HTTP/2 200 date: Wed, 08 Oct 2025 11:06:26 GMT content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8 content-encoding: gzip last-modified: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 03:14:24 GMT cache-control: max-age=21600 expires: Wed, 08 Oct 2025 17:06:26 GMT vary: Accept-Encoding x-backend: www-mirrors x-request-id: 98b52b3a9c66755c strict-transport-security: max-age=15552000; includeSubdomains; preload content-security-policy: frame-ancestors 'self' https://cms.w3.org/ https://cms-dev.w3.org/; upgrade-insecure-requests cf-cache-status: BYPASS set-cookie: __cf_bm=6h_WuQmNoDSn_fuxeHrfMPYv6lF5omiqO7WuE_7Kz0Q-1759921586-1.0.1.1-JgoC15h4P2BUmGmnsiU.Tdbb_ttT1V8fxJzFAineZxKVKozPlJi5nAAHaELKCJs8xf4ENJaLQXwy6iNzaZna_fquD2AgZPxY2jETJx7DnN4; path=/; expires=Wed, 08-Oct-25 11:36:26 GMT; domain=.w3.org; HttpOnly; Secure; SameSite=None server: cloudflare cf-ray: 98b52b3a9c66755c-BLR alt-svc: h3=":443"; ma=86400

Minutes for 3 October 2007 URW3 Meeting

Attendees:

• Paulo Costa
• Nicola Fanizzi
• Mitch Kokar
• Kathryn Laskey
• Ken Laskey
• Thomas Lukasiewicz
• Trevor Martin
• Matthias Nickles
• Mike Pool
• Peter Vojtas

Agenda:

1. Approve minutes from previous three meetings. Note, the minutes are linked from https://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/urw3/#Minutes.
2. Review status of action items from previous meeting.
3. Report from editing committee
4. Completion of uncertainty ontology (https://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/urw3/wiki/UncertaintyOntology).
5. Approach to identifying target methodologies.
6. Face-to-face at SUM. 
7. Other business

Scribe: Mitch Kokar

Discussion summary:

1. Approve minutes from previous three meetings.  Note, the minutes are linked from https://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/urw3/#Minutes
   
   • One item was corrected (Thomas was not the scribe on September 19th).
   • Ken discussed the issue of attendance at our meetings. In the summer it was relatively low, but as expected (due to vacations).
   • Chairs (Ken Laskey, Kathy Laskey) have declared nine attendees to be a quorum.
   • Minutes from previous three meetings approved as amended.
2. Review status of action items from previous meeting

   Action 1: Ken to check attendance and send out email.  
   Ken sent email to group to encourage participation.  Action closed.
   

Action 2:  [previous mtg action 1] Editing team to go over IRC log and capture essential topics to include in our report.  
Paulo did a first crack at the final report, going through wiki and irc logs.  Action closed.

Action 3: [previous mtg actions 2,4,5] Coordination with HCLSIG (1) Vipul to coordinate with Eric Neumann who has SWCG action, (2) Mike Pool to assist.  
This action was not done. Ken to send Eric N's contact info to Mike (done during meeting).
ACTION: Action 3 from previous meeting is still open; Mike to coordinate with Eric N. and Vipul.

Action 4: Anne will look into POWDER and report back to us.
Note:  POWDER Working Group (https://www.w3.org/2007/powder/ ) has recently published Working Drafts.

Anne Cregan sent Kathy L. a summary of POWDER to include in minutes. Here is the summary:


In brief, the idea of POWDER is to provide a mechanism, using machine readable meta-data, where a description of a group of web resources can be associated with the web resources and retrieved, without retrieving the web resources themselves.
This allows the author to say things like :

• All resources on the travel.example.com domain are suitable for display on mobile devices
• All resources on broadcast.example.com/clips are video clips that are suitable for all ages.
Other parties can check that the author actually said this about these resources.
POWDER is based on RDF and a vocabulary working draft was released on 25 September 2007.


Kathy suggested we should continue to monitor the work on POWDER.

Thanks Anne for summary. Action closed.


Action 5:  Peter to send email to group for author to annotate potential disagreements in uncertainty ontology with who entered them.  
Peter sent email but there was no response.  Action closed.
ACTION: Kathy will move this section to discussion page and note that author is unknown

Action 6:  Kathy to send email to group asking what open issues remain in uncertainty ontology (in preparation to annotating use cases)  
Action 6 will be superceded by agendum 4 today. Action closed.


Action 7:  Ken and Kathy to meet with editing team, discuss Discovery, report back to group  
Report is agendum 3. Action closed.


3. Report from editing committee.
   
   • Paulo gave an update on the actions of the editing team.
   • Editing committee has done a first draft of the report.
   • Kathy suggested that the report should be posted where everyone can see it.
   • ACTION: Ken to investigate how we can post our draft report where group can see it
   • Kathy opened discussion of linking use cases to uncertainty ontology.
   • Ken suggested that the use cases should be at a somewhat abstract level (don't get into solutions).
   • Kathy suggested that this discussion should be deferred until all can see the draft report.
   • Paulo gave his explanation of the issues of Value Assessment (Uncertainty nature: Epistemic; UncertaintyType: Randomness). "Given a set of properties of interest to the user, there is uncertainty in trading off the user's target property values against those of items in the catalogue. Example: User is a 42 years old male, graphical designer, who wants a notebook with properties hasDisplaySize="15", hasWeight="lessThan5Pounds", hasBluetooth="true", hasBatteryAutonogy="Between2and3Hours", and hasColor="Black". Catalog doesn't have an item that fulfills all five, but has one notebook that meets 4 and two that meet 3 of the user requirements. Instead of presenting a "no item found", the system needs to return a prioritized list. Not necessarily the item with 4 positive requirements will be the best option for the customer.
   • Paulo (continuation): Limitations of deterministic representation: A typical catalog system based on deterministic representation and reasoning might use rules to sort out items that did not completely meet a request. However, most real life catalog systems will have to deal with a high number of properties and customer profiles, making the use of rules a sub-optimal approach (i.e. cases not predicted by the rules will default to a configuration that might not be ideal). Possible Approach(es): A probabilistic ontology can be used to estimate the value of a given property given a user profile, based on statistical and anecdotal data. In this example, the result would be a prioritized list built upon the historical preferences of customers with that specific profile.
   • Nico stated that this poses a bootstrap problem.
   • Paulo has agreed - we need to discuss that.
   • ACTION: Paulo to insert his more detailed specifics in discussion section of discovery use case.
   • Nico state that they are using distances for ranking the hits returned from matchmaking.
   • Kathy reiterated that distance is a good technology for matchmaking.
   • Ken said that use cases help us to state problem.
   • Kathy said that in agendum 5 we will talk about how to start capturing solution methodologies and how to attach to use cases, but use cases are intended to be problem statements not solutions.


4. Completion of uncertainty ontology
• Kathy said that we need to identify person or persons to take ownership of maintaining uncertainty ontology and getting into final form for report.
• Mitch volunteered to fulfill this role.
• Peter stated that we need feedback on the uncertainty ontology. We try to annotate use cases, and we may find we need to revise the ontology.
• Anyone with suggestions of how to modify uncertainty ontology should contact Mitch.
• Ken said he would hope that work on Discovery will provide example for others to follow, e.g., example of how to annotate using uncertainty ontology.
• Mitch noted that the Discovery use case shows numerous types of uncertainty, in particular both randomness and vagueness. Thus this use case suggests that there is a real need to combine different kinds of uncertainty in query answering.
• Ken said that there is a need to combine probablistic and fuzzy.
• Peter said: First step to solve this problem, combining probabilistic and fuzzy, would be an example of user query answering.
• Thomas said that an example of a fuzzy-probabilistic combination can be found here (joint work with Umberto Straccia): "Description Logic Programs Under Probabilistic Uncertainty and Fuzzy Vagueness" at ECSQARU-2007. Thomas will put a link to the paper on his web page. Currently it is in LNCS 4724:  https://www.springerlink.com/content/a127481u872607t4/?p=11cb61db3b51443ba481d5498854d1e0&pi=0
• ACTION: Peter and Mitch - a short discussion on how probabilistic and fuzzy could be combined.
• Ken suggested that annotating Discovery use case with uncertainty ontology will also test completeness and consistency.


5. Approach to identifying target methodologies
• Ken re-stated that everyone has been wanting to discuss solutions and he has kept saying that we need to capture the problem.  With some use case work done, now is time to start discussing solutions.
• Kathy thought that now we are at the point of thinking of solutions. Need to discuss how to go about doing that.
• Ken reminded that https://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/urw3/wiki/reference_list reference list begins collection of possible solution methologies. Identifying target methdologies will be next step before we begin looking at information for selected methodologies. What is process XG should use to proceed.
• Kathy stated that there is expertise in this group; people to say they could handle a given problem. Should look at what people are actually doing.
• Trevor asked whether we are looking for an approach or available tools?
• Kathy said that if no tools are available yet, then we shouldn't be standardizing yet.
• Ken agreed that methodology needs to be mature enough that we can identify information to exchange.
• Kathy has summarized the approach to identifying target methodologies:
• First go through use cases
• Tie use case to ontology. Paulo added: And the uncertainty ontology. Then we get to the solutions.
• Consider which methodologies would be appropriate to the use case and how those methodologies relate to the ontology (i.e., uncertainty type, uncertainty model).
• Paulo invited everyone to write something in section 4, once the initial report is complete.
4. Most Commonly Used Approaches to Uncertainty for the WWW.
4.1 Bayesian Models
4.2 Fuzzy Logic
4.3 and on - expected contributions from the group.
• Kathy thought that those (Bayesian and fuzzy) are not the only two approaches. Also not sure "Bayesian Models" is the right term.
• Paulo explained that this is just a initial take.
• Peter referred to his paper about experiments combining fuzzy and Bayesian.
• Mitch said he is not sure what is meant by "methodology".
• Kathy said there is technology (e.g., fuzzy logic, Bayesian networks) and process (e.g., how I go about capturing the uncertainty, annotating resources with metadata, etc.)
• Mitch said process is more concrete than technology or methodology.
• Kathy: we are still not completely clear on this issue, but as Mitch says, "Let's go through the use cases and see what happens."
• ACTION: Editing team to appropriately connect Discovery use case to uncertainty ontology and then start identifying "methodologies" for addressing the identified problems.


6. Face-to-face at SUM.
• Kathy, Ken, Mike live in DC area. Peter and Thomas will attending SUM.
• Kathy: We will have a mini f2f.
• Nico: none from UniBA, sorry.
• Ken: We will schedule an agenda item for next meeting about whether we should arrange a f2f for this group.
• Nico: Claudia is coming to Busan.
• Kathy: here is a list of Busan attendees on the wiki: https://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/urw3/wiki/People_from_URW3_who_are_going_to_URSW_2007_in_Busan. There currently are six people listed: Peter, Pavel, Thomas, Trevor, Fernando, Claudia. Anyone else who is going to Busan should enter his or her name there.


7. Other business
• Ken will be attending W3C Tech Plenary, Advisory Committee, Advisory Board, in Cambridge, MA on November 6-9.
• Next telecon is October 17.


8. Meeting was adjourned.

Action items

1. ACTION (1): Action 3 from previous meeting is still open; Mike to coordinate with Eric N and Vipul [recorded in https://www.w3.org/2007/10/03-urw3-minutes.html#action01]
2. ACTION (2): Kathy to move this section to discussion page and note that author is [recorded in https://www.w3.org/2007/10/03-urw3-minutes.html#action02]
3. ACTION (3): Ken to investigate how we can post our draft report where group can see it [recorded in https://www.w3.org/2007/10/03-urw3-minutes.html#action03]
4. ACTION (4): Paulo to insert his more detailed specifics in discussion section of discovery use case [recorded in https://www.w3.org/2007/10/03-urw3-minutes.html#action04]
5. ACTION (5): Peter and Mitch - a short discussion on how probabilistic and fuzzy could be combined [recorded in https://www.w3.org/2007/10/03-urw3-minutes.html#action05]
6. ACTION (6): Editing team to appropriately connect Discovery use case to uncertainty ontology and then start identifying "methodologies" for addressing [recorded in https://www.w3.org/2007/10/03-urw3-minutes.html#action06]