18:56:04 RRSAgent has joined #swbp 18:56:15 Meeting: Semantic Web Best Practices & Deployment Working Group 18:56:19 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Nov/0089.html 18:57:38 SW_BPD()2:00PM has now started 18:57:47 +Phil_Tetlow 18:57:53 Tbaker has joined #swbp 18:58:01 pepper has joined #swbp 18:59:13 +[Sophia] 18:59:24 +Ralph 18:59:36 zakim, [sophia] is Fabien 18:59:36 +Fabien; got it 18:59:44 +??P10 18:59:51 ekw has joined #swbp 18:59:56 +Tom_Baker 18:59:56 +Andreas_Harth (was ??P10) 19:00:13 +Tom_Baker.a (was Tom_Baker) 19:00:18 +??P13 19:00:22 aharth has joined #swbp 19:00:30 zakim, ??p13 is Alistair 19:00:30 +Alistair; got it 19:00:41 +Alistair_Miles (was Alistair) 19:00:59 +Evan_Wallace 19:02:15 +Hugo 19:02:35 Guus has joined #swbp 19:02:37 zakim, hugo is really Steve_Pepper 19:02:37 +Steve_Pepper; got it 19:03:09 +Guus_Schreiber 19:03:24 bwm has joined #swbp 19:03:37 +??P19 19:03:47 Zakim, ??p19 is bwm 19:03:47 +bwm; got it 19:04:15 +??P20 19:04:29 zakim, ??p20 is Jeff 19:04:29 +Jeff; got it 19:04:53 Regrets: Darren, Libby, ChrisW, BenA, DanBri, Marco, Jeremy, BenjaminN, TomA, Gary 19:04:55 (partial) regrets from pepper: have to be back on booth at 3pm 19:05:16 Alan Rector has snt regrets to me 19:05:33 Regrets+ Alan 19:06:06 DavidW has joined #swbp 19:06:36 Topic: Adminstivia 19:06:50 zakim, who's on the phone? 19:06:50 On the phone I see Phil_Tetlow, Fabien (muted), Ralph, Andreas_Harth, Tom_Baker.a (muted), Alistair_Miles, Evan_Wallace, Steve_Pepper, Guus_Schreiber, bwm, Jeff 19:07:07 -Alistair_Miles 19:07:18 +[Tucana] 19:07:33 zakim, tucana is David_Wood 19:07:33 +David_Wood; got it 19:08:18 +??P24 19:08:22 +Alistair_Miles (was ??P24) 19:09:13 -Alistair_Miles 19:09:20 Scribe: bwm_scribe 19:09:39 Steve has requested early coverage of RDFTM section 19:09:45 +??P24 19:09:48 +Alistair_Miles (was ??P24) 19:09:52 david: any objections? 19:09:55 ... no 19:10:29 ralph: I've put regrets into irc 19:10:36 they look good 19:10:49 david: review of minutes of oct 28 19:10:51 no objections 19:10:55 ... any objections? 19:11:03 ... no objections - minutes approved 19:11:14 ... minutes from f2f 19:11:16 f2f minutes look good too (for the part I participated on the phone) 19:11:19 Steve: I've looked at them 19:11:27 david: any objections? 19:11:31 ... no 19:11:34 ... minutes accepted 19:11:44 ... telecon times 19:11:53 ... in response to email from Chris 19:12:09 guus: he has a point 19:12:25 ralph: is this week slip a temporary aberation? 19:12:42 david: we talked at f2f about this at f2f 19:13:01 ralph: I propose we look ahead into January to decide when we should meet 19:13:23 david: thanksgiving, christmas and new year don't work 19:13:35 ... keep to slipped schedule for the rest of this year 19:13:50 ACTION: david to propose a telecon schedule fo rthe new year 19:14:26 Guus notes that a meeting on jan 6, the bi-weekly schedule would fit well with the tech plenary 19:14:47 ralph: we are agree dot meet on 02 Dec 2004 19:14:48 dec 2 is ok 19:14:58 ... regrets from ralph as there is a w3c meeting 19:15:02 guus: we should meet 19:15:21 david: RESOLVED next meeting is 02 Dec 2004 19:15:27 2: action review 19:15:35 ACTION BenB read ODM documents 19:15:37 -- continued 19:15:48 ACTION BenB read ODM documents 19:15:50 BenB read ODM documents [2] 19:15:56 continued 19:16:04 gary ng review ODM [7] 19:16:17 ralph: gary claims completion - will post evidence to irc 19:16:19 ACTION gary ng review ODM 19:16:24 -- DONE http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Oct/0173.html 19:16:49 david: propose withdraw BenB read ODM documents [2] 19:16:51 ACTION BenB read ODM documents -- withdrawn 19:16:56 ACTION Ralph to ask WG for feedback on requirement to embed RDF/XML markup in an XHTML document 19:17:00 -- DONE http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Oct/0180.html 19:17:00 Ralph to ask WG for feedback on requirement to embed RDF/XML 19:17:00 markup in an XHTML document [9] 19:18:22 ACTION danbri circulate links for his existing feedback/review to dawg 19:18:23 danbri circulate links for his existing feedback/review to dawg 19:18:27 -- DONE http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Nov/0097.html 19:18:33 ralph: danbri claims done 19:18:35 ACTION philT look at garyng's message, see what actions if any this wg should take 19:18:43 philT look at garyng's message, see what actions if any this wg 19:18:43 shoudl take [20] 19:18:50 -- DONE 19:18:50 phil: claim completion 19:18:53 david: concur 19:19:03 chrisw approach sophia about units and measures 19:19:03 particpating DONE 19:19:15 guus to note on numeric ranges after the xml datatypes TF has 19:19:15 finished 19:19:19 guus: continued 19:19:28 libby to make that note into a document to read for the f2f by 19:19:28 25th oct [28] DONE 19:19:43 guus send jeremy pointer about numeric ranges and XMLS [13] 19:19:45 guus: continued 19:19:55 jjc to send around pointers on HTML TF [14] DONE 19:20:06 libby to send pointers to list in preparation for f2f [15] DONE 19:20:18 Alistair make explicit in skos core doc the fact that 19:20:18 you're trying to deal with potential for multiple thesauri using the 19:20:18 same terms, overlap etc., different from paper publishing world 19:20:47 Alistair: just posted email: Alistair will post url when it appears 19:21:09 ACTION Ben to send this statement [regarding RDF/A] to HTML WG via email 19:21:12 -- DONE http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2004OctDec/0040.html 19:21:25 Brian and DanBri need to talk about what need to do for 19:21:25 Wordnet document to be good enough 19:21:28 continued 19:21:39 David to reword the statement on RDF A to HTML WG 19:21:39 done 19:21:49 JJC review SPARQL WD re 19:21:49 http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20041012/#extendedtests 19:22:03 ralph: he has sent mail which may complete that 19:22:10 david: done 19:22:13 -- DONE http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Nov/0102.html 19:22:19 Phil to write up concerns about RDF/A on email 19:22:34 phil: please continue so I can think more about it 19:22:36 -- DONE http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Nov/0044.html 19:22:47 ralph: propose close and phil can reopen if necessary 19:22:56 david: please write up your concerns 19:23:06 Steve to email on concerns for RDF in XHTML 19:23:07 -- DONE http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Nov/0005.html 19:23:10 steve:done same day 19:23:23 VM TF to compile list of sample vocabs for the note 19:23:35 ???: lets talk later 19:23:42 david: is action done 19:23:50 ???: no 19:23:51 s/???/TomB 19:24:02 VM TF with help from Guus to find thesaurus like example 19:24:02 and high end ontologies to section 3 19:24:06 tomB: continued 19:24:08 s/???/TomB 19:24:16 David to contact Eric Miller re his interest in joining 19:24:17 the RDFTM TF 19:24:20 david: continue 19:24:31 find someone to do the review the part of UML about TM 19:24:41 david: whose action: 19:24:51 ???: asked me to ask ?? to do that 19:24:53 Steve: I think Guus asked me to ask Lars Marius about that 19:24:56 s/???/Steve/ 19:25:13 Steve: I asked Lars Marius and he went pale 19:25:18 david: mark aciton complete 19:25:33 Jeremy Clarify which parts of UML docs HP is most 19:25:33 interested in reviewing 19:25:40 david: continue 19:25:48 Steve to finish rdftm TF description 19:25:50 Steve: done 19:25:50 -- DONE http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Nov/0024.html 19:26:21 3. TECH PLENARY / SWBPD MARCH FTF 19:26:44 david: the tags want to know if anyone wants to meet with them 19:27:01 ... should we meet with the tag? 19:27:23 guus: there was a generic request from the tag whether they want to meet with the tag 19:27:34 david: do we want to meet with the tag? 19:27:50 ... we could state our position on xhtml working group 19:27:59 ralph: not sure that is an appropriate topic 19:28:12 ... the so called httprange14 issue is 19:28:19 ... it ought to be one of our issues too 19:28:37 steve: is relevevant to tom task force 19:28:39 +1 on talking to TAG on HTTP range 19:28:46 ralph: will hit other tf's too e.g. vocab management 19:28:49 s/tom/rdftm/ 19:28:54 ... should talk to the tag about that 19:29:15 david: that issue is important to us - we've done it one way but not sure its the right way 19:29:27 ... meeting with the tag would a good idea for us 19:29:37 ???: would be good idea to have a general discussion 19:30:03 s/???/pepper/ 19:30:04 Alistair: this is the biggest issue for the porting tf 19:30:36 phil: lets discuss on what topics we need to discuss on the list 19:30:49 ralph: we could do that, but the timing is somewhat tight 19:31:25 ... I suggest the range14 dicussion may be better with the whole tag 19:31:44 ACTION: Ralph take up with CG tomorrow 19:32:00 s/up with/up TAG-SWBP agenda/ 19:32:20 Plenary http://www.w3.org/2002/09/TPOverview.html 19:32:45 ralph: I said we want to meet two of those days, prefering thu/fri 19:32:58 ... also asked if it were practical to meet for 4 days 19:33:09 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#httpRange-14 19:33:19 steve: would like to do tech work on tm - could take two days 19:33:29 guus: we could have breakout groups on two days 19:33:30 s/tm/rdftm/ :-) 19:34:02 q? 19:34:02 q? 19:34:23 4. RDFTM Task FORCE PROPOSAL 19:34:31 david: I'm happy with the TF description 19:34:35 ... any objections? 19:35:20 ... hearing none 19:35:21 http-range-14 is http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#httpRange-14 19:35:33 ... we have a lot of interest in the rdftm task force 19:35:41 ... want to get it underway 19:35:49 ... any objections? 19:35:51 q+ 19:36:04 ralph: are we quorate? 19:36:10 ... we have three members on the call 19:36:26 ... thats ok 19:36:51 david: steve do you have commitments from the folks listed that they want to participate 19:36:55 steve: yes 19:37:05 ralph: can they make the telcon time 19:37:07 steve: yes 19:37:20 david: steve will you take an actin to get them at the next telecon 19:37:23 guus: I'll help 19:37:28 steve: thanks guus 19:37:54 ACTION: guus to introduce from rdftm task force to the wg 19:38:09 s/from/new members from/ 19:38:22 ralph: propose approve task force creation 19:38:38 RESOLVED: RDFTM creation approved 19:38:50 david: steve floor is yours 19:38:58 steve; description of work explains what we do 19:39:06 ... we need to start note on existing practice 19:39:15 ... we need to collect test cases to evaluate proposals 19:39:27 ... snippets of both rdf and tm for tanslation back and forth 19:39:50 david: can you talk to folks like nikita and danc 19:40:05 ... they have specific concerns - valuable to collect in use 19:40:07 case 19:40:15 steve: iso group met in dc 19:40:23 ... informed them about the tf 19:40:32 ... general reaction was extremely positive 19:41:02 [scribe fails to record positive resoltion of W3G] 19:41:18 ... some discussion of brining more folks in 19:41:28 ... membership of w3c can be an issue 19:42:00 ... what you may see is an initiative at a higher level to establish a liason group between jtc1 to allow formal input 19:42:11 ... have a recognised position for reviewing 19:42:20 david: we can always send a dd to iso for comment 19:42:29 steve: that would probably satisfy them 19:42:37 david: could record in tf description 19:42:44 steve: could add that 19:43:03 guus: what you have written is good enough 19:43:14 ... we are required to request feedback from the dependent parties 19:43:28 ... you have to reach consensus if they give comments 19:43:44 ralph: identifying them in particular as a group ... 19:43:55 david: can we proceed int he face of an objection? 19:44:03 ralph: we'd handle it like any other public comment 19:44:09 bwm_scribe: WG3 resolution: "WG3 expresses its support for the W3C's initiative in setting up a task force to address the issue of RDF/Topic Maps interoperability and encourages the active participation of members of the Topic Maps community." 19:44:14 guus: we'd have to explain why he should override to the director 19:45:10 ralph: there would be a lot of procedural things involved in setting up a formal liason structure 19:45:23 ... task force could be "well underway" before it could be set up 19:45:33 ... but we could look at it if there is a strong need 19:45:47 ... it is not completely impossible 19:45:58 steve: there is other work in iso that overlaps w3c work 19:46:21 ralph: there are a number of liason things going on between w3c and ??? and this could be added 19:46:37 s/???/SC 34/ 19:46:41 ... I would propose the tf proceeds with out that and they can come back 19:46:53 steve: they will; the chair has an action 19:47:03 ... contact will be made and there can be a general discussion 19:47:23 ralph: if you could provide a url for 13250 that would be great 19:47:28 steve: for the standard? 19:47:41 ralph: ideally yes - the normative materials the tf needs to know 19:48:16 ACTION: steve email 13250 to the WG 19:48:28 david: well done steve 19:48:33 steve: thanks everyone 19:48:51 steve: I'll leave shortly but would like to hear about port 19:49:00 Topic: Task Force Updates 19:49:05 david: OEP? 19:49:22 evan: I don't think anything has happened since the f2f 19:49:33 +q 19:49:35 ... there is an agenda item proposal for a SE tf 19:49:41 steve: please do port first 19:49:43 q+ 19:49:45 david: ok 19:49:53 http://www.w3.org/2004/03/thes-tf/primer/2004-11-17.html 19:49:54 Port; 19:49:57 Ralph, you wanted to ask for URIs and to 19:50:01 q? 19:50:05 q- 19:50:12 alistair- link to quick start 19:50:36 ... in response to action from f2f 19:50:41 ... there is an example 19:51:01 ... using skos core in rdf/xml and n3 (following guus suggestion) 19:51:16 ... recommends assigning uri's for concepts 19:51:27 ... shoul dhave metadata about the thesaurus itself 19:51:37 ... links to main docs 19:51:42 ... and thats it 19:51:55 ... If htis is the right sort of document, should we do a WD? 19:52:01 q+ 19:52:18 ... I would like to publish the quick guide document and skos core vocab 19:52:26 ... as soon as is possible 19:52:31 Guus has joined #swbp 19:52:36 ... haven't produced a wd before 19:52:40 ... need guidance and advice 19:52:44 http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/ 19:53:01 david: you'll get help 19:53:01 ack pepper 19:53:06 ralph: you have danbri 19:53:19 steve: subject property indicator - is there an example 19:53:28 alistair: this property has only just been added 19:53:33 ... its in the spec document 19:53:43 ... you can launch and example from there 19:53:49 ... of using subject indicators 19:53:58 ... I've left it out of quick guide doc 19:54:11 ... because I've tried to scope to standard thesaurus terms 19:54:21 ... and link to the longer document 19:54:39 ... which includes discussion of different ways of identifying thinks 19:55:15 ... the idea is to have an inverse functional property that refers to a psi docuement 19:55:23 steve: can I ask questions 19:55:26 david: please be brief 19:55:34 steve: I'd like to ask about ... 19:55:50 alistair: that exert is a relative uri - the full uri is .... 19:56:06 ... the full uri is the one they used in their publication of their thesaurus 19:56:16 steve: I'll take other questions to the list 19:56:25 alistair: one question ... 19:56:40 ... in the examples I chose to use an xml base to avoid repeating uri's 19:56:52 ... with the possibility that people might miss the xml base 19:57:01 ... comments on this style please 19:57:12 ... bearing in mind that audience don't know rdf at all 19:57:22 bwm_scribe: specifically on use of xml:base 19:57:25 ... please send me comments 19:57:59 ... I'd appreciate positive comments too 19:58:08 steve: leaves 19:58:09 -Steve_Pepper 19:58:19 david: OEP 19:58:23 ... evan? 19:58:38 evan: my question concerns the SE engineering tf formation 19:58:46 phil: can we cover under AOB 19:59:22 Natasha and Alan gave a great tutorial at ISWC 19:59:35 david: anything specific on oep? 19:59:42 ... hearing no response 19:59:53 ... wordnet 20:00:13 Brian: I have some progress to report 20:00:34 ... thanks to Andreas for his actions 20:00:48 ... we've made some progress on the technical aspects of the ontology 20:00:59 ... I have recruited some help from a student working at HPlabs 20:01:13 ... he's fixed some bugs and is using Protege to make some OWL statements about the Wordnet concepts 20:01:26 ... a number of issues have arisen 20:01:53 ... I've been trying to have a document that an RDFschema-only processor can make use of 20:02:06 ... and obviously an OWL processor would do more with this document 20:02:19 ... would not model all the constraints in the Wordnet structure 20:02:28 ... and OWL document would model more of the Worndet constraints 20:02:49 ... thinking of something with an RDF Schema up front and Protege-generated OWL statements at the back 20:02:58 ... I'd like feedback on this approach 20:03:23 ... we have discovered that when you combine RDFS and OWL, Protege is not happy with the result 20:03:45 protege OWL plugin is still pretty bug in my experience ... 20:03:51 ... I hope to post something to the list tomorrow 20:03:52 lots of things can throw it off. 20:04:00 s/bug/buggy 20:04:22 david: moving on 20:04:32 ... xml schema datatypes 20:04:38 david: jjc not here 20:04:42 I have to drop off, 20:04:45 jeff: I've discussed iwth jjc 20:04:53 ... we have two new actions 20:05:03 one about duration 20:05:07 david: ok 20:05:13 -Guus_Schreiber 20:05:27 ??: has question re duration issue 20:05:34 s/??/evan/ 20:05:47 evan: you said you would put something in about durations 20:06:03 jeff: jjc has sent email about adding a new section about duration 20:06:12 david: you can ask on list 20:06:25 s/you/evan you/ 20:06:31 ralph: has he sent it yet 20:06:34 jeff: yesterday 20:06:50 vocab mgmt 20:06:54 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Nov/0095.html JJC; Re: [XSCH] possible note sketch 20:07:05 tom: we discussed in f2f which vocabs would be featured 20:07:15 ... foaf and dc are in 20:07:20 ... what about skos? 20:07:43 ... alistair you suggest that skos illustrates some of the good practices 20:07:56 alistair: I'm happy for it to be used if other folks are happy iwth that 20:08:09 tom: lets put it in and review in draft 20:08:20 tom: re wordnet 20:08:28 ... its not going to be ready 20:08:51 ... part 2 has practices like use uri references 20:08:59 ... and part 3 where things are less clear 20:09:16 ... since wordnet is not a maintained vocab in the same sense as others 20:09:24 ... didn't seem like a candidate for part 2 20:09:32 ... but could look at it for part 3 20:09:43 ... does anyone have a strong opinion 20:09:51 ... shame aldo isn't here today 20:09:57 ... he did volunteer to produce some info 20:10:08 ... about practice in the context of wordnet 20:10:24 ... but I'm assuming that at this point this will go into part 3 20:10:56 q+ to re-raise the OASIS Published Subject idea 20:10:56 ... I've been in touch with prism vocab maintainers 20:11:02 ... they are a good candidate 20:11:16 ... they exemplify principles of good practice 20:11:25 ... they are looking to see if they have a w3c member 20:11:44 ... otherwise I was proposing them I work with them to put in information about prism as appropriate with their help 20:11:49 ... comments or objects? 20:12:17 ... prism is a dc based vocab for print and magazine publishers 20:12:35 ... there still is a need for a candidate vocab for a larger scale thesaurus or ontology 20:12:45 ... that could illustrate some of the principles of good practice 20:13:00 FAO? 20:13:01