4-5 November 2005, Galway, Ireland
Author: Raphael
CWI participants: Jacco, Raphael
# participants: 25 + 3 remotely on both phone and IRC
The W3C Semantic Web Best Practices and Development group shall end its charter by February 1st, 2006. Therefore, the goal of this last F2F meeting was to overview the work produced by each task force and see how many documents (W3C Note) could be produced by the end of the charter. Jacco has presented the results of the Multimedia Task Force, the last one created by the group (officially on September 5th, 2005).
The global agenda (hyperlinked) is reproduced below. The full IRC logs should be available soon on the group web page. The discussions about the multimedia task force and the future of this groups are further detailed below.
Documents:
Discussion:
Documents:
Discussion:
Documents:
Jacco presents the Task Force work. The main points are:
Libbie's comments:
Dave's comments: the title should be changed since the document mainly concerns use cases
Guu's comments: proposes that the edited version is proposed to Working Draft until the following conditions:
Mike's comments: 2nd deliverable is too ambitious, scope is enormous
VRA issue: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0218.html Ralph suggest that this work should be ideally done in a XG (http://www.w3.org/2005/01/incubator-activity.html).
Ideas, thoughts: IPTC standards could be expressed with RDF/A ...: MM TF should address that!
I paste a cleaned version of the IRC log since it summarizes perfectly our discussion. The log contains interesting information that are still very useful for us!
* Ben scribingjacco : brief overview of what MM has been doing in the last weeks ... things don't look ready yet three issues 1 first deliverable 2 possible structure on 2nd deliverable 3 future work (vocabularies image annotation, and if recharter extend to video annotation) 1- image annotation on the semantic web contrbutors : giorgos, raphael and Jacco, many other contributors goal : provide a survey and overview of the vocabularies and tools for people who want to do image annotation on the semantic web discuss them in the context of use cases main challenges : you run a risk of mentionning some projects and missing others lost of work and lost of progress in the area : problem of keeping up to date. ... problem ensuring documents outside the w3c namespace remain stable. This has been moved out of the main draft if the main draft is ready, this can be published as a wg note four use cases with example solutions [I propose using the W3C Wiki for the 'living' resources material] to do list : 1- lot of clean up 2- draft suffered from time pressure 3- better integration of sections 4- important use cases missing: news related images, scientific images, solution of media productions services use case (still working on this) q+ to request referring to deliverables by name not number * Zakim sees ChrisW on the speaker queue Issues, the use case examples are seperate documents. Should this be integrated into the main document. Problem : these solutions might get outdated. especially the vocab. However the main principles remain valid, so long as people know they should use updated version of the vocab jeremy has raised the problem of patent problems jjc : action : verify or not if there is a patent issue and if there is clarify distinction jjc : general rule not to discuss patent issues on the public mailing list Jacco : scoping. there is a broad range of images to be annotated. there is a problem about scoping the document. For the moment it is manageable in size. ... most drafts assume that SW technologies are a good idea and want to know how to use it in a best way ... this document is different : public for this document are not yet convinced by using SW technology in order to annotate image documents (but they already use meta data) ... the question is : what communities to target ? ... EWIMT workshop in london soon, also SWAMM workshop in may at WWW conference ... can mike and libby comment on this ? Mike has submitted a long email that I have not had time to read yet. Chris : this is a big WG, I have trouble remembering the references of deliverables I still owes a written review jacco : 1- overview of the vocab and tools out there for SW annotations for images 2- interoperability between SW and non SW approaches Chris : call 1 overview and 2 interoperability Mike : general remarks : a lot of good content in the document. -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0020.html MM] Review of Image Annotation Document [Mike Uschold 2005-11-03] ... discussion on images not relevant for the target audience jacco : we dont want to give people false expectations. .. the SW in itself wont solve all the issues with image annotation Mike : lots of use cases, general positive view on the note .. there is much to do still. Areas of concern : the objectives need to be more clear. The stated objectives are weak. .. include : SW is a benefit to this area .. more emphasis on motivating the use of SW technologies. .. the description of the use cases were inconsistent in style and format ... need a list of all the use cases ... looked at a few use cases. Not acceptable to dump the reader an rdf ontology. The user should have a text description or graphical representation. Raphael : this will be done Mike : the document does not have a coherence, a lot of cut and paste. ... a lot of specific comments I will not go through. Jacco : thanks, comments were helpful One of the main goals to have a structure to show were the document was going to. Is direction ok ? Mike : yes Mike : I volunteered to be internal reviewer Guus : decision to publish as WD under the condition comments get addressed ? q+ to object to publishing in current state * Zakim sees jeremy, Ralph on the speaker queue ... would you recommend publishing as WD ? Mike : I think so but there is a lot of work to be done Jacco : I'd like a second review jjc : its a long review guus : lots of detail. Is there anything essential to be changed before you are happy with the document as a whole ? [to Mike] mike: more coherent stories + summary of the use cases into the document. Guus : is it juste editorial process ? jjc : I'd prefer a style where the document is interesting and not trying to sell the document Mike: I agree jjc : I thought this was an interesting document mike : most of the other notes assume that the semantic web is useful. It felt like this document has target readers in the MM domain .. in order to feel they should bother reading the document, it should help to motivate them to show the potential the SW has to show in this area jjc: the document needs to discuss that Ralph, you wanted to object to publishing in current state Ralph : i agree with mike it shouldn't be a drawback from publishing ... would not object to pulish in this form ... would leave to other editors to do the editorial work before it goes public Ralph: jane needs to go through the administrative process of joining the WG before the document may be published Guus: I have mailled her about this ... it is an action she needs to fullfill ... jacco to take an action about reminding her I also have sent mail to Jane to point her to the Invited Expert application Dbooth: reviewed also, like it, use cases were good. 1- unclear in reading where the work is going. Could this be made a bit clearer. This was interesting, but what next?. Jacco: there are .what next documents. Dbooth: the title seems broader than the actual paper. I suggest narrowing the title a litt. Jacco: need to think about it. The goal is not only doing use cases. There is more info in other papers. Raphael: links : these will be maintained for at least 4 years. Jacco: use a wiki Brian: provenance of use cases. NASA. Guus: proposal by Ralph: 1 condition: jjc action gets resolved, 2nd jane hunter issue (acknowledgement or joining WG) Proposal seconded by lots of people. Ralph: what does editorial discretion mean. Guus: change comments by WG Ralph: ok with integrating MU comments at later date. Guus: named comments: Mike, jjc libby, dbooth. Danbri: did Ralph note? Ralph: will talk to jjc offline, not big concern. Guus: accepted by consensus. Action: produce a version under these rules, give version to Ralph. Guus: next Jacco: the proposed structure of interoperability. Main issue is interoperating with standards that will not go away (existing standards). Need to address the issue of interoperating with already existing standards. They do not use the same syntactic rules than in the SW. Giorgos proposed to divide the interoperability into 2 sections 1- syntactic level, and 2- semantic interoperability. What particular standards should be addressed ? There are a lot of standards out there. discussing all the mappings from one to another is too much. Other issue is moving to video [standards?] . Guus: semantic interoperability is very important, but just stick with syntactic, which is probably doable, and requires a limited timeframe. We've seen this with rdf already. Jacco: many of the advantages to be described in the first document only apply if you address semantic interoperability. Converting to one syntax to rdf does not solve all the problems. Raphael: there is discussion inside the TF already. Not sure the problem should be addressed in this way. Guus: take MPEG 7. Describe what would be a best practice for using that in rdf. Raphael: there are currently 3 versions of mpeg7, that do not model the standard in the same way : this is semantic interoperability. Guus: the standard is ambiguous, so this is semantic interoperability, and not syntactic. It is therefore impossible to do the conversion if the community has no consensus. Jacco: we can describe the issues. Chris: we are talking about formalizing the semantics of things that were not formalized yet. Guus: this gives an argument for putting semantic interoperability into the document. Mike: we should not use those terms. We just want to be interoperable, do not lable what is syntactic and semantic. Jacco: we should provide classification. This needn.t be syntactic vs. semantic, but need one. Mike: wait and see, do not chose yet. Jacco: we took this approach with vocab document, where the structure of document needed to be rewritten, so we.d like to avoid this. Different TF members mean different things. Need clear examples of transformations from one standard to the other, and vice versa MPEG7 is big, complicated, ambiguous, need to be clear on feasibility + propose guidelines. Get a discussion going on the mailing list on where the document should go. Any comments ? Mike: the scope seems enormous. Unrealistic. Jacco: timeline : impossible before feb. Mike: why not just give interesting issues, but don.t give recommendations, not enough time. Write a short note 10-12 pages to lay out the groundwork, but don.t answer all the problems. Danbri: fantastic to make any progress. Jacco: how hard is the feb deadline? We can continue in an IG setting. If people think its worthwhile, we should do that. Danbri: the IG has a framework for patent, intellectual property etc. reflecting the work of other WG into W3C I feel out of my depth. I.d like it to be WG and not IG that does that. Patent problems around MPEG. Guus: *explains to Ralph due to logistics problem* Ralph: agrees with danbri.s concern. There are other options, in particular, work on specific vocab. This seems like a candidate for new incubator group ideas, draft a proposal for an incubator group. Jacco: post on irc link to incubator groups. Jjc: on danbri.s point : intellectual property. The w3c patent policy only applies to rectrack documents. This is an argument for proposing rectrack status for this work, do not remain a note, since w3c patent policy is silent. Ralph: agrees with jjc Danbri: jjc is absolutely correct. IG from w3c perspective don.t cost as much as a WG. WG seems a natural home for something like this, not IG. Jacco: is extension or recharter, when do we know this. Guus: don.t know now. Ralph: will be known when the advisory committee approves the proposal of recharter. Unlikely before end of January. Jjc: usually groups get rechartered after end of charter. Phil: is it a different WG or same group of people with same objectives ? Guus: if rechartered, could contain new goals. Phil: this work should be part of a new charter. Guus: kick off meeting said MM was important, but would be hard to make good progress. We.ve seen this happen. Hopefully we.ll get a feeling of what.s needed for each task force, and understand the future better. Phil: agrees with jjc. Should the original charter change, based on the maturity of the area of interest. Ralph: I strongly recommend that this WG works within its charter time-wise and otherwise, but should keep working till last moment. Do not proceed on the assumption it is possible to continue long past January. Jacco: defer discussion ? Guus: at the end make a list of the status of each TF, and what they all imply. If we go beyond the level of the first deliverable, a 6 month extension is not enough for the MM TF. It needs to be part of the new charter. Mike: there is overlap between OEP note and this one. There should be some discussion there. Guus: the MM aspect are so particular, and affect a different standard community and deserve specific attention. Mike: agreed, but illustrates some examples of semantic interoperability in OEP. Guus: other option is incubator group. Jacco: incubator is for vocab. Guus: no need to make a decision now on the structure. Giorgo: what is conclusion? Can we discuss the structure ? Jacco: will be discussed at end of F2F. Structure will be discussed offline. Guus: need a stab in the ground on interoperability, publish that. How far will it go depends on the future of the WG. Raphael: is there already an XG ? Jacco: move to las point. We use DC as a standard. There is an rdf schema for DC. For images: VRA core. It has a biais towards artwork. Have been working to create a schema in owl for VRA. This is a 1 person effort. How can we move this work further? Is this activity to take place in this WG, or should we go to incubator ? Need feedback. Danbri: DC is one of the earlier rdf schemas. There is a lot of discussion on cleaning up DC. There has always been an overlap in both communities. Ralph: where you have some ideas you want to work out with a smaller group of peers, before proposing w3c recommendation track work. BP WG should look at current practises and nominate those as BPs. We are not at that point with VRA. Guus: doubts and suggestions : I wrote the first VRA schema as a test model. I was approached by people from the VRA group [Linda] not sure the group is good enough ? In terms of content it is very well done. This is very SKOS related. This has many of the same issues. Would connect to SKOS activity and not incubator group. Need to see if VRA is sufficiently backed by a large community. Jacco: we use the schema in a use case, is it ok to use them? Guus: yes Chris: VRA is similar to SKOS? Guus: it has to do with how to link terms of vocab together. People that use VRA are from same communities. (Visual Ressource Association: a specialization of DC. Written as a rdf schema, it is owl-full) Jacco: *gives some examples* Guus: it is a group of people in archives, using thesauri. Chris: I disagree. Alistair: DC and SKOS are seen as partners. Chris: I thought it was being said this is an application of SKOS. Alistair: it is important for DC and SKOS to evolve together. To have them related socially . Danbri: we talked earlier about bringing some work into the IG. The more patents they have, the more scared I am. This is comes from DC, so seems OK. I don.t car if its incubator, TF, IG, or even the DC group, so long as it.s discussed in public. Maybe DC would be a good choice. Jacco: how to get them all talking together. Alistair: go for DC. Mike: are those extensions compatible ? Guus: this is built into DC. I have seen many DC extensions. People need them. They try to define them as extentions. Danbri: lots of discussions in the DC world. This should allow cleaner extensions. Danbri: the vocab management TF is doing some of this work. Trying to work through the details in practical terms. Guus: should this be part of VM TF? Danbri: not up to me to decide. Guus: ajourned
Documents:
Discussion:
Documents:
Documents:
Discussion: reviews, planning
See for document(s) and discussion/decision points: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0213.html
Discussion: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0106.html
Documents:
Documents:
Discussion: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0027.html
Decisions: publication of part-whole and/or time-ontology drafts as 1st WD
Discussion on short- and longer-term WG goals
MultiMedia Task Force needs presented by Raphael to the group:
After one hour disussion, no decisions have been taken concerning the future of the group. The possible (and most likely ?) scenarios are the following: