IRC log of webont on 2002-07-01

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:13:20 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #webont
16:16:17 [DaveB]
have fun guys
16:17:34 [jhendler]
jhendler has changed the topic to: webont f2f agenda http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/ftf3.html">http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/ftf3.html log: http://www.w3.
16:18:01 [DeborahMc]
DeborahMc has joined #webont
16:18:03 [jhendler]
jhendler has changed the topic to: webont f2f log at http://www.w3.org/2002/07/01-webont-irc
16:18:15 [jhendler]
rrsagent, bookmark.
16:18:15 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2002/07/01-webont-irc#T16-18-15
16:24:18 [jhendler]
Roll call: Guus, Ian, Mike , Jos, Jeff, Mike Sintek. Mike Smith, Marwon, Evan, Larry, Jim, Deb, Jonathan, Abigiail Agam, Pat Hayes, Volz
16:26:37 [jhendler]
social details: dinner tonight at Italian Restaurant - coffee breaks, lunch in room
16:28:43 [jhendler]
Raphael Volz has sent list of differences between the three writeups, this is distributed to participants.
16:30:01 [jhendler]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jun/0219.html
16:32:19 [jhendler]
Deb - minimal changes - cardinality restricted to 0, 1 at least 1
16:33:06 [jhendler]
inverse functional added
16:36:35 [jhendler]
Guus - is everyone okay with the specific division of features?
16:37:20 [jhendler]
Ian - disjoint is expressible from the current features (noted: not real easily) should we add it?
16:38:18 [jhendler]
Deb - disjoint in Ontolingua - wasn't much, but she added a lot to get usage of consistency checking, etc.
16:51:15 [jhendler]
Discussion of what sort of implementation techniques can be used
16:52:16 [DanC]
DanC has joined #webont
16:52:36 [jhendler]
Ian - but OWL allows complex things - can do same in Owl-lite
16:54:24 [heflin]
heflin has joined #webont
16:57:52 [DanC]
Smoked Salmon example.
16:58:20 [jhendler]
Ian - smoked salmon -- if it is smoked and it is salmon can we say it is smoked salmon?
16:59:17 [DanC]
"current language"? which is that?
16:59:44 [DanC]
[several]: an interesting goal is a language that can be implemented with a horn-clause reasoner.
16:59:46 [jhendler]
Danc - we're discussing Deb's document - "current language" is owl-lite as defined in that document
16:59:57 [jhendler]
document is in the agenda - cited earlier
17:00:50 [jhendler]
Discussion of whether we could restrict owl-lite a bit from where we are to make it simpler for languages like datalog, XSB, etc.
17:02:06 [DanC]
[... discussion of which features conflict with this goal of implementing in a horn reasoner ... ]
17:12:03 [DanC]
example: it seems to Ian that this can't be captured in horn logic: "the Person class is those things whose parents are Persons" and "BeerShopOwner subClassOf Person"
17:13:16 [jhendler]
discussion as to whether we've added too many properties - Toulousse added a lot
17:13:44 [DanC]
JimH asked how to say that using the proposed vocabulary. Anser: Person sameClassAs eachValueFrom parent Person. BeerShopOwner subClassOf Person.
17:14:20 [DanC]
JeffH stipulated that it was hard, if at all possible, to capture that in horn clauses.
17:16:33 [jhendler]
JimH - is it a hard change or a small change to implement OWL-lite in datalog?
17:20:28 [jhendler]
discussion continues as to what kind of implementations people have in mind, and how they might interact
17:22:01 [jhendler]
Guus - can we reformulate this in some actions we can address?
17:24:22 [jhendler]
Discussion of completeness/incompleteness w/respect to Owl
17:30:52 [jhendler]
Discussion of what kind of tools some people are using - examples
17:30:54 [DanC]
jhendler: the way DanC describes entailment tests are hard to relate to, say, our instance creator. Our instance creator does exploit the logical aspects of the language...
17:31:42 [jhendler]
Smoked Salmon ontology (from Jon Borden on XML-Dev) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jul/0005.html
17:35:04 [jhendler]
Discussion of general goals of OWL :->
17:35:25 [jhendler]
discussion of tests and test cases
17:39:14 [jhendler]
Discussion of conformance and conformance coverage
17:42:06 [DanC]
DanC: recently I've changed my mind about completeness... I think the Web community expects a certain (fairly weak) interoperable inference
17:42:36 [DanC]
[which two things? lots of people are agreeing; important to write such things down]
17:43:10 [jhendler]
Suggestion from Mike Dean - we allow sameclassas only between named classes in the OWL lite case
17:43:11 [DanC]
MikeD: allow sameClassAs only with named classes
17:50:55 [jhendler]
discussion of how to change the document
17:54:14 [jhendler]
issues on table -
17:54:29 [jhendler]
issue 1 - is the issue with respect to defined classes
17:54:38 [jhendler]
issue 2 - adding of disjoint
17:57:19 [jhendler]
issue 3 - dropping local/existential
17:59:27 [DeborahMc]
a local existential example includes a parent is a person who has a child who is a person
17:59:48 [DeborahMc]
a simple alternative is someone who has a child who is a doctor
18:00:12 [DeborahMc]
this should be named a parent of a doctor
18:00:26 [DanC]
"Class descriptions can either be partial, indicating that the elements of the class satisfy at least the stated description and perhaps others; or the class description can be complete, indicating that the elements of the class are precisely characterized by the stated description. " <- DanC would like to see this go.
18:06:13 [DanC]
ACTION Ian: investigate the implications of striking "Class descriptions..." text from the document./
18:09:24 [jhendler]
Ian - seems to me removing "red haired people" is a bad idea
18:14:48 [las]
las has joined #webont
18:41:04 [DanC]
jimh, I offered to scribe this session
18:41:34 [mdean]
mdean has joined #webont
18:42:07 [DanC]
meeting resumes...
18:42:31 [DanC]
chair notes we're a bit behind, as we didn't achive the objective of deciding on publication
18:43:16 [DanC]
=== Naming
18:43:45 [DanC]
PROPOSED: "OWL Lite" for the subset, "OWL" for the full language
18:44:16 [DanC]
RESOLVED, connolly abstaining
18:45:00 [DanC]
---
18:45:01 [DanC]
ISSUE: Syntax
18:45:02 [DanC]
From: Raphael Volz (volz@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de)
18:45:02 [DanC]
Date: Sun, Jun 30 2002
18:45:05 [DanC]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jun/0219.html
18:45:11 [DanC]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Ju
18:45:15 [DanC]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jun/att-0219/01-syntax-issues.html
18:48:57 [DanC]
enumerating the terms as in syntax-issues.html ...
18:49:12 [DanC]
Mike: do we have norms for capitalization?
18:49:45 [DanC]
Guus: InitialCaps for classes, lowerInitial for properties. camelCase in general. No, no convention for individuals.
18:50:02 [DanC]
DeborahMc: we could use a norm for individuals
18:52:01 [DanC]
RESOLVED: owl:Ontology is an agreed term, as used in OWL 1.0 Reference D., Formal Spec
18:52:55 [DanC]
... ok that feature synopsis doesn't have it, since feature synopsis needn't be exhaustive, esp. w.r.t. non-logical
18:53:11 [DanC]
RESOLVED: owl:versionInfo likewise.
18:55:17 [DanC]
PROPOSED: owl:imports
18:56:18 [DanC]
connolly, hayes, Horrocks abstaining. Dean opposed.
18:56:22 [DanC]
RESOLVED.
18:58:39 [DanC]
DebM: at present, I don't have owl: in front of any names.
18:58:55 [DanC]
MikeS: I got a little confused about which names are RDFS names
18:59:09 [DanC]
ACTION Deb: clarify that owl: is the default, note when names come from RDFS.
19:00:13 [DanC]
DebM: at present, feature synopsis uses lower case to start bullet items...
19:01:13 [DanC]
MikeD: let's use initial caps for classes, etc.
19:01:58 [DanC]
ACTION DebM: in 2.2, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2 use a distinctive font for terms in the language and conventional capitalization
19:02:44 [DanC]
IanH: re "class"... is that rdfs:Class, or the general class constructor
19:04:15 [DeborahMc]
greater clarification - for example, use of class in 3.1 first bullet - the first use
19:04:28 [DeborahMc]
of class will have the special font and the agreed upon capitalization
19:04:40 [DeborahMc]
and the second us of class will not have the special font
19:12:46 [jhendler]
jhendler has joined #webont
19:15:54 [JosD]
JosD has joined #webont
19:19:19 [AaronSw]
AaronSw has joined #webont
19:29:37 [heflin]
heflin has joined #webont
19:41:19 [JosD]
JosD has joined #webont
19:59:52 [jhendler]
LUNCH
20:41:33 [jhendler]
jhendler has joined #webont
20:53:42 [DanC]
DanC has joined #webont
21:04:29 [las]
las has joined #webont
21:10:36 [DanC]
JimH: they're in 2.x of the feature synopsis
21:10:36 [DanC]
owl:cardinality
21:10:39 [mdean]
mdean has joined #webont
21:11:01 [DanC]
[scribe is switching back from emacs...]
21:11:31 [DanC]
jimH: propose to normalize all 3 docs to owl:cardinality, minCardinality, maxCardinality
21:11:33 [DanC]
2nded
21:11:40 [DanC]
so RESOLVED.
21:12:21 [DanC]
jimh: now onto the idioms for specialized (atMostOne etc.)... I prefer to have explicit vocabulary for these.
21:13:46 [DanC]
IanH: that could be said for lots of idioms...
21:15:27 [JosD]
JosD has joined #webont
21:18:02 [Jim]
Jim has joined #webont
21:18:41 [Jim]
Jim has left #webont
21:27:08 [DanC]
DanC [or was it Deb?]: PROPOSED: hasExactlyOne, as in BaseballTeam hasExactlyOne pitcher. likewise for hasAtMostOne/hasAtLeastOne
21:28:13 [DanC]
IanH: do we really want to add this sort of new, redundant terminology?
21:28:37 [DanC]
MikeS: indeed, let's stick to owl:cardinality, restricted to 1 or owl-lite
21:32:12 [DanC]
straw poll: 8 to 5ish
21:32:53 [DanC]
3ish would objectr
21:33:08 [DanC]
3ish would object to cardinality "1"
21:37:10 [DanC]
RESOLVED: to go with owl:cardinality/min/max, restricted to "1", dissenting: Evan. abstaining JimH abstained, Deb, Jos, Connolly.
21:37:32 [DanC]
ACTION DebM to update feature synopsis, restricted cardinality section
21:37:49 [las]
las has joined #webont
21:38:36 [DanC]
the 'restricted to "1"' decision here is for owl lite
21:39:49 [DanC]
ACTION MikeD: note owl-lite restrictions on cardinality in reference doc
21:41:44 [DanC]
RESOLVED: owl:intersectionOf. ACTION Ian update formal spec.
21:42:58 [DanC]
ObjectProperty...
21:44:06 [DanC]
[discussion of whether a change is merited...]
21:44:31 [DanC]
ACTION DebM: note ObjectProperty, DatatypeProperty in the note about "datatypes TBD"
21:45:08 [DanC]
^so that folks searching for them will find them in the feature synposis somewhere.
21:46:01 [DanC]
ACTION Ian: get IndividualProperty changed in formalization
21:46:25 [DanC]
samePropertyAs... covered by formalism mapping decision above.
21:47:04 [DanC]
-- owl:UniqueProperty
21:47:15 [DanC]
note http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I3.4-UnambiguousProperty still open
21:47:38 [DanC]
ACTION DebM: update feature synopsis functional->Unique (noting 3.4)
21:48:48 [DanC]
... and isTheOnlyValueFor to owl:UnambiguousProperty.
21:49:08 [DanC]
(note the spelling of owl:UnambiguousProperty.)
21:49:40 [DanC]
-- Individual Instance...
21:49:55 [DanC]
JimH: I really don't like Instance
21:50:29 [las1]
las1 has joined #webont
21:50:36 [DanC]
Guus recuses himself on this issue
21:50:58 [DanC]
Guus: in my experience, "instance" is always relative to some class. (cf Brackman 1985)
21:51:24 [DanC]
... i.e. "instance" means class membership; it's a relationthips
21:51:29 [DanC]
relationship
21:52:59 [DanC]
JimH: after reviewing the reference/exchange document, I withdraw my objection
21:53:27 [DanC]
seems to be an editorial matter. never mind.
21:54:19 [DanC]
differentIndividualFrom ... covered by formal mapping decision above
21:54:37 [DanC]
ACTION MikeD: "sameIndividual in text" fix typo.
21:54:54 [DanC]
RESOLVED to thank Raphael for the detail work.
21:56:11 [DanC]
-----------
21:57:36 [DanC]
Ian summarizes
21:57:37 [DanC]
* Re: Feature Synopsis for OWL Lite and OWL Ian Horrocks (Mon, Jul 01 2002)
21:57:44 [DanC]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jul/0000.html
21:58:51 [DanC]
Ian: document motivates owl-lite, but doesn't motivate this document itself.
21:59:31 [DanC]
JimH: it would suffice, to me, to cite requirements/charter
21:59:43 [DanC]
DebM: I could add a short bit along those lines.
22:00:57 [DanC]
Guus: about Thing/Nothing...
22:01:14 [DanC]
DebM/Ian: we think Thing merits explanation, but not Nothing.
22:02:35 [DanC]
ACTION: add Thing to owl-lite description. add Nothing to owl (full) description.
22:04:36 [DanC]
[JimH recalls how we worked on the requirements... conversation between WG member reviewers and editors; discussions that don't resolve between the two are raised to the whole group's agenda]
22:05:31 [DanC]
DebM: yes, we prefer suggested text. it's reasonable if you can't.
22:06:25 [DanC]
Guus[chair]: summarizing the discussion this morning:
22:06:36 [DanC]
(1) add a Disjoint feature to owl-lite?
22:07:00 [DanC]
straw poll: none in favor.
22:07:27 [DanC]
one in favor.
22:07:37 [DanC]
three against.
22:08:11 [DanC]
RESOLVED: to leave disjoint out of owl-lite.
22:08:37 [DanC]
(2) "complete" class descriptions, and can sameClassAs take class expressions or just names?
22:12:35 [DanC]
... recall Ian's actin to study the issue earlier...
22:14:18 [DanC]
DanC: Deb, has the feadback you've gotten so far given you pause about releasing?
22:14:50 [DanC]
DebM: I have been able to integrate much of the feedback already. No, I'm reasonably content to release with the "complete" issue outstanding.
22:15:13 [DanC]
Guus: schedule estimate?
22:15:21 [DanC]
DebM: I'm offline 6-13July
22:15:43 [DanC]
DebM: I could put something out 6Jul, and hand off to Frank at that point.
22:17:14 [DanC]
suggested schedule: draft 6Jul, discussion 11Jul, release 18Jul. [confirm pls?]
22:20:02 [DanC]
PROPOSED: release feature synposis document as a W3C WD, with editorial input thru telcon of 18Jul. (contingent on availability of reference document)
22:20:36 [DanC]
so RESOLVED.
22:22:06 [DanC]
JimH encourages folks to get their input in by 11Jul.
22:24:21 [jhendler1]
jhendler1 has joined #webont
22:50:10 [GuusS]
GuusS has joined #webont
22:52:12 [JosD]
JosD has joined #webont
22:53:05 [GuusS]
Agenda item: OWL Reference document
22:53:18 [GuusS]
Comments from Evan
22:54:51 [GuusS]
1. Different syntactic forms
22:55:21 [GuusS]
2. relation between class elements & class expressions
22:58:18 [DanC]
DanC has joined #webont
23:02:18 [GuusS]
it is difficult to grasp the distinction from the document
23:06:57 [GuusS]
Evan: class elements are constructors; expressions are axioms?!
23:07:01 [GuusS]
Ian: yes
23:07:16 [DanC]
well, sort of; not in any exact technical sense
23:12:19 [GuusS]
Eva: the document contains a lot of duplication
23:24:15 [DeborahMc]
i think the proposal touches the following 5 things:
23:24:18 [DeborahMc]
Rdf:Property
23:24:19 [DeborahMc]
Rdfs:subClassOf
23:24:19 [DeborahMc]
Rdfs:subPropertyOf
23:24:19 [DeborahMc]
Rdfs:domain
23:24:19 [DeborahMc]
Rdfs:range
23:45:44 [heflin]
heflin has joined #webont
23:48:04 [jhendler]
jhendler has joined #webont
23:48:06 [GuusS]
GuusS has joined #webont
23:48:15 [JosD]
JosD has joined #webont
23:48:17 [DanC]
DanC has joined #webont
23:48:36 [GuusS]
ACTION: Mike Dean to include explanation of class elements and expressions
23:48:36 [GuusS]
STRAW POLL
23:48:36 [GuusS]
rdfs:subclassof only: prefer 5 can live with 9
23:48:36 [GuusS]
rdfs:class + owl:subclassof: prefer N-3; can live with: N-3
23:48:36 [GuusS]
For the moment we will go with the owl:subclassof format, as this was
23:48:36 [GuusS]
the DAML+OIL way.
23:48:38 [GuusS]
ACTION: DanC to raise an issue wrt rdfs:subclassof and owl:subclassoff
23:49:22 [GuusS]
ACTION: editor to propose changed title, if deemed necessary
23:51:27 [DanC]
PROPOSED: to use for the namespace name: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
23:51:47 [DanC]
so RESOLVED.
23:52:00 [GuusS]
ACTION: Dean & Connoly to propose name space
23:52:28 [DanC]
(actually, my action is to get the above OK'd by the W3C webmaster/director; mike's is to update the reference document)