W3C * T&S * Semantic Web * WebOnt * prev: ftf1

Second Meeting of the W3C Web Ontology Working Group

8-9 April 2002
Hosted by the W3C office at CWI in Amsterdam

where/when/logistics * who * what: preparation, agenda, minutes/records

see also:

Where/When: Local Logistics info

Frank van Harmelen is arranging local logistics and registration at CWI. cf 28Feb

See local agenda info regarding social event Sunday evening etc.

Who: Participants

Per charter, participation is open to WG members and experts invited by the chair.

Note that Massimo Marchiori is filling in for Dan Connolly as W3C team contact at this meeting.

  1. Jonathan Borden
  2. Stephen Buswell
  3. Jeremy Carroll
  4. Jonathan Dale
  5. Jos De Roo
  6. Mike Dean
  7. Nicholas Gibbins
  8. Pat Hayes
  9. Ziv Hellman
  10. James Hendler
  11. Ian Horrocks
  12. Ruediger Klein
  13. Ora Lassila
  14. Alexander Maedche
  15. Massimo Marchiori
  16. Libby Miller
  17. Enrico Motta
  18. Peter Patel-Schneider
  19. Marwam Sabbouh
  20. Guus Schreiber
  21. Herman ter Horst
  22. David Trastour
  23. Frank van Harmelen
  24. Raphael Volz

What: Preparation, Goals

ftf meeting materials due 1 Apr, as agreed 21Mar

What: Agenda, Minutes

See also: local agenda info regarding social event Sunday evening etc.

see also: AGENDA: A'dam ftf (draft) Guus Schreiber (Wed, Mar 27 2002)

MONDAY 8 APRIL: 9.00 - 17.30

09.00-09.15 Welcome, agenda, local arrangements (chairs + local organizers)
09.15-09.45 LANG: OWL Language proposal (van Harmelen)
09.45-10.30 Discussion on core language features (chairs)
10.30-11.00 Coffee break
11.00-12.30 DAML+OIL comparison
preliminary decision on core features
initial language issue list
12.30-14.00 Lunch
14.00-15.30 Break-out sessions for focus areas
15.30-16.00 Coffee break
16.00-17.30 Decisions about on how to move forward with syntax
- basic RDF/XML syntax
- presentation syntax (when to use, translators?)
During last 45 minutes: telecon facilitie
20.00 Dinner

TUESDAY 9 APRIL 9.00 - 16.30

09.00-10.30 SEM: Semantics/syntax/layering presentations discussion
10.30-11.00 Coffee break
11.00-12.30 TEST and GUIDE report out
12.30-14.00 Lunch
14.00-15.00 Review of issues list
15.00-15.30 Coffee break)
15.30 Wrap-up, issues, schedule consequences, activity planning
Telecon facilities during final 45 minutes.

What: Minutes/Records

LANG: OWL Language proposal (07:54Z)

van Harmelen presented

Potential issues were raised:

DAML+OIL comparison, preliminary decision on core features, initial language issue list (09:31Z)

triage language features into 'do it the way daml does' or 'discuss further'

POLL: cardinality (B - some objections, majority in favour)

POLL: class (A - in favour)

POLL: complementOf (B)

STRAW POLL: choice between above options (DanC isn't sure of the significance; see the log)

10:49:04 [nmg] *** session breaks for lunch

Decisions about on how to move forward with syntax (14:16Z)

Additional participants joined by teleconference:

PROPOSED:

  1. that there is a presentation syntax and an underlying syntax and a transform
  2. some form of presentation syntax is requirement
  3. RDF is underlying syntax
  4. that the presentation syntax is in XML

last point fails to gain consensus.

RESOLVED:

  1. that there is a presentation syntax and an underlying syntax and a transform
  2. some form of presentation syntax is requirement
  3. RDF is underlying syntax

break for the evening...

SEM: Semantics/syntax/layering presentations discussion (07:47Z)

Peter Patel-Schneider presented

WebOnt requirements -- 2 issues 1) LIST 2) DARK TRIPLES

JimH: proposed action: PeterPS + FrankVH + JeremyC write down a paragraph for RDFCore w.r.t. these issues

after lunch...

strawpoll: 12 people support dark triple proposal;

3 support solipsistic proposal;

6 abstain

1 paragraph is request; other paragraphs are suggestions

volunteers from this group to join conversation with RDFCore: Jeremy, Pat, Peter, Jos, Massimo Jonathan (Borden)

unanimous agreement to send message to RDFCore

Action to the chairs Jim and Guus to report this issue to the SWCG

TEST and GUIDE report out (12:42Z)

[@@summarize discussion?]

ACTION: revisit new level 1/2 proposal by MikeD, EnricoM, ZivH, RaphaelV, IanH and FrankVH, DebM.

Wrap-up, issues, schedule consequences, activity planning (14:14Z)

Additional participants joined by teleconference:

RESOLUTION: The meaning of an OWL document is conveyed in the RDF graph
==> ALL in favour, NO opposed

RESOLUTION: All RDF/XML documents that are equivalent under the RDF Recommendation are equivalent OWL exchange documents
==> 14 in favor -- 3 opposed

RESOLUTION: The exchange language for OWL is RDF/XML
==> 16 in favour

RESOLUTION: We intend to produce non-normative presentation syntaxes and their mapping to the exchange syntax
==> 16 in favour -- 1 opposed

RESOLUTION: The preference of the WG is to produce at least one XML and one frame presentation syntax
==> 11 in favour -- 2 opposed

JimH: a set of issues will be collected, then ask the group, then go to REAL issue list

JimH: issue drive process -- ACTION chairs + MikeS


Dan Connolly, for Guus S. and Jim H., chairs
$Revision: 1.22 $ of $Date: 2002/05/29 19:00:47 $ by $Author: connolly $