See also: IRC log
<ivan> Slides for presentation
[ Ivan introduces Raphael ]
<RalphS> Multimedia Semantics Incubator Group
<RalphS> Cover Slide
<DanC> (which face is Raphael's?)
<RalphS> Raphael: I am in the center with my hand on my belt
<RalphS> [slide 2 - MMSem Pointers]
<RalphS> kudos for using the public mailing list for most of the discussion!
<RalphS> [slide 3 - MMSem Goals]
<RalphS> [slide 4 - MMSem Activities]
<RalphS> [slide 5 - MMSem Deliverables]
<RalphS> Multimedia Semantics Incubator Group Patent Policy Status
<RalphS> [slide 6 - Image Annotation on the Semantic Web]
<RalphS> [slide 7 - Image Annotation on the Semantic Web]
<RalphS> [slide 8 - Multimedia Annotation Interoperability Framework]
<RalphS> [slide 9 - Multimedia Annotation Interoperability Framework]
<RalphS> [slide 10 - Managing Personal Photos]
<RalphS> [slide 11 - Facetting Music Songs]
[slide 12 - Bringing NewsML in the Semantic Web]
[slide 13 - Managing your Web 2.0 Personomy]
[slide 14 - MPEG-7 and the Semantic Web]
<IanJ> "It's an ISO standard, making it difficult to use."
[slide 15 - Multimedia Vocabularies on the Semantic Web]
[slide 16 - Multimedia Semantics: Relevant Tools and Resources]
[slide 17 - Liaison]
[slide 18 - MMSem Success]
[slide 19 - MMSem Future]
<RalphS> Raphael: we hope to submit a new XG charter to W3C in mid-July
<RalphS> ... and would like to resume work in September
--- Q&A session---
Raphael: at the XG we used some XML-based
schema
... and the question is if W3C should publish new ontologies based on these schemas
... and what we should do with that?
Ralph: thanks Raphael for an informative
session
... have the XG considered publishing the ontologies in XG work space?
Raphael: yes, we have
<DanC> URIs for W3C Namespaces
Raphael: ... but we are not sure
DanC: wich community cares for continuing with this activity?
Ralph: the other interesting question is about
maintainance
... and who would do it
... and I also wonder about the output of the XG
... what is the challenge for W3C about this output?
<DanC> DanC: if the community around the ontology is the XG, then the XG is more than welcome to publish the ontology at /YYYY/MM/blah-blah , per
Raphaelif we publish an ontology, should we have just the OWL or a document also?
<ivan> +1
Raphael: the feeling within the group is not to
follow a Rec track now (could be a target in another year)
... we would rather try to see if the existing technologies are enough
... we think they are not
<RalphS> Ralph: the consensus of both the SemWeb Best Practices WG and the SemWeb Deployment WG, as documented in the Vocabulary Management Working Draft(s) is that both forms -- the machine-readable OWL and the human-readable HTML are desirable
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to note that the level of endorsement around a namespace is normally orthogonal to its URI
DanC: notes that the level of endorsement around a namespace is normally orthogonal to its URI
Ralph: is useful for the XG to point out what
things can be re-used
... the XG can publish its work, new ontologies
... but what part of the community interested would like to see the REC stamp on it?
Raphael: we wondered also about that within the
group
... about the formality, I am not sure they fully understand the W3C process
... currently we don't need to go to the formality of a WG but we might need it in the future
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask about the "OWL expression of other work" case; remind me of one example? did the XG negotiate rights to do a derivative work? is the original org interested
<IanJ> I note that Raphael just uttered one of the things we are concerned about: no distinction between TR and xG report
<RalphS> Raphael: IPTC pretty much happy with things being published somewhere on w3.org
<RalphS> ... DIG35 not sure what level of formality we might need
DanC:do we have the right for derivative work (related to mpeg-7)?
Raphael: yes, we have rights to do derivative
work
... I am not sure if we can publish this ontology, I need to check on that
<RalphS> Raphael: we made an official liaison with ISO and they're commenting on our work
DanC: is either of those organizations interested on publishing the OWL?
<raphael> I3A: I do not know
<RalphS> Raphael: ISO not interested in publishing OWL
International Imaging Industry Association (I3A)
Ivan: who is in discussions with them?
<RalphS> ... not sure if I3A is interested, but they're OK with W3C publishing when an agreement is signed
Raphael: Daniel Dardailler is involved on it
<SusanL>
<RalphS> Raphael: our other question is how to get more industry involvement in follow-on work
<DanC> (which row in ? a text search for "multimedia" fails)
<SusanL> search for Raphael :-)
<DanC> (ah... )
Ivan: my initial reaction is that you should
try to identify those members that would like to be involve, and then they
should contact their AC Rep
... I would be happy to do such contacts
<raphael> yes DanC
Raphael: ok
<RalphS> Ian: we've discussed the potential of confusion between different kinds of TRs; in particular RECs and XG reports
Raphael: yes, sometimes
<RalphS> ... is it the case that [some of the liaisons] really don't care about the difference?
<RalphS> Raphael: they don't seem to care
Raphael: to participate in the group was a great experience, time consuming but great
Kaz: thanks for a good presentation, it was a
pity I couldn't see the presentation at WWW2007, I attended W3C Track
... the Multimodal Interaction WG, which develops MMI Architecture etc., would like to collaborate
Raphael: that would be great
<kaz>
Ivan: when do you plan to finally publish all the documents?
<SusanL>
<SusanL> (public page is)
Raphael: next week we will send it out
<IanJ>
<SusanL> Yes we will be happy to make the publication news.
Ivan: can you provide us with a paragraph for
the publication?
... SusanL will then *polish* it
Raphael: yes, will do
IanJ: is it ok to set expectation for next steps on that publication?
<IanJ> leave open public list
<IanJ> close member list
IanJ: what happen with mailing lists, for example?
<IanJ> close XG at the same time as publication
<IanJ> leave wiki open
<IanJ> also, please draft an email for the ac with expectations about next steps
Raphael: yes, the public mailing list stays open, member mailing list closes, wiki stays open, the reference to the XG dissapears
Ivan: thanks Raphael for your presentation
<RalphS> ACTION: Raphael review the record to be sure we accurately recorded his references to interests of other organizations [recorded in]
Ivan: thanks everybody, motion to adjourn
MEETING ADJOURNED