Semantic Web Interest Group IRC Scratchpad

Welcome to the Semantic Web Interest Group scratchpad generated automatically from discussions on IRC at Freenode channel #swig 2001-2018 approx by the chump bot.

Nearby: IRC logs | semantic-web list | W3C Wiki (Recent changes) | delicious swigbot

last updated at 2003-07-16 22:20
mdupont: is a site dedicated to EXIF and related resources. EXIF stands for Exchangeable Image File Format, and is a standard for storing interchange information in image files, especially those using JPEG compression. Most digital cameras now use the EXIF format. The format is part of the DCF standard created by JEIDA to encourage interoperability between imaging devices.
sandro: replying along the lines of Bijan earlier today
DanC: "45 members representing 29 organisations"
DanC: they seem to be discussing requirements... can somebody help me find the motivating use cases?
DanC: hmm... no WDs yet... 1st meeting was in March... they're stretching the 3 month heartbeat requirement
DanC: WG schedule calls for 1st WD of their spec this month. I wonder what's a more realistic expectation at this point.
DanC: hmm... semantics task-force kick-off msg
DanC: Max's latest hack. way cool.
bijan: As a TAG issue.
bijan: Said issue formulated and proposed by Tim Berners-Lee, without consulting any of the dissenters toward his view, and without including their views as anything other than, at best, "misunderstandings".
bijan: The existence and substance of these views was made very clear to Tim on at least three occasions, once on this #channel (check the logs), once at the Tech Plenary, and once at the Social Meaning F2F at WWW2003.
bijan: At the tech plenary, many people, I believe, at least me, agreed to be part of some group, ad hoc or otherwise, that would try to say something sensible and useful about this issue. I believe that the consensus reached there was in part determined by the understanding that there would be such a group.
bijan: The Semantic Web Coordination Group was tasked with figuring out the best form of this group and organizing it. There was some understanding, in me, at least, that the people who volunteered or indicated interest at the plenary would be given the opportunity to participate fully.
danbri: Bijan's commentary on this seems to be contested by danc, see irc logs for some more detail.
bijan: I don't consider moving it to the TAG, raised and championed by people advocating a tendentious view, without even a cc or other notice, to be giving the opportunity to participate fully.
bijan: Some meta-commentary: I'm aware of the provocative content of my comments here. I've tried to make them reasonably factual, i.e., reporting on my sense of what was expected and how what's happening conflicts with those expectations.
bijan: More meta-commentary: Given that I was an active, ongoing player in these discussions, my reactions seem at least somewhat noteworthy. Hence, I so note them. I'll probably do so in other fora, as well.
sandro: Bijan, I can't tell how much you and Jim Hendler act in concert here or not. He tells me you and he consult on these issues constantly. And he was a party to the SWCG decision to move this issue to the TAG, wasn't he? (It's a matter of public record that he's on the CG, but the records of the meeting in question are not public.)
bijan: There's two issues, I take it: 1) moving the issue to the TAG, and 2) the manner in which it was done.
bijan: Well, there's a third, about dealing with the old expectation.
sandro: And a forth -- the fact that the decision in this area was relegated to a body which deliberates in private.
bijan: I would have expected that before resolving the issue this way, the SWCG would make some effort to canvass the people who volunteered and reached consensus at the Tech Plenary session. If they have been so consulted, i don't have strong evidence thereof.
sandro: in what sense is this a resolution? This is just a bit of routing.
bijan: The resolution of what body would handle the social meaning issue.
sandro: I don't expect the TAG to figure this out by itself. It should and I hope will ask for help.
jimh-scribe: My understanding was TAG would set up a group, incuding some dissenters to become center of this discussion
jimh-scribe: my vote on the CG was predicated on this understanding
DanC-AIM: tim's request to the tag is part of setting up "some group, ad hoc or otherwise, that would try to say something sensible and useful on the issue"
bijan: "The proposal is that a draft finding be written which pulls this together, with elaborations pointing into the various specs. Members of the SWCG have volunteered and some members of members of the SWCG have been volunteered to read early versions." (last paragraph of the message)
bijan: I read "pulls this" as, roughly, take the text tim sent, fill in the -etc. etc., add some links, etc.
bijan: Also, I don't know if I'm a member of a member of SWCG. I don't think I am.
bijan: And, finally, those volunteered might like to have known what they were being volunteered for.
libby: caught me eye: paraphrasing, that since new web pages would mostly be database-driven, the SW would not work with them.
libby: this problem woudl be solved by OAI though
libby: (I've just been skimming, may have misrepresented them)
Created by the Daily Chump bot. Hosted by PlanetRDF.