W3C WebOnt Working Group IRC logs for 2003-01-10

These are automatically generated logs from the W3C WebOnt Working Group IRC chat

thanks, Dave Beckett

You are here: Logs Home / 2003-01-10

Latest logs

[09:03:12] GuusS
GuusS has joined #webont
[09:04:52] mdean
mdean has joined #webont
[09:18:14] seanb
seanb has joined #webont
[09:18:24] pfps
pfps has joined #webont
[09:20:33] pfps
0900: Plenary: Discussion led by Connolly on details of
[09:20:43] pfps
1. Needs for LC (and how long to keep it open)
[09:20:54] pfps
2. Needs to move from LC to PR (skipping CR)
[09:21:03] pfps
expected outcome - Resolutions to move to LC by <date> for
[09:21:12] pfps
<period> for each document
[09:23:10] pfps
Art of Consensus Guide is main document for WG
[09:23:39] pfps
danc - What is Last Call?
[09:24:19] pfps
danc - During Last Call all comments (sent to comments) need to be handled
[09:25:07] pfps
danc - Actually only substantive comments
[09:26:04] pfps
danc - XML did a very good job - they built an HTML table (.../XML/2002/12/LC-xml-names11-doc)
[09:26:09] JosD
JosD has joined #webont
[09:27:32] pfps
danc - every comment should result in a message back indicating what will/has been done
[09:29:20] pfps
jim - we will try to put in a line for each message
[09:30:33] pfps
danc - failure modes - 1/ too many comments - 2/ too few comments -
[09:30:46] pfps
danc- handle failure 2 by getting previous reviewers to say OK
[09:31:34] pfps
danc - discharging dependencies - need comments from groups listed in charter - we have four
[09:32:59] pfps
danc - also need comments from other groups - dan has list
[09:34:34] pfps
danc - going into last call means that we think we are done
[09:34:48] pfps
danc - going out of last call means that the world thinks we are done
[09:35:13] pfps
danc - then we can go to candidate recommendation
[09:35:53] pfps
danc - jumping to proposed recommendation requires implementation experience (i.e., 2 full implementations)
[09:36:25] pfps
danc - there are other possibilities - depending on role of spec
[09:36:53] pfps
jim - what do we do - create a document?
[09:37:48] pfps
danc - yes, but not a TR or even Note, just perhaps a message
[09:38:14] pfps
jim - next session is concerned with figuring out implementation details
[09:38:50] pfps
jim - what about problems in the process?
[09:42:34] pfps
- pieces of the spec that are not covered in implementations
[09:43:29] pfps
danc - process table
[09:45:06] pfps
danc - we decide whether to go to last call
[09:45:18] pfps
danc - then we have to handle feedback
[09:45:36] pfps
danc- we could get feedback that requires serious work
[09:46:28] pfps
danc - making changes requires another last call (except editorial changes)
[09:47:20] bh
bh has joined #webont
[09:47:30] pfps
danc - to go to proposed rec we have to give evidence of implementation experience
[09:48:05] pfps
danc - we generate a request to go to proposed rec, which is approved by director
[09:48:45] pfps
danc - then W3C members can generate negative votes (because their comments were not handled)
[09:49:17] ChrisW
ChrisW has joined #webont
[09:49:34] pfps
danc - W3C members can generate negative votes for other reasons such as non-technical business reasons
[09:50:58] pfps
danc - finally director approves recommendation
[09:52:11] pfps
danc - at recommendation time there is a press release
[09:52:13] ChrisW
[09:52:42] pfps
jim - what happens if there are problems?
[09:53:04] pfps
danc - technical bugs require iteration to last call
[09:54:30] pfps
jim - the WG should realize that before LC is the last time for WG members to make objections
[09:54:37] heflin
heflin has joined #webont
[09:55:00] pfps
jim - LC comments are much more serious, so we have been trying for comments before LC
[09:56:56] pfps
jim - reiterations cause serious delays - look at RDF Schema
[09:59:14] ChrisW
"Don't get caught in the dark - Use OWL"
[09:59:44] pfps
jim - we need to think about our testing methodologies
[10:01:17] pfps
jeremy - another risk is that we get to recommendation and we are ignored
[10:01:46] bh
bh has quit
[10:02:24] pfps
jeremy - cutting corners during the process means that there is larger chance of being ignored
[10:03:40] pfps
jim - our tests currently target reasoners, there are other tools that should be targetted
[10:04:11] pfps
jeremy - can we use the DAML implementations
[10:04:23] pfps
danc - only if they do something with OWL
[10:04:36] ChrisW
"Use OWL - do it for Jeremy"
[10:04:58] pfps
jim - we'll try to point to the DAML tools,
[10:06:49] bh
bh has joined #webont
[10:08:10] pfps
jim - jim and guus will dispatch LC comments, the comments list should be reserved for official responses
[10:09:30] pfps
scribe is now ChrisW
[10:09:40] ChrisW
[10:27:20] ChrisW
Jim flogs himself
[10:27:40] ChrisW
on the board:
[10:28:03] ChrisW
OWL Lite: Decidable, efficient D.P.
[10:28:30] ChrisW
OWL DL: Decidable, efficient D.P.
[10:28:46] ChrisW
Full: Undecidable, powerful heuristic tools
[10:29:00] ChrisW
[OWL DL was ~efficient D.P.]
[10:34:14] ChrisW
test methodology - reasoners, works better for OWL DL
[10:34:20] ChrisW
DanC - why only DL?
[10:34:51] ChrisW
Jim - because it asks if you can handle (ie be decidable) for all cases
[10:35:12] ChrisW
DanC - again, why only DL. This applies to OWL Full as well
[10:35:57] ChrisW
PeterC - We have something that can generate any number of cases
[10:36:03] ChrisW
DanC - that's different
[10:36:57] ChrisW
Jim - current test philosophy has to do with entailment tests, which requires decidability
[10:39:14] ChrisW
Jeremy - current test suite is not a conformance suite, it is representative.
[10:39:54] ChrisW
- We can imagine there being conformance requirements for a DL reasoner (ie complete wrt the semantics)
[10:40:12] ChrisW
- but many of us believe that wouldn't make sense for OWL Full
[10:48:06] ChrisW
Jim - one way to think of it is that there are four aspects to OWL conformance: reader, writer, create RDF triples, inference
[10:48:34] ChrisW
Jeremy - don't want to punish incomplete reasoners as they are very useful for the cases they handle
[10:51:05] ChrisW
Jeremy - useful to have something that can figure out if a document is OWL Lite, DL, or Full
[10:55:17] ChrisW
Jim - draws a matrix with rows for each "OWL system" and colum for each test. A system has a check mark in the col for the tests it "passes"
[10:55:47] ChrisW
- some tools will just have a lot of Xs
[10:55:58] ChrisW
- some tools will have a sparse number of Xs
[10:56:11] ChrisW
- some tools will have dense clusters of Xs
[10:56:46] ChrisW
- tests are arranged by Lite, DL, Full
[10:58:10] bwm
bwm has joined #webont
[11:00:54] ChrisW
Jim & Dan - need implementations to show that the design is implementable
[11:02:17] seanb
seanb has quit
[11:02:40] ChrisW
Danc - for XMLS, first question was is there an authoring tool, next was is there a validator, next is are there examples
[11:04:50] ChrisW
Jeremy - drop the idea of a reader and have a validator
[11:05:33] ChrisW
- a syntactic validator
[11:07:17] seanb
seanb has joined #webont
[11:07:45] ChrisW
Jim - some would like to see a D+O to OWL converter
[11:09:14] ChrisW
Dan - do people want an "This is OWL" sticker
[11:10:38] pfps
pfps has quit
[11:12:06] ChrisW
- people do, but what does it mean to have this WHAT DOES AN OWL TOOL DO???
[11:14:00] ChrisW
Jim - discussion out of scope, we're talking about how to evaluate tools to make our business case
[11:16:03] ChrisW
Jeremy - need tools that, eg, read valid OWL Lite and write valid OWL Lite. These will be interoperable
[11:20:49] ChrisW
discussion of what it should mean to be OWL compliant
[11:21:52] ChrisW
Jim i don't think a discussion of "must" and "should" is what this is about
[11:23:07] ChrisW
DanC - shouldn't specify classes of SOFTWARE in the spec, just classes of DOCUMENTS
[11:25:43] ChrisW
Jim - industrial compliance is out of scope
[11:28:37] ChrisW
Jeremy - we need an OWL editor that produces valid OWL documents
[11:29:31] ChrisW
- generate OWL Lite, OWL DL, Full
[11:30:04] ChrisW
MikeD - there is an emacs tool for OWL, and a validator
[11:31:29] ChrisW
Seanb - Oil-ed outputs the OWL XML presentation syntax
[11:31:55] ChrisW
PFPS - implementation of translator (XSLT)
[11:37:38] ChrisW
DanC - need to know there is real need for three languages
[11:38:02] ChrisW
Jack - Network inference feels OWL DL is important
[11:38:20] ChrisW
ChrisW - IBM thinks OWL DL is important
[11:38:59] ChrisW
Jack - and NI is working on a reasoner.
[11:39:46] ChrisW
ChrisW - IBM also thinks OWL Full is important
[11:41:58] ChrisW
DanC is chair
[11:42:29] ChrisW
Discussion of features vs. implementations
[11:42:54] ChrisW
Guus - please include discussion of conformance
[12:01:19] ChrisW
PROPOSED: Action the Test editor to add a test for Syntax checker that can tell the difference between OWL sublanguages
[12:01:38] ChrisW
Abstain: Connoly, Hendler
[12:01:54] ChrisW
[12:02:15] ChrisW
ACTION: Jeremy to add a test for syntax checker
[12:03:19] ChrisW
Jeremy - need a definition of what OWL Lite is in a document
[12:03:47] ChrisW
ACTION: Peter add definition of OWL Lite document
[12:09:05] ChrisW
discussion of possible conformance proposal
[12:09:18] ChrisW
for OWL syntax levels
[12:09:44] ChrisW
PROPOSED: The test document should specify the conformance clauses for OWL Lite, DL, and FULL documents
[12:09:50] ChrisW
[12:11:10] ChrisW
Ian - there should be a semantics checker, then
[12:24:18] ChrisW
discussion of consistency checker
[12:24:24] ChrisW
one for OWL Lite
[12:24:28] ChrisW
other language levels?
[12:25:48] ChrisW
Discussion of OWL Reader
[12:25:49] ChrisW
Vocab Reader (no one voted for)
[12:25:49] ChrisW
OWL Lite/DL/Full Syntax Checker (resolved to have a test case)
[12:26:16] ChrisW
lots of discussion of Consitency checker (complete or not, etc)
[12:26:29] ChrisW
possible problem with making this a conformance "stamp"
[12:26:43] ChrisW
Jim takes over as chair
[12:29:48] ChrisW
Should there be a document conformance section
[12:29:55] ChrisW
in the test document
[12:31:01] ChrisW
jim is trying to make jeremy happy
[12:31:10] ChrisW
he suceeds
[12:31:46] ChrisW
Danc - argue against software conformance
[12:32:56] ChrisW
jim - except for syntax checker, already resolved
[12:35:48] ChrisW
should the syntax checker be the ONLY kind of software conformance "stamp"
[12:41:04] ChrisW
should there be a semantic conformance checker, maybe just for lite, maybe for all levels
[12:41:13] ChrisW
some supports
[12:41:25] bh
bh has quit
[12:41:43] ChrisW
discussion ended with lunch break
[13:20:31] GuusS
GuusS has quit
[13:51:22] Raphael
Raphael has joined #webont
[13:51:33] Raphael
Topic is "Consistency Checker"
[13:52:22] Raphael
Possible Compinations {Lite, DL, Full] x {Syntax, Incomplete, Complete}
[13:54:50] heflin
heflin has quit
[13:54:52] Raphael
Ian says, sound is important, no matter what variant you consider
[13:57:57] Raphael
Welty has problem with stamps, specifaly what is the definition of complete exactly
[13:58:13] Raphael
Complete is to be understood as "Logically complete"
[14:00:25] Raphael
Decided: Stickers are: {Lite, DL, Full} x {Incomplete, Complete}
[14:00:54] Raphael
DeRoo, Hendler, Connoly Abstaining, all others in favour
[14:01:01] bh
bh has joined #webont
[14:01:24] Raphael
Action: De Roo
[14:02:44] DanC
DanC has joined #webont
[14:02:49] DanC
Action: Review of satisfaction of requirements
[14:02:49] DanC
From: Jeff Heflin (heflin@cse.lehigh.edu)
[14:02:52] DanC
Date: Mon, Dec 30 2002
[14:02:56] ChrisW
[14:02:56] DanC
[14:03:01] DanC
logger, pointer?
[14:03:01] DanC
See http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/webont/2003-01-10#T14-03-01
[14:03:09] GuusS
GuusS has joined #webont
* DanC neglected to get RRSAgent here. bummer
[14:04:18] jhendler
jhendler has joined #webont
[14:05:45] DanC
R.19 and R.20 are handled by RDF Syntax as a result of http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure
[14:07:02] bh
bh has quit
[14:08:26] ChrisW
dan, does that mean my scribe notes (in IRC) were not recorded?
[14:11:31] Raphael
Resolved: Req Doc to be included in last call, abstains IanH, PPS
[14:11:42] Raphael
Action Guus to get it into road map
[14:12:20] DanC
no, logger got them (at ilrt)
[14:12:27] ChrisW
[14:12:56] ChrisW
what about the actions, proposals?
[14:14:08] Raphael
Action: DanC figure out privacy, security risks / issues in spec
[14:16:05] Raphael
Discussion on whether we meet Requirement R13
[14:20:16] Raphael
Topic is now: Review of the test documents (next 30 Minutes), Managed by Jeremy Carol
[14:22:00] Raphael
Issues are on mailing list: 2003Jan/0136.html
[14:22:42] Raphael
standard DL test available in literature, include them here ?
[14:26:55] Raphael
action jeremy caroll: teach sean bechhofer, peter crowber editing/creating tests
[14:34:18] bwm
bwm has quit
[14:36:48] bwm
bwm has joined #webont
[14:45:05] heflin
heflin has joined #webont
[14:54:05] Raphael
Action: Put examples from guide into test suite to Jos De roo
[15:03:14] bwm
zakim, who is on the phone?
[15:05:17] Raphael
Raphael has quit
[15:09:01] jjc
jjc has joined #webont
[15:12:10] JosD
JosD has quit
[15:18:06] DanC
------- Resume
[15:18:10] DanC
=== AllDifferent
[15:18:52] DanC
PFPS: what we're after is a way to say, compactly (i.e. O(N)) that there's a list whose members are all different
[15:19:59] DanC
... RDFCore gave us the list syntax we asked for, but not what we actually needed; [rdf:parseType="Collection" only works for objects of property elements]
[15:23:49] DanC
pfps writes several examples on the board... proposal #1 distinctMembers #2 sameAs #3 first/rest Collection
[15:24:49] DanC
PFPS: given more time, we could ask RDF Core for list syntax that works for typednodes.
[15:31:12] bh
bh has joined #webont
[15:31:14] DanC
PROPOSED: to resolve the AllDifferent issue using an AllDifferent class and a distinctMembers property (to be elaborated by the semantics editors).
[15:31:36] DanC
ACTION PFPS: relaty feedback on parseType="Collection"
[15:31:53] DanC
RESOLVED; connolly, carroll, Beckhofer, Dale, Volz abstaining.
[15:32:07] jjc
(carroll abstained because I wasn't listening)
[15:32:11] DanC
Horan abstainng
[15:33:04] DanC
ACTION guide editor (Welty), semantics editor (Peter),
[15:33:40] DanC
yes, it's in Lite (provided differentIndivudual is in Lite; confirmed, it is).
[15:34:14] DanC
ACTION ref editor (Dean).
[15:34:20] DanC
a test is hoped for.
[15:36:17] DanC
[discussion of appending to an enuemeration: x first PuertoRico; rest UnitedStates ]
[15:36:18] seanb
seanb has quit
[15:37:32] DanC
[and discussion of a methodology of maintaining lists of distinct classes across imports...]
[15:38:24] DanC
--- pop back to requirements for R 13 about statements
[15:38:44] DanC
Horan: I have questions about R 13 and 2 others.
[15:39:45] DanC
Hefflin: examples: consider "Jeff wrote reqDoc". tagging looks like "Mike said Jeff wrote reqDoc". OK?
[15:39:46] DanC
Horan: OK
[15:40:29] DanC
Horan: R16. Cardinality constraints. editorial concerns; not clear what an object
[15:40:56] DanC
ACTION Hefflin: update terminology (e.g. object) in requirements document
[15:41:20] DanC
Horan: about R18. User-displayable labels; met by rdfs:label? [several]: yes.
[15:41:24] DanC
[15:42:11] DanC
==== enumeration of document Editors
[15:42:48] DanC
Hendler reads from W3C manual of style...
[15:43:32] DanC
[15:43:36] DanC
9.1.4 Editors, Authors, and Contributors
[15:44:00] DanC
[scribe notes the manual of style is "best practice" but not W3C process]
[15:45:08] DanC
--- Authorship of non-WG publications...
[15:45:22] DanC
Guus: regarding authorship of OWL articles and such...
[15:45:23] jhendler
[chair apologizes, stands corrected]
[15:46:03] DanC
... e.g. I have been invited to write an article about OWL; I'm inclined to credit [all WG members?] as authors.
[15:46:15] DanC
... should we have a shared policy? or just leave it as is?
[15:47:13] DanC
DanC: I'd rather not be listed as editor on that article; I'm not likely to review it, and I don't want to put my name on stuff I didn't review.
[15:47:44] DanC
PeterPS: I'd rather not be listed as author either; I think it's important that folks writing articles about OWL make it clear that OWL is a product of the WG.
[15:47:50] ChrisW
ChrisW has quit
[15:48:04] seanb
seanb has joined #webont
[15:48:28] DanC
Ian: 2nded
[15:48:49] DanC
Guus: so no particular policy, but we've aired the issue.
[15:48:54] DanC
[15:48:59] DanC
======== WG schedule
[15:50:19] heflin
Jeff is temporarily scribe while Dan is at the board
[15:51:43] heflin
Dan is discussing schedule for recommendation...
[15:51:51] heflin
1) WG decide last call
[15:52:22] heflin
2) LC publication (soon after)
[15:52:47] heflin
3) WG requests PR (after 3 weeks)
[15:53:04] heflin
4) PR publication
[15:53:13] heflin
5) Membership reviewes due (4 weeks)
[15:53:34] heflin
6) Rec party and press release (2 weeks)
[15:54:43] DanC
Guus writes a calendar of telcon dates on the board...
* DanC ths heflin
* DanC thanks heflin
* DanC checks on jjc in #webont
[15:56:54] DanC
Guus enumerates docs: Requirements, Guide, Sem, Test, Overview, Ref
[15:57:32] DanC
[Dan's schedule above is "speed of light" schedule, absolute minima]
[15:58:16] DanC
straw poll: subject to editorial discretion (to be checked by one or two reviewers), move Requirements to Last Call.
[15:58:43] DanC
lots in favor
[15:58:46] DanC
non against
[15:59:57] DeborahMc
DeborahMc has joined #webont
* DanC waves to deb
[16:01:02] DeborahMc
greetings - does someone have a url for the meeting logs?
[16:01:08] DanC
logger, pointer?
[16:01:08] DanC
See http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/webont/2003-01-10#T16-01-08
[16:02:24] DanC
PROPOSED: to publish Requirements as a WD, subject to editorial discretion.
[16:02:30] DanC
RESOLVED, unanimously
[16:03:23] DanC
connolly: I'm interested in deciding to take Guide and Semantics to last call.
[16:03:32] DanC
hi deb, we're calling you
[16:03:49] DanC
deb, we're not sure we can dial internationally from here.
* DanC notes we're trying to figure out the number here or something...
[16:04:47] DeborahMc
i provided a phone number to ian in email that does not require exposing the incoming calling number.
[16:05:17] DanC
# F2F Version of Requirements Document Jeff Heflin (Thu, Jan 02 2003) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0055.html
[16:05:47] DanC
deb, we got a fax at the phone number we've got
* DanC sees Ian getting new info
[16:06:25] ChrisW
ChrisW has joined #webont
[16:07:02] DanC
attendance + Deb M by phone
[16:08:55] DanC
Guus: recall we decided to target Requirements for REC, not NOTE.
[16:09:14] DanC
Guus: based on review from yesterday, it seems Guide is in good shape.
[16:09:53] DanC
Guus: I'd like to decide to delegate remaining work on Guide to a few reviewers.
[16:10:26] DanC
JJC: I'd prefer to have a stable doc to review for a time before deciding to go to last call, though I'm prepared to stand aside if other folks prefer otherwise...
[16:11:04] DanC
PFPS: hmm... there are some new sections...
[16:11:36] DeborahMc
it is hard to hear - if you want to make sure i get something, please put it in the irc or ask me if i heard it; for example, i can tell that someone is talking now but i cant make out anything
[16:11:46] DanC
roger, deb.
[16:13:31] DanC
[... discussion of end-game logistics ...]
[16:13:58] DanC
Guide reviewers are solicited...
[16:14:12] seanb
seanb has quit
[16:14:28] DanC
Heflin: when will the draft be avaiable?
[16:14:33] DanC
Chris: Monday.
[16:14:59] DanC
Heflin: I could do a review of the new material by Friday
[16:15:36] DanC
Guus: I could do a review by the following tuesday
[16:16:10] DanC
Chris: I need help on the AllDifferent details.
[16:16:18] DanC
Hendler: the roadmap needs doing, no?
[16:16:38] DanC
Hendler recalls discussion among editors yesterday about a "roadmap" to go in all document.
[16:17:11] DanC
Guus: we/I have the ball on the roadmap
[16:17:55] DanC
Guus: can you get all this other stuff in by Weds, Chris?
[16:18:20] ChrisW
[16:18:39] DanC
Guus writes on board: guide draft available to reviewers 15Jan, reviews complete 21Jan, ready for W3C staff to publish
[16:18:48] DanC
deb, did we lose you?
[16:19:02] DeborahMc
yes - i just got dial tone
[16:19:23] DeborahMc
first i had a drop in background noise but the line was up, then just dialtone. ihung up now
[16:19:42] DanC
PROPOSED: to publish Guide as last call, after edits as actioned in this ftf and editorial discretion, subject to review by Guus and Jeff H.
[16:19:58] seanb
seanb has joined #webont
[16:20:05] DanC
[16:20:18] DanC
so RESOLVED, Carroll, ter Horst abstaining
[16:20:46] DanC
ACTION Welty: provide guide last call candidate by 15Jan
[16:20:52] DanC
ACTION Guus: to review by 21Jan
[16:21:00] DanC
ACTION Hefflin: to review Guide by 21Jan
[16:21:20] DanC
ACTION Connolly: to publish Guide, after Welty/Guus/Hefflin do their part of Guide.
[16:21:37] DanC
Guus: on to semantics...
[16:21:58] DanC
DanC: summary of changes resulting from this meeting?
[16:22:02] ChrisW
does this mean that the entire working group has until 15Jan to provide any (official) feedback?
[16:22:31] DanC
well, they can send mail, Chris, but it's at your discretion whether to act on them.
[16:23:20] DanC
Peter: aside from stylistic stuff, * AllDifferent stuff, * OWL lite [something], * Jeremy to review [informal something], * Ian to review proofs [somewhere]
[16:24:01] DanC
... stylistic stuff including terminology as discussed with editors [and send to www-webont-wg, I think]
[16:24:47] DanC
Peter: I don't think Semantics is ready for last call, cuz it depends on RDF semantics, and I have oustanding issues with RDF model theory
[16:25:13] DanC
... w.r.t. rdfs:Literal, among other things
[16:27:05] DanC
Guus: aren't they going to last call this week?
[16:28:05] DanC
JJC: they're working on the last few bits, going to make the last call decision next week. PatH wasn't at today's meeting.
[16:28:30] DanC
Peter: the work-around, if they don't accept my suggestions, is really, really, ugle.
[16:28:31] DanC
[16:30:01] DanC
ACTION: JJC: investigate this issue (rdfs:Literal etc.) in RDFCore
[16:30:56] DanC
ACTION JimH: ask SemWeb CG about RDF model theory.
[16:31:23] DanC
# problems with RDF literals Peter F. Patel-Schneider (Fri, Jan 03 2003) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0093.html
[16:32:41] DanC
JimH: msg 0093 doesn't make clear the impact on OWL
[16:33:01] DanC
ACTION PeterPS: write to webont WG (only to webont WG) about the impact of this on OWL.
[16:33:11] bwm
bwm has quit
[16:33:45] DanC
PeterPS: provided a fix from RDF Core, I think I can prepare a last call candidate by Monday.
[16:34:22] DanC
DanC: is that including the roadmap? PeterPS: well, I'll need that, yes.
[16:34:40] DanC
Semantics reviewers solicited
[16:35:23] DanC
ter Horst, Jeff Pan [sp?] agree to review.
[16:35:59] DanC
[discussion of expectations of Ian to review the proofs...]
[16:36:49] DanC
Guus: I'd like us to decide, 23Jan to take Semantics to Last Call.
[16:38:31] DanC
ACTION Pfps: keep Dave Beckett informed of status of his comments.
[16:39:05] DanC
[16:39:16] DanC
Guus: on to Overview (nee Feature Synopsis)
[16:39:25] DanC
... Deb, seen recent news?
[16:39:32] DanC
Deb: I just got what Frank mailed out
[16:39:59] DanC
Deb: Frank is going to do a draft based on comments from Thu [yesterday]. No date given.
[16:40:56] DanC
Guus: substantial changes were discussed yesterday, including a title change. I don't guess you can estimate timeline, then, Deb?
[16:41:04] DanC
Deb: no, probably not.
[16:42:06] bh
bh has quit
[16:42:27] DanC
DanC: since there's no normative content, we can just talk about this as the next telcon
[16:42:42] DanC
Deb: are there timelines for other docs?
[16:43:03] DanC
Guus: 23Jan is a deadline for Semantics. that's reviews done.
[16:43:14] ChrisW
anf Guide
[16:43:18] ChrisW
and Guide
[16:43:38] DanC
Deb: it's not clear how the requested changes will be disposed of.
[16:44:02] DanC
Deb: and it's not clear how much text we can grab from other places
[16:44:14] DanC
Guus: we discussed moving some of the details of the feature description to Ref.
[16:45:10] DanC
JimH: Frank's notes are superceded by discussion among editors...
[16:45:34] DanC
frank's notes: # Report of Feature Synopsis Breakout Session Frank van Harmelen (Thu, Jan 09 2003) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003Jan/0021.html
[16:45:46] DanC
Guus: I'd like a draft by [when?] with review [when?]
[16:46:26] DanC
Deb: are some folks doing reviews in less than a week? Guus: yes, but more time seems in order due to the magnitude of the changes.
[16:46:42] DanC
Deb: so this might trail others? Guus: well, we havent' discussed Reference yet
[16:46:58] DanC
Deb: then yes, it seems appropriate to discuss at an upcoming telcon
[16:47:50] DanC
Guus: please communicate to the chairs ASAP, before the next telcon, [...]
[16:49:25] DanC
[... discussion of review timing...]
[16:49:48] DanC
JJC: based on the scope of changes we're discussing, I think a couple week's review time is in order.
[16:50:18] DanC
Guus: asuming editors provide a draft Mon 20Jan, ...
[16:50:30] DanC
... how about a 10 day review until 30Jan ...
[16:50:48] DanC
... prepare for decision a week after the 23Jan Semantics doc.
[16:51:04] DanC
draft = last call candidate
[16:51:18] DanC
JJC: I can live with 10 days
[16:51:47] DanC
Deb: I'll be offline 17-19Jan, so I'll have to check with Frank and such...
[16:51:57] DanC
Guus: that's the best guess we can make for now, I suppose.
[16:52:40] DanC
[16:52:45] DanC
=== Reference schedule
[16:53:12] DanC
Guus: recall changes discussed in break-out [yesterday?]...
[16:53:44] DanC
... editors plan a draft available for 20Jan; I'd like to get review in the same 10 days, by 30Jan.
[16:53:59] DanC
... i.e. for decision 30Jan.
[16:54:10] DanC
JJC: what title are we talking about?
[16:54:48] DanC
Guus: we're going with "Reference"; we intend to meet expectations around that name [being careful about informative material]
[16:54:50] GuusS
GuusS has quit
* jhendler ...OWL "easy going" reference document
[16:55:06] DanC
JJC: let's recruit reviewers
[16:55:27] DanC
ChrisW volunteers to review Overview
[16:55:31] DanC
Horan volunteers to review Overview
[16:55:57] DanC
Volz volunteers to review review Reference
[16:56:10] DanC
JJC volunteers, tentatively, to get a review from HP
[16:57:20] DanC
Guus: in sum, it looks like 3 docs coming in [3?] weeks, ~23Jan, with others to follow a week or two later.
[16:57:53] DanC
... I had envisioned one big package, but I don't see any objection to this...
[16:58:00] DanC
JJC: how about test...
[16:58:43] DanC
JJC: to get all the tests we plan, we estimate[d] ~6 weeks, but we can get the text ready in less time
[16:58:58] DanC
JJC: we could publish a test WD with more tests later in the last call period
[16:59:20] DanC
Guus: I'd like to have test ready [for last call?] 30Jan...
[17:00:26] DanC
[... discussion of pointing from Last Call WD to working test development area and/or editor's draft ...]
[17:01:27] bwm
bwm has joined #webont
[17:01:32] bwm
bwm has quit
* DanC waves to brian
[17:02:00] bwm
bwm has joined #webont
[17:02:02] DanC
JJC: I think I can have a lcc for the 16Jan telcon
[17:02:36] DanC
Connolly volunteers to review test between 16 and 30 Jan
[17:02:50] DanC
Stanton volunteers to review test between 16 and 30 Jan
[17:03:58] DanC
JJC: how long is last call?
[17:04:29] DanC
DanC: the number that keeps coming up is 4 weeks, though I'm not sure when that should start
[17:05:21] DanC
[... discussion of impact of 3-7Mar W3C tech plenary on end-of-last call schedule ...]
[17:06:50] DanC
JJC: I'm concerned that this might push last call to 3 weeks; I'd prefer 6 weeks...
[17:07:40] ChrisW
jim - need 4-5 weeks. This schedule (done by Jan 30) gets us there but with no slippage
[17:07:52] ChrisW
Jim - I'm OK with that
[17:08:05] ChrisW
Jim - again, it means no slippage
[17:08:31] ChrisW
danc - this doesn't get us to rec by mar 31
[17:08:42] ChrisW
- means have to attend telecons after Mar 31
[17:08:54] ChrisW
pfps - they will be short ones
[17:09:10] ChrisW
jim - we're all committed thru mar 31
[17:09:26] ChrisW
jim - we will have to extend after that time
[17:09:42] ChrisW
jim - we will propose in the middle of march, rec at the end
[17:09:54] ChrisW
danc - editors are committed for life
[17:09:59] DanC
1/2 ;-)
[17:10:02] ChrisW
(not sure that was a joke)
[17:10:40] ChrisW
guus - few words about tech plenary
[17:11:28] DanC
[17:11:28] DanC
6-7 March 2003 - Semantic Web Architecture Meeting http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/meetings/tech-200303/
[17:12:01] ChrisW
jim - editors should probably consider coming to finish things up
* DanC checks access; yes, that's world-readable
[17:12:16] ChrisW
-probably not a f2f
[17:12:27] ChrisW
(f2f for webont)
[17:13:05] ChrisW
danc - semantic web activitiy is chartered thru mar. 2003
[17:13:25] ChrisW
danc - proposal of what to do next shoudl be out by then
[17:13:37] ChrisW
danc - proposal could say "take a break"
[17:13:46] ChrisW
(perhaps miami for spring break)
[17:13:51] DeborahMc
was that a comment that editors should consider coming to the march 6-7 portion?
[17:13:57] ChrisW
[17:14:27] ChrisW
danc reading the URL posted above
[17:15:18] DanC
actually, getting editors together is more likely on Mon/Tue
[17:15:50] ChrisW
jim - editors should strongly consider coming the to meeting, finding the information
[17:16:12] DanC
Technical Plenary http://www.w3.org/2002/10/allgroupoverview.html (member confidential, I think)
[17:16:52] ChrisW
(some jokes about location)
[17:17:11] ChrisW
march 3-4 meeting in boston for webont working group
[17:17:26] ChrisW
jim - we are particularly asking editors to come
* DanC helps volz log in...
[17:18:02] ChrisW
jim - everyone is invited
[17:18:18] DanC
Connolly: please accept my regrets for anything on 4Mar. I have another obligation
[17:18:30] ChrisW
jim - not confident we don't need another f2f
[17:18:41] Raphael
Raphael has joined #webont
[17:18:44] ChrisW
jim - but expect at least the editors
* DanC trying to sort out access for volz
[17:20:21] ChrisW
jim - still not completely clear that we need even the editors meeting
[17:21:15] ChrisW
dan - thanks hosts
[17:21:17] ChrisW
[17:21:20] DeborahMc
ok - i also have a request if we need the editors meeting to have it back to back with the other meeting there. thus propose editors meeting on wed and then leave the possibility for staying for thurs meeting
[17:21:24] ChrisW
jim - thanks everyone in WG
[17:21:53] jhendler
deb - Wednesday is the technical plenary all groups, I am committed to that, as is Guus and all are invited
[17:22:03] ChrisW
bye deb
[17:22:09] heflin
heflin has left #webont
[17:23:02] ChrisW
deb, you there?
[17:23:25] DeborahMc
[17:23:48] ChrisW
i started another chat w/ you directly
[17:24:07] ChrisW
do you see it?
[17:24:08] DeborahMc
that did not come up. try again?
[17:24:30] ChrisW
[17:25:26] jjc
jjc has quit
[17:27:44] seanb
seanb has left #webont
[17:29:38] Raphael
Raphael has quit
[17:33:12] jhendler
jhendler has quit
[17:39:28] ChrisW
ChrisW has quit
[17:48:58] DaveB
DaveB has joined #webont
[17:49:54] DaveB
I noticed that logger is the only irc recording bot for today. That's fine but I suggest you copy the logs for today into webont w3.org space. Cheers
[17:49:58] DaveB
DaveB has quit
[17:50:16] DeborahMc
where is the recording for yesterday?
[17:51:24] bwm
[17:52:46] DeborahMc
thx - found that
[18:00:22] bwm
bwm has quit
[18:17:57] DanC
DanC has quit
[18:55:54] mdean
mdean has quit