See also: IRC log
Guus: the WG will be extended by 3 months?
RalphS: yes, it is now official
Guus: WG has been extended until
May 1st. Coordination Group will draft new charter for semantic
web activity
... the chairs hope that participants will hang on for 3
months.
<dbooth> Meeting: Semantic Web Best Practices
Guus: thus, propose meeting for February 6
RalphS: poll about a F2F end of
feb, beg of March (around TP)
... we have space Thursday March 2 or Friday March 3
<jeremy> in a formal poll on this, I would have to abstain ...
Guus: there is no requirement to be there (too close to the date)
RalphS: can we poll individually
<aliman> I was planning to go to tech plenary, think swbp f2f would be useful
<RalphS> Phil: yes, both days
<RalphS> Ralph: yes, both days
<RalphS> Fabien: yes, both days
<RalphS> Raphael: no, per Jacco
<RalphS> Jacco: no
<RalphS> DBooth: probably both days, prefer Friday
<RalphS> Vassilis: may stay through Thursday
<RalphS> Guus: no
<RalphS> Ben: unlikely
<RalphS> Libby: yes, both days
<RalphS> Gary: no
<RalphS> Jeff: unsure, am planning to attend
RalphS: task forces that have critical mass to meet, let me know
<RalphS> Deb: no
<RalphS> Alistair: yes, both days
<RalphS> Jeremy: likely both days
<GiorgosStamou> I think it will possible for me to be on Thursday
RalphS: I'm willing to chair the meeting
Guus: I can help via telecon
<GiorgosStamou> I cannot speak
<RalphS> Guus: I may be able to participate through irc but not in person
<GiorgosStamou> as always...
<GiorgosStamou> I'm home
<scribe> Agenda: amendments?
Guus: none
<scribe> ACTION: DBooth to review Alistair's proposed TAG clarification questions around httpRange-14 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes.html#action01]
Alistair: took action to draft questions for the TAG, though this overlaps with DBooth's action
<RalphS> [VM] TAG clarification on 302 vs 303, PURLS and more... [Alistair]
<scribe> Agenda: DAWG
Guus: there was a DAWG telecon, moving to proposed REC
Jeremy: still planning to do a
review
... unclear whether this is the appropriate doc to review
... continue the action one more time
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to finish action of 2.4 within 1 week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes.html#action02]
<scribe> ACTION: Elisa to review WSDL 2.0 RDF Mapping: [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes.html#action03]
Guus: status of part-whole
ontology. Should we make this part of OEP discussion?
... would be good if OEP TF could track this
RalphS: can Deb take an action to respond to Jacek?
Guus: there is a response already
<RalphS> evidence for Jacek that Alan did reply
<RalphS> (Alan's reply not in WG mail archive)
(discussion between Deb and Guus as to whether this action item is finalized)
RalphS: another email shows a
window of opportunity: there's move to last call beginning of
March.
... but no further action seems necessary except to bring
conversation back to mail archive
Alistair: no progress to report at this point.
Guus: the next phase (after May 1) will have a SKOS component
Alistair: we want to determine need for 3rd WD
Deb: all action items continued
<RalphS> Alistair: TF is considering whether it wants to do a 3rd round of SKOS WDs
<scribe> ACTION: Deb to report the plan of OEP [recorded in [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes.html#action04]
<scribe> ACTION: chris to get revised draft of QCR off alan, [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes.html#action05]
<raphael> I have an action with others to review Semantic
<raphael> Integration note
<scribe> ACTION: Chris to move QCR note to W3C pace [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes.html#action06]
<raphael> is the Semantic Inegration Note ready to review ?
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to incorporate Alistair's comments into revised [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes.html#action07]
Guus: some actions in the draft
are dependent on one another.
... need some clarification on this action
... not sure what the current draft is
<scribe> ACTION: Deb to contact Chris and get status [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes.html#action08]
Guus: an OEP telecon would be very good
Deb: trying to schedule that
<scribe> ACTION: Chris to move todo's to the changes section [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes.html#action09]
<GiorgosStamou> What about the Semantic Integration?
<scribe> ACTION: Raphael Georgios S, Fabien, Phil to review Semantic [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes.html#action10]
<GiorgosStamou> Is there any document ready for review?
Fabien: still waiting for the version to review
<scribe> continued
<scribe> ACTION: Chris and Alan to work with Ralph to make [recorded [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes.html#action11]
<RalphS> Fabien: we exchanged email with Mike Uschold and are awaiting the final version of the Semantic Integration note to review
<scribe> continued
<scribe> ACTION: Evan to send note to Feng on discussion of semantics [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes.html#action12]
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to review OWL Time note [recorded in [recorded [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes.html#action13]
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to bring issue wrt URI space for ontologies [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes.html#action14]
(missed some comments from Guus here)
Guus: making some progress
<scribe> continued
<scribe> ACTION: mark van assem to produce revised draft of wordnet [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes.html#action15]
Jeremy: had our call, talked about the issue
<jeremy> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw
Jeremy: current document reflects
agreement
... change is very limited
<jeremy> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw/#sec-use-amapping
<jeremy> Given that [SPARQL] is still in development, the exact relationship between SPARQL semantics and RDF Semantics is unclear. In particular, in one reading of the current [SPARQL] working draft, the mapping from the typed literal, as a syntactic object, to its corresponding value, is done as part of the operation of the = operator in the above query, rather than as part of say a D-interpretation from [RDF Semantics].
<scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] jeremy to contact jeff re resolving the [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes.html#action16]
Jeremy: one more day with
editors, then move to WG Note
... changes are very limited
... do we need another round of review?
RalphS: Jeremy was summarizing
the discussion he had with Jeff
... raising a question - what happens next?
<jeremy> then ^move to^editors are ready to propose WG Note
Guus: if we have consensus on this last issue (presented at F2F), then there is consensus within WG to publish
RalphS: we'll have to check back with reviewers
Guus: yes, but if that problem is resolved, then I'm confident that it's ready to go.
<scribe> ACTION: Jeremy to email WG on agreement he and JeffP reached in XSCH [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes.html#action17]
Jeremy: I'll provide adequate technical details
<scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] jeremy to contact jeff re resolving the [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes.html#action18]
Alistair: what do we do about
purls? purl.org recipe? Do we take them out?
... do we put them in an appendix
... during telecon, agreement on moving it to appendix, not
sure whether 302's are okay yet.
... I took an action to ask TAG about 302's for classes and
properties
... other issues regarding readability of the cookbook
... made some superficial changes (diagrams, small text
changes)
Guus: seems to me this doc is ready to go for public review
Alistair: yes, except for one
thing
... there's a bug in the recipes recently discovered
... default content during content negotiation is RDF
... thus, if you click on the ontology in a browser, browser
requests HTML, and all is well
... however, IE does not request HTML content
... thus, clickability doesn't work in IE
<jeremy> is that a bug or a feature?
Alistair: 2 options: 1) change
default content type to HTML
... consequence, every RDF toolkit must request RDF
content
... 2) leave recipes as they are, and don't get clickability in
IE
... it's a problem with the recipe, not sure if it's an IE bug
or not
<Zakim> jeremy, you wanted to comment on alistair's question
Jeremy: it seems it is good
practice to send Accept headers. Question is not whether IE
should change (it probably should)
... no good pointing finger at MS in this instance, because
this "bug" is shared by semantic web applications, which don't
send Accept headers either.
... it's more realistic to expect semweb apps to do the right
thing
<dbooth> +1 to Jeremy's comment
Alistair: if there's consensus around Jeremy's suggestion, we can move forward with that.
RalphS: agree with Jeremy that
all clients should send Accept headers
... but for purposes of the cookbook, should we suggest a
default behavior?
... TF can debate this, whether there should be a
recommendation, or whether each ontology owner can decide
Guus: you can also wait for
public comments on this
... I would be strongly in favor of publishing this in the next
month
Alistair: it is our plan to publish within a month, given resolution on this issue
<RalphS> Alistair: I /me ack me
Alistair: so 1 month is realistic
<Zakim> RalphS, you wanted to comment about default behavior
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to second Jeremy's position: HTML is more appropriate for naive users/behavior than RDF
DBooth: Jeremy gave a rationale of installed base for HTML by default. I would also add that HTML is a good response for a naive dereference
<jeremy> +1 to dbooth
DBooth: A semweb is much more
likely to knonw what it's doing, thus it is more likely to be
able to send the right accept headers
... it is in line with the previous comment, just a different
rationale for the same recommendation
<Zakim> jeremy, you wanted to ask if publishing soon would allow response to public feedback?
Jeremy: is the plan to publish
soon and republish if we get feedback?
... I would be happy to vote on this now
RalphS: I would take the position to publish soon and expect to update before 1 May
Guus: I would prefer to have this be on the agenda, so next meeting?
<aliman> +1 on ralph's schedule
Guus: this should be on the VM TF telecon to move the issue to WG telecon
RalphS concurs
<guus> q|
<RalphS> I would like the VMTF to plan to be ready to ask for publication approval on 6 Feb
Ben: we received comment from GaryNG, DBooth, and Pat Hayes
... we've responded to all substantive points
... haven't yet made all edits to the document but have agreed on how we will do those edits
PROPOSED to publish the revised version of the RDF/A Primer as Working Draft
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2006-01-15-rdfa-primer
Ben: the only editorial changes we need are to make it conform to WG format
... may need to add a link to Gary and David's comments
Gary: happy with proposed resolutions to comments and to proceed with publishing
DBooth: also happy to proceed to publication
PROPOSED to publish the revised version of the RDF/A Primer as Working Draft with minor editorial changes
<Jacco> second
PROPOSED to publish the revised version of the RDF/A Primer http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2006-01-15-rdfa-primer as Working Draft with minor editorial changes
RESOLVED to publish the revised version of the RDF/A Primer http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2006-01-15-rdfa-primer as Working Draft with minor editorial changes
ACTION: [CONTINUES] ben to contact alistair on use of frag id's [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action28]
PROPOSE to withdraw ACTION: jeremy to contact rdf/html task force re dbooth's position on httpRange-14 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action05]
ACTION: [WITHDRAWN] jeremy to contact rdf/html task force re dbooth's position on httpRange-14 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action05]
ACTION: [DONE] DanBri to ask TF for sign-off on putting the draft xhtml vocab to the WG for review. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action26]
Ben: task of completing the draft vocab for publishing is still on-going
<libby> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0104.html
<Zakim> aliman, you wanted to ask quickly what the frag id question is?
RalphS: the path from the WG
homepage to the data collected by the TF goes to the wiki
... is that still the best place for it to go? At what point
will the other DB be the right place to end up?
... what's the relationship between that wiki and
swordfish.rdfweb.org/
Libby: it would be good to move this off the wiki into another document
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph check with Valentina on whether there are [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes.html#action22]
RalphS: I have an action to get that document published
<scribe> continued
<scribe> ACTION: Ralph cite relevant CG meeting records [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes.html#action23]
Phil: Jeremy looked at the note
one final time, his comments have been incorporated.
... we're looking for last comments to go to fully-fledged
note
<jeremy> I confirm
RalphS: I think we did that last
meeting, so if Jeremy confirms that his comments have been
taken into account, then it's done
... so this is the final draft?
<scribe> ACTION: RalphS will make a publication request for the SE Primer [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes.html#action24]
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to review Image annotation editor's draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes.html#action25]
<RalphS> Phil: the SE editor's draft has all intended edits
Guus: what is the timeline for a publication request
<raphael> Guus comments addressed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0106.html
<GiorgosStamou> Fine
<Jacco> will do
Guus: send to the WG an update on
state of document with explicit request for vote, it will be on
agenda
... we should discuss forming of an incubator group on these
issues. (missing some comments here)
<GiorgosStamou> OK thanks
RalphS: I believe that Giorgos and EricM have discussed this a bit. There is an inclination for an incubator group for continuing that work.
<GiorgosStamou> Excellent
<GiorgosStamou> this week
<GiorgosStamou> when is it possible for you?
<raphael> Next MM TF telecon, this thursday, at 17h00 Amsterdam time
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to review Image annotation editor's draft [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes.html#action26]
<scribe> ACTION: MN editors to work with Ralph on publication [WITHDRAWN] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes.html#action27]
Meeting Adjourned
<libby> cheers! bye
<GaryNg> bye!