Universitat
Guus: was co-chair of WebOnt and SemWeb Best Practices WG
-> [19]Guus' introduction
[19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2006Oct/0005.html
Guus: hope that there can be sharing between KnowledgeWeb and this
WG
1.4 W3C Process
Guus: We are a Recommendation-Track Working Group
... we have a number of deliverables, one of which [SKOS] is already
identified as a Recommendation
... the Recommendation process requires the documents to move along
a process from Working Draft to Last Call to testing via Candidate
Recommendation
<Antoine> isn't SKOS a working draft?
Guus: see [20]Art of Consensus
... SKOS is already a Working Draft, yes
... to start a Recommendation track we like to have a document
already available
[20] http://www.w3.org/Guide/
Tom: Alistair is traveling today after Dublin Core meeting, sends
regrets
Guus: we have 5 deliverables mentioned in the [21]WG charter
... one of the 5 is explicitly expected to be a Recommendation
... the other 4 we have the ability to decide whether the end state
is a Note or a Recommendation
[21] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/swdwg-charter
Ralph: As one is working on document, publishing for public
consumption, expectation that Editors' Drafts are visible. When
published, they show up on Reports page. If our intended goal is
Note, not a Recommendation, we are encouraged not to call the
documents "Working Drafts". We publish versions not in final form -
generally important to inform community about level of stability of
documents (paragraphs about status). If we decide to go to
Recommendation or to go to Note makes a difference in how we
proceed.
Ralph: there's some consideration about how we name interim versions
of a published technical report if we're intending the end state to
be Note or Recommendation
Guus: the WG charter contains a schedule but it's up to the WG to
fill in the details
Guus: Charter is there to give us clear scoping - changes can be
proposed and are discussed in Semantic Web Coordination Group.
Guus: as chairs, part of our responsibility is to determine whether
a proposal is in or out of scope for our charter
Review of Charter / Work Planning
Guus: see -> [22]charter deliverables
... 5 deliverables mentioned: SKOS, ...
... we have the most input on this deliverable
... we need to draft a use cases and requirements document for SKOS
... this UCR document will be the basis for judging whether the
proposed SKOS Recommendation is complete
... hope for use cases from Stanford and other groups
[22] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/swdwg-charter#sec2
Daniel: absolutely
<TomB> Alistair made a presentation on requirements for SKOS last
week in Mexico
Guus: I expect the WG to work on SKOS UCR for the rest of this year
Tom: see [23]Alistair's presentation last week at DC2006 on SKOS
requirements
[23] http://dc2006.ucol.mx/papers/miercoles/10.30/presentation.pdf
Guus: W3C Notes have a slightly lesser status; they give guidelines
but are not necessarily standards
Guus: second deliverable is a Note or Recommendation on best
practices for publishing RDF and OWL ontologies
... third deliverable is guidelines for namespaces and versioning
... we do not yet have a draft for this
Ralph: there are some collected informal notes from the Best
Practices WG though not a published document
Guus: fourth deliverable is a document on using OWL for
cross-application integration
... Mike Uschold did some draft work on this
... fifth deliverable is joint between SWD and the HTML WG on
incorporating RDF into HTML documents
... there are existing Working Drafts on this work as well
Ralph: use cases and requirements for RDFa are important to do soon
also
Guus: for next telecon, please take a look at Alistair's
presentation
... we'll talk about approach to gathering UCR documents next week
Guus: Next week, start with SKOS requirements - how to approach the
task of getting together a use-case and requirements document.
WG Organization
Guus: we encourage all communication within the WG to go via the
mailing list
... if we decide to break up the work into subgroups we may decide
on certain Subject tags
... we discourage bilateral communication off-list
... W3C tries to keep the process as open as possible; people
outside the group should be able to see the discussion, the
rationale, and so on
... I would like to have input on any missing expertise within the
WG
... for example, to move SKOS to Recommendation we want to show
there are tools that handle SKOS and we need to think about testing
Daniel: what do you mean by "handle"; for example, you can bring
SKOS into Protege
Guus: in WebOnt we defined some features and test suites
... for every feature we wanted two implementations
... in SKOS I would assume that a successful implementation would
read in SKOS and interpret it in the intended way
... SKOS may be the first non-representational SemWeb language that
the W3C is doing; it is more of a pattern
... our test suite should be easily usable by tool developers
... and help measure whether our specification fulfills the
requirements we initially laid out
... perhaps in a future telecon Sean can describe how this worked in
WebOnt?
Sean: sure
Guus: Normally, f2f meetings are for making key decisions, such as
SKOS requirements.
Guus: Tom and I will do some initial planning on face-to-face
scheduling and venue
... f2f usually are two days and try to take advantage of colocation
with other events
Ralph: Next Technical Plenary - week where all WGs encouraged to
meet - will be Nov 2007
...smaller version of that being arranged for Jan 2007 - week of Jan
22
...we could have space there. Will be at MIT. Smaller than Tech
Plenary.
...If we want that space, need to say so very soon.
<TomB> Jan 22+ would be inconvenient
[straw poll for January meeting]
Ralph: in favor of meeting that week
Tom: neutral but inconvenient for me
Sean: in favor but timing not great
Fabien: I would be able to attend
Bernard: fine for me
Daniel: unsure
Guus: not sure
Diego: ok for me
Antoine: unsure, depends on whether there is another meeting next to
it
Ralph: will take an option in order to reserve the possibility
ACTION: Ralph communicate to January meeting planners our desire to
keep the option for f2f open for a couple more weeks [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2006/10/10-swd-minutes.html#action01]
next meeting: 17 Oct, 1500 UTC
[adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Ralph communicate to January meeting planners our
desire to keep the option for f2f open for a couple more weeks
[recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2006/10/10-swd-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [26]scribe.perl version 1.127
([27]CVS log)
$Date: 2006/10/10 17:18:21 $
[26] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[27] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 16 October 2006 18:43:43 UTC