See also: IRC log
RESOLVED to accept the minutes of the 6 Feb 2005 telecon: http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-swbp-minutes.html
PROPOSED next meeting 6 March 2006
Ralph: 6 March is the Monday after the Tech Plenary. I propose we consider 3 March to be an informal WG meeting
<FabGandon> Note: 6 of March is also the Semantic Web Service Workshop see http://www.w3.org/2006/03/ws2-seminar.html
Fabien: regrets for 6 March
Elisa: Semantic Technologies conf in San Jose 6-9 March, so regrets from Deb, Elisa; the Monday is tutorials
Ralph: I'd like not to wait 4 weeks if we don't move VM and XSCH documents to publication today
(decision on meeting or skipping 6 March defered to end of meeting)
ACTION: Ralph add link to minutes of f2f on WG home page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-swbp-minutes.html#action14] [DONE]
ACTION: Ralph check for link to minutes of March 2005 f2f on WG home page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-swbp-minutes.html#action15] [DONE]
Ralph: I will draft an agenda for 3 March
ACTION: DBooth to draft a new message to the TAG noting the ambiguity remaining in httpRange-14 and HTTP responses [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-swbp-minutes.html#action01] [DONE]
RE: Confusion on httpRange-14 decision [DBooth]
DavidW: I read David's first draft, Ralph's reply included all my comments
DBooth: Ralph made one more minor comment on the second draft which I'm happy to incorporate though it wasn't substantive
DavidW: I've reviewed it. The specific comments raised at last telecon have been addressed
RESOLVED: David Booth's message to TAG is ok to send, with Ralph's comment from today
ACTION: Guus to arrange telecon between himself, Alistair and PFWG (rephrased as: "Guus to finish action of 2.4 within 1 week in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes.html#action02") [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/17-swbp-minutes.html#action07] [DONE]
(deferred to HTML TF agenda)
-> RDF/Topic Maps Interoperability Survey is now a W3C Working Group Note
-> [RDFTM] Guidelines: Editor's draft for review
Steve: first draft of guidelines for RDFTM made available. Peter, Bernard, and Elisa made comments. Editors will meet tomorrow with a large number of issues to address. The TF would like WG feedback asap. Should we aim for a Recommendation or a Note?
Ralph: I haven't looked at the draft guidelines, so not familiar with the current state of the work, but the Rec Track takes several months, and the WG only has 2 months remaining, so I don't think it's practical to put it on the rec track. My suggestion is publish as a WG Note. Related question: How many revisions do you expect to do by 1 May 2006? If we took it to Note track, would we publish as a working draft soon and then respond to comment before 1 May?
Steve: Makes sense. I haven't been party to discussions about what happens to task forces that do not complete by 1 May. What happens to them?
Ralph: Variety of destinations for ongoing work. My suggestion for RDFTM is to charter an incubator group, which could then become rec track. Alternative would be to propose a WG for the same thing, but would raise question of resources for staffing it.
Steve: Like to have 2 rounds out by the 1 May. First draft in a week or two. If we get a draft out in a couple of weeks, how do I recruit reviewers?
DWood: Just ask at a teleconf for volunteers.
Ralph: You can recruit reviewers however you want.
DWood: But they should not be TF members.
Steve: Draft is out there, so further comments are invited.
Elisa: I'm willing to review but will really be prodding others who are more expert on Topic Maps than I am
DavidW: the audience for these documents is not just Topic Maps experts; they are also aimed at people who may not be familiar with Topic Maps
Fabien: I am willing to be a reviewer.
(no PORT representatives)
ACTION: Elisa/Chris to work with Ralph to make part-whole doc ready for publication (Elisa took over this action from Chris and Alan) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes.html#action11] [CONTINUES]
Elisa: Chris is taking back part-whole note action; he now has CVS working again. In email Chris says he completed QCR Note action
ACTION: Chris to move QCR todo's to the changes section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action12] [DONE]
ACTION: Guus to incorporate Alistair's comments into revised draft of QCR draft, based on Alan's revision [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action19] [CONTINUES]
Jeff: I sent a review of QCR before Christmas but haven't seen any feedback on those comments
Elisa: apologies; Chris lost his hard drive in Galway and he just now has this all working again. My guess is that Chris hasn't seen your comments. I'll prod him again. AFAIK there have been no responses to any of the [post-Galway] comments
ACTION: Evan to send note to Feng on discussion of semantics in time ontology note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action13] [DONE]
-> Expectations for OWL Time Evolution [Evan]
DavidW: Chris and I talked about the Fluents note by mail. He doesn't plan to do this in the current WG timeline
ACTION: Guus to review OWL Time note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action09] [CONTINUES]
Ralph: it's not yet clear where the OEP work will continue in the next round of Semantic Web Activity
Elisa: understood, but there's a lot of interest within the OEP Task Force on continuing based on comments we've been getting from outside
ACTION: Mike to put up latest version of the sem integration note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-swbp-minutes.html#action10] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Raphael Georgios S, Fabien, Phil to review Semantic Integration note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/12-swbp-minutes.html#action15] [CONTINUES]
(review not expected to start until Mike announces the next version)
ACTION: Guus to ask Brian to review Wordnet doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-swbp-minutes.html#action17] [DONE]
-> WNet review [Guus]
ACTION: Jacco to do second review of WordNet doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-swbp-minutes.html#action16] [DONE]
-> [WN] Wordnet review [Jacco]
ACTION: Ralph and Evan to provide reviews of Schema note http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw-20060127/ by next meeting [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-swbp-minutes.html#action19] [CONTINUES]
Ralph: I quickly skimmed the changes since the last Working Draft and am satisfied that it is acceptable for WG Note
Jeff: Jeremy and I agree on the current draft
ACTION: DavidW prod Evan for his comments on the XSCH Editor's Draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/20-swbp-minutes.html#action14]
DavidW: Jeremy is reducing his participation in SWBPD to just the HTML TF
Ralph: I presume that publishing the XSCH Note is the final deliverable from the XSCH Task Force
-> [VM] 2006-02-07 telecon report [Tom]
-> [VM] 2006-02-14 Telecon report [Tom]
ACTION: DBooth to re-review Apache Cookbook document by 14 Feb [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-swbp-minutes.html#action20] [DONE]
-> Re-review of "Best Practice Recipes for Publishing RDF Vocabularies" (Apache cookbook) [DBooth]
ACTION: Tom to ask Andreas to re-review Cookbook document by 14 Feb in light of changes already made. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-swbp-minutes.html#action21] [DONE]
DavidW: I looked at DBooth's comments and feel it is appropriate to proceed to publish
DBooth: none of my comments are important to address prior to publication though one of the recipes said it was the simplest, but 303 redirect services are simpler. A footnote would be sufficient to address this. I'm fine leaving it to the editors to put in an appropriate comment
<Ralph> such as "(however, 303 redirect service might offer easier options)"
DBooth: I offered some text. I'd prefer such a footnote were added but don't want to hold up publication
ACTION: Tom find a place for the footnote on "simplest" recipe [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/20-swbp-minutes.html#action16]
RESOLVED to publish "Best Practice Recipes for Publishing RDF Vocabularies" as Working Draft: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/http-examples/2006-01-18/
ACTION: Ralph to publish RDF/A document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-swbp-minutes.html#action23] [CONTINUES]
Ralph: I've done the first part of this, which is to make the Transition Request. Waiting for the Director's approval on that before I can proceed with the Publication Request. The HTML TF continues to meet and discuss some open issues
ACTION: Ralph cite relevant CG meeting records [regarding SemWeb Education & Outreach discussions] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes.html#action23] [DONE]
-> SemWeb Education and Outreach action [Ralph]
DavidW: Benjamin posted a form for tutorial feedback. There were no responses when I looked earlier today but I noticed several links on the tutorial page are 404. It would be nice to clean this up; any volunteers to help?
-> [Tutorials] Tutorials page quality assessment [Benjamin]
Elisa: I will try to get someone from ODM to look at it
ACTION: RalphS will make a publication request for the SE Primer [recorded in [93]http://www.w3.org/2006/01/23-swbp-minutes.html#action24] [CONTINUES]
Ralph: same as RDF/A; I've made the Transition Request and awaiting the Director's approval before I can send the Publication Request. There's nothing the TF needs to do.
Jeff: we're going to pass the ODA note to Semantic Web Interest Group. The current draft passes the W3C validator. Danny Ayers in SWIG is looking at the draft now; he'll give us feedback on asking the SWIG to review. We are organizing something from Workshop to submit to Journal on Software Engineering Practice
Jeff: several things going on in MM; a first draft is close and we're planning for a second draft. We are thinking about what standards to cover in second draft and we're planning to propose an Incubator Group on multimedia semantics. Quite a few companies have expressed interest in the Incubator Group discussion
DavidW: saw mail from Guus about a workshop he is organizing
<GiorgosStamou> special session
ACTION: Mike to re-review MM doc to see if his concerns are addressed by end of this week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-swbp-minutes.html#action27] [DONE]
Elisa: Phil has been working on a possible Incubator Group for SE too
<GiorgosStamou> we are finishing the 1st deliverable and go to WD soon
RESOLVED to meet 6 March with regrets from Fabien, Deb, and Elisa
[adjourned]