IRC log of webont on 2003-01-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

09:05:15 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #webont
09:05:31 [DanC]
DanC has changed the topic to: WebOnt: Manchester ftf
09:05:56 [DanC]
Guus convenes the meeting, welcomes implementors
09:06:16 [DanC]
DanC has changed the topic to: WebOnt: Manchester ftf
09:06:43 [DanC]
Ian: recall from ftf info page (@@link): dinner at 7p at the Yang Sing etc.
09:07:22 [RRSAgent]
09:07:51 [DanC]
Attendance: Schreiber.
09:08:03 [DanC]
-- Furguson, invited from Stanford, Protoge developer
09:08:14 [DanC]
-- Connolly
09:08:21 [DanC]
-- Barsia, UMD, invited
09:08:29 [DanC]
-- Weilemaker (sp?), invited
09:08:33 [DanC]
-- Hefflin
09:08:37 [DanC]
-- Dean
09:09:01 [DanC]
-- Stanton, DISA
09:09:02 [jjc]
jjc has joined #webont
09:09:08 [DanC]
-- Buswell, Stilo
09:09:12 [DanC]
-- Carroll, HP
09:09:14 [mdean]
mdean has joined #webont
09:09:18 [DanC]
-- De Roo, Afga
09:09:33 [DanC]
-- Jeff Pan, u. Manchester
09:09:38 [DanC]
-- Horrocks, Network Inference
09:09:48 [DanC]
-- Patel-Schneider
09:09:55 [DanC]
-- van Harmelen
09:10:01 [DanC]
-- Bajet, INRIA
09:10:15 [JosD]
JosD has joined #webont
09:10:16 [DanC]
-- ter Horst, Philips
09:10:23 [DanC]
-- Horan, Sun
09:10:32 [DanC]
-- Beckhofer (sp?), Network Inference
09:10:38 [DanC]
-- Crowther, NI
09:10:50 [DanC]
-- Berkowitz (sp?), NI
09:10:54 [DanC]
-- Hendler
09:11:19 [GuusS]
GuusS has joined #webont
09:11:32 [DanC]
====== Announcement from Hendler
09:11:59 [DanC]
JH: owl.owl award goes to Frank van Harmelen for brokering the semantic truce.
09:12:38 [DanC]
@@link to photo from Bijan
09:13:03 [DanC]
===== Working Draft review points, around the table
09:16:13 [DanC]
Hendler: editor: pls note new copyright statement at updated for 2003 and INRIA->ERCIM transition
09:16:25 [DanC]
09:16:49 [jhendler]
jhendler has joined #webont
09:16:55 [DanC]
Horrocks: Guide is in good shape. Semantics in good shape. Feature synopsis and reference need work; I'd like to see them combined.
09:17:48 [DanC]
[note guus is taking notes on flipcharts; we might want pictures of those@@]
09:19:10 [DanC]
Horrocks: in some cases, the description of the language features are better in the synopsis.
09:20:06 [DanC]
Horrocks: it's clear what the purpose of guide and semantics are; what exactly are the purposes of synopsis and ref?
09:20:14 [DanC]
PFPS: what Horrocks said, 2nded.
09:20:57 [DanC]
... I'm concerned about the amount of changes in the semantics doc in the last week or so. e.g. in response to comments from McBride
09:21:23 [DanC]
09:22:11 [DanC]
JJC: RDFCore intends to approve Last Call Candidates tomorrow...
09:22:32 [DanC]
... editor's drafts are in space; you could link there for a week and do a global search/replace later
09:22:42 [DanC]
PFPS: I also think Guide is in pretty good shape
09:23:15 [DanC]
van Harmelen: re purpose of Synopsis: I suggest it's an entry point, as a preface to more serious docs like Guide, semantics.
09:23:33 [DanC]
... I support the proposal from a recent telcon to make it non-normative.
09:23:36 [jhendler]
Dave Beckett's review of Semantics:
09:24:01 [DanC]
... I think it should be more explicit about the semantics of the sublanguages.
09:24:10 [jhendler]
Brian McBride's review of Ref:
09:24:59 [DanC]
VH: I think we should pay more attention to relationships between the documents. Another review is in order there... things like links between them, checking for redundancy and consistency.
09:25:51 [DanC]
Baget: re synopsis: the dialects (Full/DL/Lite) are not sufficiently motivated.
09:26:43 [DanC]
... the motivation that seems implicit is to make implementation easier. For that purpose, some features are like "macros"; identifying those vs. a kernel would help.
09:26:56 [DanC]
... not sure where to put that. maybe in the semantics doc.
09:28:20 [DanC]
ter Horst: re Reference: I'd like to see more examples. it's uneven. some important sections don't have examples.
09:28:29 [DanC]
[something about overlap that scribe didn't catch]
09:29:26 [DanC]
JJC: test document provides examples; does that help?
09:29:39 [DanC]
ter Horst: it serves a different function. it helps, but...
09:30:23 [DanC]
ter Horst: re Semantics: it has come far, but re the owl full/owl dl correspondence, there is an open point.
09:31:21 [DanC]
... and there are parts that are unreviewed. There's a new, very welcome, >3page [RDF-oriented description of DL?].
09:31:48 [DanC]
ter Horst: I 2nd VH's comments about cross-document review.
09:32:26 [DanC]
Horan: as a consumer, the purpose/audience isn't clear.
09:32:32 [DanC]
... esp. Guide
09:32:38 [DanC]
... implementors? adopters?
09:32:54 [DanC]
... lack of consistency on terms: individuals, instances, members, elements
09:33:20 [DanC]
... with a background in Object Oriented Programming, Class/Instance means something completely different
09:33:43 [DanC]
... whether Full/DL/Lite are different languages, dialects, vocabularies is incosnsistently documented
09:33:57 [DanC]
Horan: Guide is pretty good, except [missed it?]
09:34:04 [DanC]
[something on ref?]
09:34:48 [jhendler]
Horan: on Guide - good but could use a better consistency w/others and who intended audience is
09:34:54 [DanC]
Horan: re Requirements: it seems some things haven't been met. [clarification about objectives vs. requirements]
09:35:30 [DanC]
Beckhofer: mostly read Guide; it looks good
09:35:54 [DanC]
Crowther: quite satisfied with Guide.
09:36:14 [DanC]
... supportive of combining features/ref
09:36:37 [DanC]
Crowther: what does it mean to be OWL compliant? is a one-line shell script that accepts everything OK?
09:37:18 [DanC]
[skipped somebody]
09:37:41 [DanC]
Hendler: I read all 6 documents one day; came away feeling much more positive than before I read them...
09:38:05 [DanC]
... read some other W3C specs... if we released them today, they'd be as good as some stuff that has been used a lot
09:38:47 [DanC]
Hendler: re ref/synopsis: given a lot of time, I think it might be good to combine them, but I'm not sure it's worth the time.
09:39:17 [DanC]
Hendler: re ref purpose: [2 conflicting statements of purpose] let's go with the 1st of those: an explanation if you know RDFS. not an exhaustive reference
09:40:29 [DanC]
... we worked with students on porting to owl, and we found ourselves using the ref doc a lot; it answered questions about which vocabulary terms can be used where better than other docs.
09:40:51 [DanC]
vanH: are you suggesting to make ref shorter?
09:41:19 [DanC]
Hendler: yes, shorter with more links. systematic short reference with pointers. [something else?]
09:41:57 [DanC]
Hendler: re Guide: it was mostly finished before OWL Full was decided on, so there isn't really a guide on OWL Full.
09:42:17 [DanC]
... it took us hours to discover that :subj :pred :aClass isn't in OWL DL.
09:43:01 [jjc]
ACTION: jjc - add suvj pred aClass test case in I5.3
09:43:17 [DanC]
Hendler: on features: I think it's close; as in email I sent, I suggest a section on OWL DL [and something about features of Full]
09:43:50 [DanC]
Hendler: re Semantics: glad we have new reviewers. Jeff Pan [sp?] reviewed Semantics. Bijan is reviewing it.
09:44:41 [DanC]
Mike: how much did the students use owl.owl? Hendler: not much; we didn't think to look there. more emphasis on the RDF schema for OWL seems in order.
09:45:37 [DanC]
Crowther: are we saying that Reference is misnamed? "Reference" suggests a longer document.
09:45:45 [DanC]
Hendler: yes, a different name seems in order.
09:46:24 [DanC]
Furguson: read mostly Synopsis and Guide: I only have detailed comments.
09:46:36 [DanC]
... synopsis easy to read. very nice.
09:46:56 [jjc]
DanC: comments
09:47:25 [jhendler]
DanC: most of my stuff on earlier drafts:
09:47:30 [jhendler]
DanC: semantics "done"
09:47:48 [jhendler]
DanC: Guide "done" (but needs some fixes for Full, can live w)
09:48:29 [jhendler]
DanC: Purpose of synop v. references - ref sets expectations it doesn't meet - what is shortest path to fix
09:48:36 [pfps]
pfps has joined #webont
09:49:11 [jhendler]
DanC: should figure out cheapest way to fix feature v. Ref
09:49:57 [jhendler]
DanC: Test - betw. Semantics/Guide - we may be in good shape - do NOT need a software spec -- we have met our charter and should not expand it.
09:50:09 [jhendler]
DanC: will take more time to do so than is cost effective
09:50:45 [DanC]
Parsia: docs aren't "gentle" to folks from an object oriented programming, or even from RDFS.
09:51:07 [DanC]
... folks taking RDFS schemas and moving to owl are going to have to do work that isn't sufficiently motivated.
09:51:37 [DanC]
... e.g. classes as instances
09:52:30 [DanC]
Jan W [surname spelling?]: been using RDF/S for a long time... read OWL docs recently.
09:52:53 [DanC]
... "what do I need to do to make an OWL system?". I guess the test cases doc will help.
09:53:22 [DanC]
[?]: issue isn't so much for implementor as systems integrator. [not sure I got that]
09:53:37 [DanC]
Jan W: better roadmap, pls.
09:54:02 [DanC]
Hefflin: Guide very good overall, still needs:
09:54:27 [DanC]
... how to use owl ontologies to describe data. example of separate ontology from instance document
09:54:50 [DanC]
Jan W == Jan Wielemaker
09:55:28 [DanC]
[attendance + Chris Welty]
09:56:12 [DanC]
Hefflin: I think it would make sense to move versioning stuff from [where?] to [where?]
09:56:23 [DanC]
... take some stuff from requirements on versioning
09:56:49 [DanC]
Hefflin: I'd rather expand the reference than the guide; keep the guide short-ish.
09:57:24 [DanC]
[something about abstract syntax?]
09:57:28 [jhendler]
heflin: move versioning from up near top of doc (where it appears in wine.owl file) to further towards end "now that you know how to do ontology
09:57:58 [DanC]
Heflin: we need to me more clear about the difference between sameClassAs and sameAs, applied to classes.
09:58:38 [jjc]
ACTION: jjc - check sameInstanceAs/sameClassAs tests for FULL clarify different semantics
09:58:44 [DanC]
vanH acknowledges this as a problem in synopsis
09:59:20 [DanC]
DanC: our requirements doc is exemplary, both for audience for the WG, I think.
09:59:34 [DanC]
Dean: I read [all the owl and RDF?] docs on the plane.
09:59:43 [DanC]
... (I sent mail about dataypes, btw...)
09:59:55 [DanC]
Dean: I sent mail about the latest version [pointer somebody, pls?]
10:00:30 [DanC]
Dean: I'd like to re-think the idea of putting the presentation syntaxes and MIME type stuff in the reference; they more than double the size of it.
10:00:53 [jhendler]
Mike D's email re: datatypes -
10:01:02 [DanC]
Dean: McBride serves as "series editor" in RDFCore; let's consider doing that. JJC: that's a lot of work.
10:01:49 [DanC]
Dale: nothing to add.
10:02:28 [DanC]
Stanton: I think the Guide is a good rationale.
10:02:56 [DanC]
Stanton: on conformance, I'm not clear... conformance to what? to W3C process? [not sure I got that point?]
10:03:41 [DanC]
... in my work, "degress" of interoperability don't help. One point of non-interoperability can costs zillions.
10:03:49 [DanC]
... I'd like to talk about a model implementation.
10:03:57 [DanC]
... or reference implementation
10:04:30 [DanC]
Stanton: I'd like to see an exclusion of additional features as [outside something?]
10:05:03 [DanC]
Buswell: most of it's been said... motivation for 3 species is lacking... should be in Guide.
10:05:17 [DanC]
... Guide also needs more about imports, and the interaction with dialects.
10:05:50 [DanC]
Buswell: re ref: with programmer's hat on, "Reference" suggests a formal and complete specification. If that's not what it is, rename it.
10:06:25 [DanC]
Buswell: tool vendors will want to say their tool is "owl compliant". the MathML spec has one, for example.
10:06:39 [DanC]
(has a software compliance section)
10:06:40 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #webont
10:06:48 [DanC]
JJC: in sum, they're not ready.
10:07:32 [DanC]
JJC: there's a lot of churn, and there are some outstanding technical issues... e.g. syntax about OWL DL/Lite.
10:08:12 [DanC]
... specs say OWL DL (and hence OWL Lite) is the range of the mapping rules, but WG discussion suggests otherwise.
10:09:11 [DanC]
JJC: a section of the Guide could discuss "what you need to do to an RDF document to make it an OWL data document". It's not nothing.
10:09:25 [DanC]
[scribe: OWL DL data document, I think he means]
10:09:39 [DanC]
JJC: [bug in abstract syntax or something? missed it?]
10:10:37 [DanC]
JJC: semantics have a "list of values" in the abstract syntax... it's a real pain to write in RDF. we need at least one example somewhere of how to write it, if we're serious about the language being that way.
10:11:23 [DanC]
JJC: another technical issue: imports and levels: if you import an OWL Lite doc into into [something?], is the result [something?]
10:11:45 [mdean] contains F2F 5 version and lists outstanding issues and comments
10:12:11 [mdean]
... F2F 5 version of OWL Reference
10:12:34 [DanC]
JJC: re process: I'm not prepared to vote on [decide] last call until we have 2 weeks to review stable documents...
10:13:10 [DanC]
... the mapping rules have changed, for good reason, about every day for the last weeks. We [I] can't begin to review until those mapping rules stabilize.
10:13:34 [DanC]
Hendler: that two weeks doesn't make sense without committed reviewers, yes? JJC: yes.
10:14:06 [DanC]
JJC: conformance is an unresolved issue. Fairly crucial, I think.
10:14:37 [DanC]
JJC: I sent detailed review comments; I stand by those; I'm not sure how they've been disposed of...
10:15:23 [DanC]
[specific comment on semantics; PFPS says "fixed"]
10:16:37 [DanC]
JJC: re comments from McBride and Beckett: what I take away is that the overall level of polish isn't there. e.g. hyperlinking; for each term, it should have exactly one home, with other docs pointing there.
10:17:07 [DanC]
... Guide's level of editorial polish is quite good, as an exception.
10:18:02 [DanC]
JJC: re annotations on classes. In the abstract syntax, they are allowed, but with some odd-looking restrictions.
10:19:01 [DanC]
JJC: re features: if it makes it look easy to go from RDF to OWL [DL], it's wrong/misleading.
10:19:19 [DanC]
JJC: I made a comment on the list of editors for reference... not sure what the status of that is...
10:20:28 [DanC]
JJC: re status of features/reference: recently we talked about features being informative and reference being normative... discussion here suggests reference should be informative. re path of least action: it's to drop them.
10:20:35 [DanC]
JJC: let's drop them both.
10:21:08 [DanC]
JJC: if we keep reference, [good comment; pls key it in jeremy?]
10:21:27 [DanC]
De Roo: I very much enjoyed reading the Guide.
10:21:51 [DanC]
De Roo: re reference: minor point: owl:item [isn't there? shouldn't be there?]
10:22:35 [DanC]
... owl:incompatibleWith is in the reference; not sure what it means [?]
10:22:52 [DanC]
Guus: AllDifferent is later in the agenda...
10:23:05 [DanC]
De Roo: I think owl:DataType isn't needed; rdfs:Datatype is enough
10:23:39 [DanC]
De Roo: owl:Class, owl:Set ... merits discussion.
10:24:26 [DanC]
De Roo: in owl Full, we don't need [some condition about owl:Class and rdfs:Class ?]
10:25:00 [DanC]
De Roo: re presentation syntax, let's keep in mind that they're non-normative. Document it better, if it's not clear.
10:25:15 [DanC]
De Roo: re conformance: I 2nd Dan's point: too early to document conformance [of software?]
10:25:28 [DanC]
attendance + Ziv Hellman (sp?) from Unicorn Solutions
10:25:38 [jhendler]
de roo: we need if, not iff, for relation betw owl:class and rdfs:class
10:25:49 [DanC]
Hellman: I like Guide very much...
10:26:21 [jhendler]
attendance + Chris Welty
10:26:32 [DanC]
Hellman: more UML diagrams [or did he mean mappings?] please. for Full, Lite, everything, please.
10:27:11 [DanC]
Welty: 2nd point by JJC re syntax... difficult to tell where to go to figure out syntax...
10:27:32 [DanC]
... figuring out which document to go for what has been a challenge, in developing the Guide.
10:27:57 [DanC]
Welty: I'm nervous about the wine ontology; needs review from [folks that know what our syntax is?]
10:28:26 [DanC]
Dean: does latest version separate instances out? Welty: not sure.
10:29:08 [DanC]
Welty: I think we haven't... I think it's not hard... JJC: it is hard!
10:29:51 [jhendler]
Frank - Dan, based on history, what do you think?
10:30:12 [jhendler]
Dan - this WG is more critical of their documents than the web community is!
10:30:49 [jhendler]
dan - I will argue we are done.
10:31:14 [DanC]
Pan: I reviewed Semantics in detail...
10:31:23 [DanC]
... I made detailed comments on section [5.2?].
10:31:34 [DanC]
Hendler: is it pretty much ready? Pan: yes.
10:32:01 [DanC]
10:32:32 [DanC]
Guus: after the coffee break, I'll spend 10 minutes summarizing general issues before we break.
10:32:55 [DanC]
Guus: the test document has a separate plenary discussion.
10:33:44 [DanC]
Welty to scribe next session.
10:51:26 [RRSAgent]
10:52:53 [ChrisW]
ready to scribe second session
10:53:45 [ChrisW]
Guus and Jim want to propose a breakout session of four doc editors (not Test) during the implementation session this afternoon
10:54:16 [ChrisW]
think about a strategy for solving the term consistency problem
10:54:30 [ChrisW]
Mike wants to attend the implementation session
10:55:59 [ChrisW]
Jim suggests Mike send a replacement to the editors meeting and release "write lock" on reference
10:56:19 [ChrisW]
Jim and Guus feel it is important for editors to meet in a subgroup to address the general issues
10:57:06 [ChrisW]
Guus goes over general points -
10:57:26 [ChrisW]
combine FS & REF (shoudl be a WG discussion)
10:57:48 [ChrisW]
FvH wants to discuss this issue now before further work on them
10:58:28 [ChrisW]
Discussion of issue (whether to combine FS & REF docs)
10:58:43 [ChrisW]
FvH felt FS is the "entry point" document for OWL
10:59:11 [ChrisW]
Need to discuss what the perceived role of REF is
10:59:30 [ChrisW]
Jim agrees - need to decide what REF is supposed to be
11:00:23 [ChrisW]
MikeD - view of FS as the main document to describe the additional layers
11:00:28 [jhendler]
but suggests we do it in small group, and then come back and discuss in more detail
11:01:39 [ChrisW]
MikeD - the REF document is a traditional reference with index of "capabilities" and descriptions of them. Feels two documents are needed
11:02:13 [ChrisW]
Herman - Is it a syntax reference?
11:03:39 [ChrisW]
MikeD - Yes for the exchange syntax - but owl.owl is the real one
11:03:53 [ChrisW]
Jeremy discusses what he thinks "syntax" really means
11:04:20 [ChrisW]
- a set of RDF triples with constraints that come from the syntax and the language levels
11:05:36 [ChrisW]
- mappings are only discussed in AS&S, and that is the only syntax
11:06:04 [ChrisW]
Jim - the AS&S is the only normative document on the language
11:06:24 [ChrisW]
- other documents should present this in more human-readable form
11:06:51 [ChrisW]
jjc - ok, the other documents are informal. How many informal documents do we need?
11:07:21 [ChrisW]
Jim - doesn't bother me, as long as they are consistent (which isn't the case now), as long as
11:07:28 [ChrisW]
- their purpose is clearly stated
11:08:28 [ChrisW]
jjc - given that a lot of people want to finish, isn't it less work to just drop reference? Doc doens't seem to serve a purpose
11:09:19 [ChrisW]
JIm - FS (short synopsis, entry point document) is important to get OWL through the process
11:09:49 [ChrisW]
DanC - if REF was focused on media type registration and owl.owl, it would seem better to me
11:14:49 [ChrisW]
Guus - proposes that FS document (perhaps merged with REF) must stay
11:14:57 [heflin]
heflin has joined #webont
11:16:23 [ChrisW]
- not a formal proposal, no one seemed opposed, jjc and MikeD said they would have abstained
11:17:05 [ChrisW]
straw poll - 5 abstains, no opposed
11:17:54 [ChrisW]
Guus observes that there seem to be three proposals regarding REF:
11:17:59 [ChrisW]
- drop it
11:18:09 [ChrisW]
- make it correspond to media types and owl.owl
11:18:16 [ChrisW]
- make a new doc on media types
11:19:59 [ChrisW]
5 vote for "fixed editors view"
11:20:30 [ChrisW]
8 vote for new documents
11:20:58 [ChrisW]
3 for dropping it
11:21:11 [ChrisW]
6 for dropping document but moving useful material to other docs
11:21:38 [DanC]
Guus: summry: straw poll largely inconclusive.
11:21:41 [ChrisW]
informal vote just used as input to the editors breakout group
11:22:46 [ChrisW]
guus describes breakout sessions: FS, REF, GUIDE, SEM groups
11:22:51 [ChrisW]
make list of things to change
11:22:55 [ChrisW]
plan how to change them
11:23:00 [ChrisW]
even do the work in the session
11:23:26 [ChrisW]
Jim suggests also an intended audience description for each doc
11:23:54 [ChrisW]
Guus - consistency issues should be discussed in the editors breakout
11:24:00 [jhendler]
Jim "suggests" = jim states as chair
11:24:15 [ChrisW]
FvH - what about differences with DAML+OIL
11:24:23 [ChrisW]
-should go in REF
11:24:43 [ChrisW]
Each breakout shoudl have a scribe
11:24:54 [DanC]
pls mail break-out records to connolly,guus,jimh,
11:28:01 [heflin]
heflin has left #webont
11:31:40 [ChrisW]
s.buswell scribing Guide breakout group
11:32:10 [ChrisW]
present - welty, dale, horan, schreiber, hefflin
11:35:04 [ChrisW]
changes to intro definition of ontology
11:37:29 [ChrisW]
GS has created an example with OWL-full
11:38:44 [ChrisW]
bh - questions use of para on 'availability of tools' ?
11:39:44 [ChrisW]
cw - use is generic tools understanding OWL, do not need specific app.
11:40:19 [ChrisW]
also reduces level of business logic in app
11:41:40 [ChrisW]
berkowitz also in breakout group
11:47:39 [ChrisW]
cw - guide is aimed at owl ontology editors, not tool implementers
11:47:48 [ChrisW]
sb - disagrees
11:48:21 [ChrisW]
jb - supports cw, but need OWL-DL supports ...
11:49:16 [ChrisW]
gs - tried 2 examples, need things not in OWL-Lite
11:49:56 [ChrisW]
gs - ok as guide is based around OWL-DL
11:51:41 [ChrisW]
bh - waht is 'complete OWL vocabulary' ?
11:52:25 [ChrisW]
gs/cw - means language constructs
11:52:37 [ChrisW]
also say that OWL lite does not have all
11:53:31 [ChrisW]
gs - link to feature synopsis
11:54:44 [ChrisW]
reword 'type separation' tet
11:56:24 [ChrisW]
bh - ?reasoning support 'predictable' - about existence of tools or results ?
11:56:43 [ChrisW]
cw - both readings intended
12:00:36 [ChrisW]
structure - wine.owl is OWD-DL ontology with marked exceptions
12:01:02 [ChrisW]
gs - link here to semantics doc
12:04:33 [ChrisW]
ontology headers - states that doc is intended to be an ontology
12:04:57 [ChrisW]
cw - analogy is HEAD tag in HTML: ignore tagname
12:05:16 [ChrisW]
jf - can used rdf:description for this
12:06:29 [ChrisW]
jh - ontology 'means' reusable vocab
12:06:49 [ChrisW]
jh - product catalog is not ontology
12:07:03 [ChrisW]
gs - cannot make distinction
12:09:26 [ChrisW]
jh - would like to make distinction
12:10:55 [ChrisW]
bh - may want to subclass instance in someone else's ontlogy
12:14:56 [ChrisW]
gs - ?maybe rename tag
12:17:12 [ChrisW]
cw - imports has been updated
12:22:32 [ChrisW]
jh - move versioning into separate section: most users will not need this in header section
12:23:02 [ChrisW]
cw - but is part of ontology element
12:23:20 [ChrisW]
cw - put forward ref to new section
12:24:27 [ChrisW]
defining data - ref ontology from instance file ?
12:25:22 [ChrisW]
jh - ?need separate file of instances re-using wine.owl ontology ?
12:26:35 [ChrisW]
how does one convert an RDF doc into an OWL doc ?
12:26:54 [ChrisW]
need someone who knows to write this section
12:28:13 [ChrisW]
cw - we need an example
12:29:45 [ChrisW]
bh - ?identify target readers?
12:30:09 [ChrisW]
cw - OWL users defining ontologies (not tool developers)
12:52:11 [bwm]
bwm has joined #webont
13:27:04 [jjc]
jjc has joined #webont
13:32:52 [JosD]
JosD has joined #webont
13:33:26 [JosD]
============ plenary reporting session from the different breakout sessions
13:33:38 [mdean]
mdean has joined #webont
13:33:41 [JosD]
1. Semantics
13:35:48 [JosD]
[@@ pointer to PFPS's summary]
13:37:25 [JosD]
jeremy: my email with comments on annotations
13:42:04 [JosD]
jeremy: points out to explain/be aware of the consequence of syntactic constaints holding for LITE/DL graphs
13:43:40 [JosD]
see very last paragraph in 4.1 of seamantics
13:43:49 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #webont
13:43:49 [DanC]
ACTION Welty: explain that "in OWL Lite, all names need types" in the guide
13:44:04 [DanC]
.... and and in OWL DL.
13:47:14 [JosD]
Peter closes his discussion: do the right thing
13:47:21 [JosD]
2. Guide
13:48:15 [pfps]
pfps has joined #webont
13:48:17 [JosD]
[@@ pointers to ChrisW's summary]
13:48:53 [GuusS]
GuusS has joined #webont
13:49:46 [DanC]
found it:
13:49:55 [DanC]
under 1.2. Structure of the Document
13:53:36 [JosD]
Guus: rdf->owl full is straight ahead
13:54:30 [heflin]
heflin has joined #webont
13:54:46 [heflin]
Chris, what were you asking me?
13:56:05 [JosD]
ACTION: Jeremy writes a section about the constraints to go from RDF to OWL-DL/LITE
13:56:07 [ChrisW]
You had said in the group you might be able to take that action (That jeremy took)
13:57:11 [JosD]
3. FS
13:57:38 [JosD]
rename to Overview??!!!
13:58:10 [JosD]
[@@ pointer to FrankVH summary]
14:02:04 [JosD]
FVH's FS summary
14:02:53 [JosD]
jeremy: it sound good
14:03:23 [JosD]
frank: good to hear
14:04:05 [ChrisW]
\me wonders what DanC found
14:04:52 [JosD]
mikeD: is it the entry point?
14:05:05 [JosD]
14:05:13 [JosD]
4. Reference
14:05:55 [JosD]
JimH presents summary
14:15:02 [JosD]
Jeremy: section 2 rather as an appendix
14:17:00 [JosD]
JimH: things that are currently hooked into other documents
14:18:15 [JosD]
Guus: main part is language structure and if you shorten that... more convinced about FS
14:19:35 [JosD]
IanH: a quick reference would be a good thing to hava
14:22:30 [JosD]
Jeremy: repeats his concern about timing specifically w.r.t. Reference
14:24:35 [JosD]
JimH: pipeline (document) structure versus portal/dispatch structure and feels we are more going to the latter
14:25:03 [JosD]
[Guus took a picture fron FimH drawing]
14:25:36 [JosD]
JohnS: the "kapstan" document
14:25:42 [DanC]
14:29:11 [JosD]
Guus: straw poll "option of quick reference: do we need such a document"
14:29:51 [JosD]
CrisW: could be achieved as an index document fron reference
14:32:34 [JosD]
DanC: better if all documents are uniform
14:32:45 [DanC]
better if *each* document is uniform
14:36:48 [JosD]
Guus: feeling confident to decide tomorrow
14:37:19 [JosD]
============ coffee break
14:50:24 [jjc]
jjc has joined #webont
14:50:33 [jjc]
jjc has left #webont
14:50:37 [seanb]
seanb has joined #webont
14:50:38 [jjc]
jjc has joined #webont
14:51:05 [jjcscribe]
Afternoon session - implmentors
14:51:13 [jjcscribe]
Ray Ferguson - Protege
14:51:28 [jjcscribe]
Presentation to be available at www-archive
14:53:38 [DanC]
RayF: when rule systems can't handle feature X, we advise our users to just don't use feature X; we get by that way.
14:53:41 [jjcscribe]
Some systems have 100,000 classes with 50,000 instances
14:54:35 [jjcscribe]
PSM = Problem Solving Methods
14:54:46 [jjcscribe]
i.e. generic ways to solve problems, e.g. classification
14:55:54 [heflin]
heflin has left #webont
14:56:34 [jjcscribe]
Protege - impl OWL Lite is hard,
14:56:49 [jjcscribe]
so we will probably implement a subset of OWL Full that is not OWL Lite or OWL DL
14:58:13 [jjcscribe]
Protege and RDF history - we worked on an RDF backend
14:58:25 [jjcscribe]
We released it in alpha
14:58:30 [jjcscribe]
it didn't work
14:59:06 [jjcscribe]
so we got the reputation in the RDF world that Protege did not work for RDF
14:59:49 [jjcscribe]
eventually we got a system that worked with RDF, but people no longer believed in us.
15:01:31 [jhendler]
jhendler has joined #webont
15:02:05 [DanC]
hmm... I wonder why "you don't want to use an RDF parser for OWL". We use RDF triple-stores for OWL all the time.
15:04:33 [jjcscribe]
differentFrom problem N^2 problem.
15:06:04 [jjcscribe]
OWL DL and OWL Lite have restrictions ...
15:06:25 [jjcscribe]
range constraints ...
15:06:54 [jjcscribe]
modellers want range constraints with two classes with disjunctive semantics
15:07:55 [DanC]
ACTION: IanH explain how to say "range of P is A union B" in owl lite
15:08:10 [jjcscribe]
Metaclasses are used by more than 50% of users
15:09:58 [jjcscribe]
protege supports any integer for cardinalities ...
15:11:00 [jjcscribe]
protege uses closed world assumption, but only partially enforced
15:11:30 [jjcscribe]
End first presentation
15:11:34 [jjcscribe]
Second presentation
15:14:53 [jjcscribe]
Bijan from Mindswap
15:15:28 [seanb]
15:16:27 [jjcscribe]
use multiple ontologies and pieces of ontologies
15:17:32 [seanb]
seanb has joined #webont
15:18:26 [RRSAgent]
15:18:35 [bh]
bh has joined #webont
15:19:40 [bh]
bh is Bernard
15:20:12 [jjcscribe]
15:20:26 [jjcscribe]
parser tries to do the best it can with broken material
15:20:57 [jjcscribe]
reasoner is not sophisticated
15:21:15 [jjcscribe]
follows superclass links
15:21:48 [jjcscribe]
validating markup, not sophisticated reasoning
15:22:25 [jjcscribe]
some tools provide crawling, and text searches of ontology
15:23:45 [jjcscribe]
xsd support
15:25:32 [jjcscribe]
end demo - back to slides (SMore)
15:25:38 [jjcscribe]
(demo was RIC)
15:26:28 [jjcscribe]
SMore creates RDF instance data with explicit knowledge derived by reasoning
15:30:02 [jjcscribe]
End presentation
15:30:06 [jjcscribe]
Next presentation
15:30:27 [jjcscribe]
Network Inference - Sean B.
15:36:47 [jjcscribe]
Grumb les + Issues
15:36:57 [jjcscribe]
freames and roundtripping
15:37:24 [jjcscribe]
compliance is very important
15:38:06 [jjcscribe]
datatypes ignored
15:39:41 [jjcscribe]
reasoning is classification and satisfiability
15:39:51 [jjcscribe]
Peter Crowther continues ...
15:44:27 [jjcscribe]
On real systems Query writers are not the ontology designers
15:44:42 [jjcscribe]
contrast this with research situatuon where it is the same person
15:48:06 [DanC]
---- break
16:02:10 [jjcscribe]
next presentation
16:02:22 [jjcscribe]
Jan from SWI Prolog
16:02:40 [jjcscribe]
Demo MIA tool
16:03:18 [jjcscribe]
annotate photos and pictures
16:03:47 [jjcscribe]
use various DB with info about terms from art world, and wordnet
16:04:09 [jjcscribe]
tool does some inheritance based reasoning
16:05:17 [jjcscribe]
both class and proeprty hierarchies shown from AAT and WOrdnet
16:05:25 [jjcscribe]
translated into RDF
16:05:47 [jjcscribe]
ontology browser
16:06:05 [jjcscribe]
can view class as class or class as instance
16:06:16 [jjcscribe]
browser not editor
16:06:28 [jjcscribe]
end demo - start slides
16:08:33 [jjcscribe]
currently based on RDFS if we move to OWL it will be OWL full
16:08:46 [jjcscribe]
because we don't need the formal reasoning and we need metaclasses
16:09:40 [jjcscribe]
no standards for translating ontology into RDFS
16:09:47 [jjcscribe]
we did a home-brew
16:11:26 [jjcscribe]
wordnet:hyponymOf rdfs:subpropertyOf rdfs:subClassOf .
16:11:38 [jjcscribe]
allows reinterpreting of whole database
16:16:55 [jhendler]
jhendler has joined #webont
16:20:02 [JosD]
16:20:50 [jjcscribe]
end presentation
16:24:02 [jjcscribe]
start presentation - Raphael
16:35:24 [jjcscribe]
end presentation - see slides on archive
16:36:18 [jjcscribe]
start presentation - Jeff Heflin
16:36:44 [jjcscribe]
demo of D+O query tool
16:36:50 [jjcscribe]
takes in ontologies and instance data
16:37:08 [jjcscribe]
shows hierarchies of ontologies
16:37:27 [jjcscribe]
filtues ontologies
16:37:33 [jjcscribe]
filtures ontologies
16:38:25 [jjcscribe]
MS Access underlying this,
16:38:36 [jjcscribe]
does not have enough power,
16:38:47 [jjcscribe]
use FACT at load tiome to compute subsumption hierarchy
16:40:22 [jjcscribe]
database is pretty fast approach
16:41:56 [jjcscribe]
end presentation
16:42:12 [jjcscribe]
start presentation - Jos De Roo
16:48:59 [jjcscribe]
live session showing passing of RDF entailement tests and many of the OWL tests.
16:49:37 [jjcscribe]
proof is output ...
16:50:33 [jjcscribe]
jos complains is test haven't finished during his short presentation!
16:51:44 [jjcscribe]
concluding slides ...
16:52:00 [jjcscribe]
shows medical application to do with leg length
16:53:53 [jjcscribe]
proof finished end of presentation
16:54:21 [DanC]
very nifty stuff, that Euler.
16:55:02 [jjcscribe]
next presentation - Mike Dean
16:55:14 [jjcscribe]
OWL Validator - update on DAML validator
16:55:34 [jjcscribe]
anlagous to lint for C
16:58:00 [jjcscribe]
RDF parser not quite up to date (no datatype support, Jena 1.6.0)
17:00:22 [jjcscribe]
The validator "validates" against owl.owl
17:02:28 [jjcscribe]
DAML programme is migrating to OWL ....
17:08:54 [jhendler]
Jeremy - Jena update
17:09:01 [jjcscribe]
jjc: jena 1 stream is complete
17:09:04 [jhendler]
Jeremy - Jena 1 reahing end of its life
17:09:15 [jhendler]
Jeremy - Jena going to
17:09:24 [jjcscribe]
next - RDF support with new specs
17:09:34 [jhendler]
... support for RDF w/new specs
17:09:47 [jhendler]
Jena 2 CVS available
17:09:59 [jhendler]
i.e. pre-alpha
17:10:15 [jhendler]
RDF 2003 compliant parser
17:10:21 [jhendler]
N3 output
17:10:31 [jhendler]
Daml support not yet migrated
17:10:54 [jhendler]
expect to migrate DAML stuff, put OWL stuff "on top of it"
17:11:32 [jjcscribe]
reasoning - will use other peoples reasoners
17:11:33 [jhendler]
not clear what reasoning J2 will support - ideal is for Jena to use other people's reasoners with an API/connection to other Jena components
17:12:03 [jhendler]
J2 will do better support for ontology stuff going to DB
17:12:14 [jhendler]
pressure on us to move to OWL
17:12:29 [jhendler]
pressure on us to become RDF Core reference architecture
17:12:57 [jhendler]
datatype support in their now - Jos - but not complere - Jeremy - coming along
17:13:17 [jhendler]
working out our "where to go next" in next couple of weeks
17:13:42 [jhendler]
Plan release of parser very soon, and release of rest of stuff (pre-alpha) not too long from now
17:14:02 [jhendler]
hope to have RDF 2003 w/in time of RDF 2003 move from LC to CR/PR
17:21:40 [jjcscribe]
connolly shows some demos from SWAP
17:22:31 [jjcscribe]
connolly tries to show some demos from SWAP - "I am losing hopelessly"
17:23:45 [jjcscribe]
eventual usccess - showing png giving flight plan
17:24:23 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #webont
17:24:35 [ChrisW]
what's the email address to send scribe notes?
17:25:24 [jjcscribe]
17:27:35 [jjcscribe]
connolly also shows an OTTER proof of the statecode test
17:27:45 [jjcscribe]
(see www-archive for Jan 2003)
17:28:11 [jjcscribe]
end presentation
17:29:33 [jjcscribe]
Chris Welty reports back from break out group
17:38:17 [jjcscribe]
discussion of normative status of TEST - current status OK
17:38:23 [jjcscribe]
discussion of owl.owl
17:38:41 [jjcscribe]
current status not OK - technical problems with comments, - true in all interpreations?
17:39:08 [seanb]
seanb has left #webont
17:39:16 [jjcscribe]
close for day.