W3C

Semantic Annotations for WSDL WG teleconference

2 May 2006

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
RA, CB, JF, LH, MK, JK, HL, JM, EP, BNS
Regrets
JL, AS
Chair
JacekK
Scribe
holger

Contents


<Jeffrey> I can only join IRC, jianhui from CAS, china

<JacekK> jianhui, I'll probably count this as regrets

<Jeffrey> ok

<scribe> scribe: holger

Approval of minutes http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20060425

RESOLUTION: minutes approved

Action Items

<caribou> ACTION: [ONGOING] BNS, Rama to start the Examples document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20060502#action01]

<caribou> ACTION: Amit to send their Master's Theses usecases [ONGOING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20060502#action02]

<cgi-irc> use case page from Amit and John

<caribou> ACTION: ericP to decide our namespace and send it to editors [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20060502#action03]

Administrivia

JacekK: f2f confirmed for June: 20-21
... September Last Call, Parking Examples doc as WG note
... optimistic shedule March 2007 final recommendation
... Saying important things only on IRC is bad
... Editors should probably keep todo list

<caribou> editors can put editor's notes into the documents

<caribou> even in published drafts

JacekK: Jacekk will add extra field if issue is addressed in editors draft or not

<JacekK> ACTION: JacekK, editors to amend the issues list and the spec with an editor todo list (resolution implemented flag) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20060502#action04]

Document status

Jacekk: are there examples?

Rama: sending raw data is not usefull, use case context would be missing
... we need some template

JacekK: I was hoping that people send whatever they have, in a first place
... we can work on a template after

Rama: Fine, I'm going to send files

Editorial issues

JacekK: issue about lsdis namespaces
... the usual URIs for examples are example.org

EricP: the W3C policy is that namespaces are checked at publication time

<ericP> also, *.example

Joel: mention of action concept will be removed

holger: hard to make big business example self contained

<ericP> i think it's wise to separate examples from use cases

Joel: in document toy example might be used, however business context important to get relevance

Rama: agrees example must have some relevance

<cgi-irc> SUMO Finance ontology: http://lsdis.cs.uga.edu/projects/meteor-s/wsdl-s/ontologies/LSDIS_Finance.owl

Jacekk: combine discussion with issue 9

Joel: example currently in apendix, is this in line with w3c spec practice?

EricP: no w3c policy, up to editors to decide

Joel: big example in apendix, however simpler example could be used for introduction

<ericP> big +1 to example up front

Rama: example up front will help readers very much

Joel: need then simpler example (currently RosetaNet).

Rama: can be layered, first simple, later more complex

JacekK: summarizes, that 2 examples are required (one simple for the beginning one complex for apendix)

RESOLUTION: issue 9 closed: two examples expected, one simple in introduction, one large and complete in appendix

Issue 3: Identifying type of model

Jacekk: 3 options available as in agenda
... tendency for option 1 say nothing, leave to the Web

Rama: possible new issue, do we want modelReference explictly state type of semantic annotation when having multiple annotations (issue 7)

Jacekk: valid question, issue 7 might need to be resolved before

lhenocque: votes for not including language (since might change over lifetime)

john: concern about making spec dependent on languages

Jackek: no concern can be done via URI

Rama: if we go with option 1, not sure if it works with complex types
... should assumptions/discussion be in the spec?

Jacekk: not necessary, issue list and minutes are recording

ericp: w3c usually uses editors comments to issue that reference specific emails to keep track

jacekk: formal process before last call necessary?

ericp: not necessary

RESOLUTION: issue 3 closed: adopt option 1 for now, since no concrete concerns against it yet

Issue 4: externally defined semantic annotations

jacekk: out of scope defining semantic language

<caribou> true

jacekk: external language not including semantics but only mappings is still not covered by "in scope"
... suggest to postpone this out of scope until we have candidate recommendation

<ericP> +1 to postponing

lhenocque: I may need to think more about this

jacekk: issue will be open + active for one more week

other business

holger: editorial issue - should the semantic language be more specified in doc?

ericp: let editors make proposal

jacekk: editors free to say the semantic language must give us IRIs

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: JacekK, editors to amend the issues list and the spec with an editor todo list (resolution implemented flag) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20060502#action04]
 
[PENDING] ACTION: Amit to send their Master's Theses usecases [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20060502#action02]
[PENDING] ACTION: BNS, Rama to start the Examples document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20060502#action01]
 
[DONE] ACTION: ericP to decide our namespace and send it to editors [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20060502#action03]