09:05:15 RRSAgent has joined #webont 09:05:31 DanC has changed the topic to: WebOnt: Manchester ftf 09:05:56 Guus convenes the meeting, welcomes implementors 09:06:16 DanC has changed the topic to: WebOnt: Manchester ftf http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/ 09:06:43 Ian: recall from ftf info page (@@link): dinner at 7p at the Yang Sing etc. 09:07:22 See http://www.w3.org/2003/01/09-webont-irc#T09-06-43 09:07:51 Attendance: Schreiber. 09:08:03 -- Furguson, invited from Stanford, Protoge developer 09:08:14 -- Connolly 09:08:21 -- Barsia, UMD, invited 09:08:29 -- Weilemaker (sp?), invited 09:08:33 -- Hefflin 09:08:37 -- Dean 09:09:01 -- Stanton, DISA 09:09:02 jjc has joined #webont 09:09:08 -- Buswell, Stilo 09:09:12 -- Carroll, HP 09:09:14 mdean has joined #webont 09:09:18 -- De Roo, Afga 09:09:33 -- Jeff Pan, u. Manchester 09:09:38 -- Horrocks, Network Inference 09:09:48 -- Patel-Schneider 09:09:55 -- van Harmelen 09:10:01 -- Bajet, INRIA 09:10:15 JosD has joined #webont 09:10:16 -- ter Horst, Philips 09:10:23 -- Horan, Sun 09:10:32 -- Beckhofer (sp?), Network Inference 09:10:38 -- Crowther, NI 09:10:50 -- Berkowitz (sp?), NI 09:10:54 -- Hendler 09:11:19 GuusS has joined #webont 09:11:32 ====== Announcement from Hendler 09:11:59 JH: owl.owl award goes to Frank van Harmelen for brokering the semantic truce. 09:12:38 @@link to photo from Bijan 09:13:03 ===== Working Draft review points, around the table 09:16:13 Hendler: editor: pls note new copyright statement at http://www.w3.org/Guide/pubrules#head updated for 2003 and INRIA->ERCIM transition 09:16:25 s/editor/editors/ 09:16:49 jhendler has joined #webont 09:16:55 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 [note guus is taking notes on flipcharts; we might want pictures of those@@] 09:19:10 Horrocks: in some cases, the description of the language features are better in the synopsis. 09:20:06 Horrocks: it's clear what the purpose of guide and semantics are; what exactly are the purposes of synopsis and ref? 09:20:14 PFPS: what Horrocks said, 2nded. 09:20:57 ... 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 s/McBride/Beckett/ 09:22:11 JJC: RDFCore intends to approve Last Call Candidates tomorrow... 09:22:32 ... editor's drafts are in w3.org space; you could link there for a week and do a global search/replace later 09:22:42 PFPS: I also think Guide is in pretty good shape 09:23:15 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 ... I support the proposal from a recent telcon to make it non-normative. 09:23:36 Dave Beckett's review of Semantics: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Jan/0000.html 09:24:01 ... I think it should be more explicit about the semantics of the sublanguages. 09:24:10 Brian McBride's review of Ref: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Jan/0001.html 09:24:59 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 Baget: re synopsis: the dialects (Full/DL/Lite) are not sufficiently motivated. 09:26:43 ... 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 ... not sure where to put that. maybe in the semantics doc. 09:28:20 ter Horst: re Reference: I'd like to see more examples. it's uneven. some important sections don't have examples. 09:28:29 [something about overlap that scribe didn't catch] 09:29:26 JJC: test document provides examples; does that help? 09:29:39 ter Horst: it serves a different function. it helps, but... 09:30:23 ter Horst: re Semantics: it has come far, but re the owl full/owl dl correspondence, there is an open point. 09:31:21 ... and there are parts that are unreviewed. There's a new, very welcome, >3page [RDF-oriented description of DL?]. 09:31:48 ter Horst: I 2nd VH's comments about cross-document review. 09:32:26 Horan: as a consumer, the purpose/audience isn't clear. 09:32:32 ... esp. Guide 09:32:38 ... implementors? adopters? 09:32:54 ... lack of consistency on terms: individuals, instances, members, elements 09:33:20 ... with a background in Object Oriented Programming, Class/Instance means something completely different 09:33:43 ... whether Full/DL/Lite are different languages, dialects, vocabularies is incosnsistently documented 09:33:57 Horan: Guide is pretty good, except [missed it?] 09:34:04 [something on ref?] 09:34:48 Horan: on Guide - good but could use a better consistency w/others and who intended audience is 09:34:54 Horan: re Requirements: it seems some things haven't been met. [clarification about objectives vs. requirements] 09:35:30 Beckhofer: mostly read Guide; it looks good 09:35:54 Crowther: quite satisfied with Guide. 09:36:14 ... supportive of combining features/ref 09:36:37 Crowther: what does it mean to be OWL compliant? is a one-line shell script that accepts everything OK? 09:37:18 [skipped somebody] 09:37:41 Hendler: I read all 6 documents one day; came away feeling much more positive than before I read them... 09:38:05 ... 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 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 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 ... 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 vanH: are you suggesting to make ref shorter? 09:41:19 Hendler: yes, shorter with more links. systematic short reference with pointers. [something else?] 09:41:57 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 ... it took us hours to discover that :subj :pred :aClass isn't in OWL DL. 09:43:01 ACTION: jjc - add suvj pred aClass test case in I5.3 09:43:17 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 Hendler: re Semantics: glad we have new reviewers. Jeff Pan [sp?] reviewed Semantics. Bijan is reviewing it. 09:44:41 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 Crowther: are we saying that Reference is misnamed? "Reference" suggests a longer document. 09:45:45 Hendler: yes, a different name seems in order. 09:46:24 Furguson: read mostly Synopsis and Guide: I only have detailed comments. 09:46:36 ... synopsis easy to read. very nice. 09:46:56 DanC: comments 09:47:25 DanC: most of my stuff on earlier drafts: 09:47:30 DanC: semantics "done" 09:47:48 DanC: Guide "done" (but needs some fixes for Full, can live w) 09:48:29 DanC: Purpose of synop v. references - ref sets expectations it doesn't meet - what is shortest path to fix 09:48:36 pfps has joined #webont 09:49:11 DanC: should figure out cheapest way to fix feature v. Ref 09:49:57 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 DanC: will take more time to do so than is cost effective 09:50:45 Parsia: docs aren't "gentle" to folks from an object oriented programming, or even from RDFS. 09:51:07 ... folks taking RDFS schemas and moving to owl are going to have to do work that isn't sufficiently motivated. 09:51:37 ... e.g. classes as instances 09:52:30 Jan W [surname spelling?]: been using RDF/S for a long time... read OWL docs recently. 09:52:53 ... "what do I need to do to make an OWL system?". I guess the test cases doc will help. 09:53:22 [?]: issue isn't so much for implementor as systems integrator. [not sure I got that] 09:53:37 Jan W: better roadmap, pls. 09:54:02 Hefflin: Guide very good overall, still needs: 09:54:27 ... how to use owl ontologies to describe data. example of separate ontology from instance document 09:54:50 Jan W == Jan Wielemaker 09:55:28 [attendance + Chris Welty] 09:56:12 Hefflin: I think it would make sense to move versioning stuff from [where?] to [where?] 09:56:23 ... take some stuff from requirements on versioning 09:56:49 Hefflin: I'd rather expand the reference than the guide; keep the guide short-ish. 09:57:24 [something about abstract syntax?] 09:57:28 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 Heflin: we need to me more clear about the difference between sameClassAs and sameAs, applied to classes. 09:58:38 ACTION: jjc - check sameInstanceAs/sameClassAs tests for FULL clarify different semantics 09:58:44 vanH acknowledges this as a problem in synopsis 09:59:20 DanC: our requirements doc is exemplary, both for audience for the WG, I think. 09:59:34 Dean: I read [all the owl and RDF?] docs on the plane. 09:59:43 ... (I sent mail about dataypes, btw...) 09:59:55 Dean: I sent mail about the latest version [pointer somebody, pls?] 10:00:30 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 Mike D's email re: datatypes - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0156.html 10:01:02 Dean: McBride serves as "series editor" in RDFCore; let's consider doing that. JJC: that's a lot of work. 10:01:49 Dale: nothing to add. 10:02:28 Stanton: I think the Guide is a good rationale. 10:02:56 Stanton: on conformance, I'm not clear... conformance to what? to W3C process? [not sure I got that point?] 10:03:41 ... in my work, "degress" of interoperability don't help. One point of non-interoperability can costs zillions. 10:03:49 ... I'd like to talk about a model implementation. 10:03:57 ... or reference implementation 10:04:30 Stanton: I'd like to see an exclusion of additional features as [outside something?] 10:05:03 Buswell: most of it's been said... motivation for 3 species is lacking... should be in Guide. 10:05:17 ... Guide also needs more about imports, and the interaction with dialects. 10:05:50 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 Buswell: tool vendors will want to say their tool is "owl compliant". the MathML spec has one, for example. 10:06:39 (has a software compliance section) 10:06:40 ChrisW has joined #webont 10:06:48 JJC: in sum, they're not ready. 10:07:32 JJC: there's a lot of churn, and there are some outstanding technical issues... e.g. syntax about OWL DL/Lite. 10:08:12 ... specs say OWL DL (and hence OWL Lite) is the range of the mapping rules, but WG discussion suggests otherwise. 10:09:11 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 [scribe: OWL DL data document, I think he means] 10:09:39 JJC: [bug in abstract syntax or something? missed it?] 10:10:37 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 JJC: another technical issue: imports and levels: if you import an OWL Lite doc into into [something?], is the result [something?] 10:11:45 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0071.html contains F2F 5 version and lists outstanding issues and comments 10:12:11 ... F2F 5 version of OWL Reference 10:12:34 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 ... 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 Hendler: that two weeks doesn't make sense without committed reviewers, yes? JJC: yes. 10:14:06 JJC: conformance is an unresolved issue. Fairly crucial, I think. 10:14:37 JJC: I sent detailed review comments; I stand by those; I'm not sure how they've been disposed of... 10:15:23 [specific comment on semantics; PFPS says "fixed"] 10:16:37 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 ... Guide's level of editorial polish is quite good, as an exception. 10:18:02 JJC: re annotations on classes. In the abstract syntax, they are allowed, but with some odd-looking restrictions. 10:19:01 JJC: re features: if it makes it look easy to go from RDF to OWL [DL], it's wrong/misleading. 10:19:19 JJC: I made a comment on the list of editors for reference... not sure what the status of that is... 10:20:28 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 JJC: let's drop them both. 10:21:08 JJC: if we keep reference, [good comment; pls key it in jeremy?] 10:21:27 De Roo: I very much enjoyed reading the Guide. 10:21:51 De Roo: re reference: minor point: owl:item [isn't there? shouldn't be there?] 10:22:35 ... owl:incompatibleWith is in the reference; not sure what it means [?] 10:22:52 Guus: AllDifferent is later in the agenda... 10:23:05 De Roo: I think owl:DataType isn't needed; rdfs:Datatype is enough 10:23:39 De Roo: owl:Class, owl:Set ... merits discussion. 10:24:26 De Roo: in owl Full, we don't need [some condition about owl:Class and rdfs:Class ?] 10:25:00 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 De Roo: re conformance: I 2nd Dan's point: too early to document conformance [of software?] 10:25:28 attendance + Ziv Hellman (sp?) from Unicorn Solutions 10:25:38 de roo: we need if, not iff, for relation betw owl:class and rdfs:class 10:25:49 Hellman: I like Guide very much... 10:26:21 attendance + Chris Welty 10:26:32 Hellman: more UML diagrams [or did he mean mappings?] please. for Full, Lite, everything, please. 10:27:11 Welty: 2nd point by JJC re syntax... difficult to tell where to go to figure out syntax... 10:27:32 ... figuring out which document to go for what has been a challenge, in developing the Guide. 10:27:57 Welty: I'm nervous about the wine ontology; needs review from [folks that know what our syntax is?] 10:28:26 Dean: does latest version separate instances out? Welty: not sure. 10:29:08 Welty: I think we haven't... I think it's not hard... JJC: it is hard! 10:29:51 Frank - Dan, based on history, what do you think? 10:30:12 Dan - this WG is more critical of their documents than the web community is! 10:30:49 dan - I will argue we are done. 10:31:14 Pan: I reviewed Semantics in detail... 10:31:23 ... I made detailed comments on section [5.2?]. 10:31:34 Hendler: is it pretty much ready? Pan: yes. 10:32:01 .......... 10:32:32 Guus: after the coffee break, I'll spend 10 minutes summarizing general issues before we break. 10:32:55 Guus: the test document has a separate plenary discussion. 10:33:44 Welty to scribe next session. 10:51:26 See http://www.w3.org/2003/01/09-webont-irc#T10-33-44 10:52:53 ready to scribe second session 10:53:45 Guus and Jim want to propose a breakout session of four doc editors (not Test) during the implementation session this afternoon 10:54:16 think about a strategy for solving the term consistency problem 10:54:30 Mike wants to attend the implementation session 10:55:59 Jim suggests Mike send a replacement to the editors meeting and release "write lock" on reference 10:56:19 Jim and Guus feel it is important for editors to meet in a subgroup to address the general issues 10:57:06 Guus goes over general points - 10:57:26 combine FS & REF (shoudl be a WG discussion) 10:57:48 FvH wants to discuss this issue now before further work on them 10:58:28 Discussion of issue (whether to combine FS & REF docs) 10:58:43 FvH felt FS is the "entry point" document for OWL 10:59:11 Need to discuss what the perceived role of REF is 10:59:30 Jim agrees - need to decide what REF is supposed to be 11:00:23 MikeD - view of FS as the main document to describe the additional layers 11:00:28 but suggests we do it in small group, and then come back and discuss in more detail 11:01:39 MikeD - the REF document is a traditional reference with index of "capabilities" and descriptions of them. Feels two documents are needed 11:02:13 Herman - Is it a syntax reference? 11:03:39 MikeD - Yes for the exchange syntax - but owl.owl is the real one 11:03:53 Jeremy discusses what he thinks "syntax" really means 11:04:20 - a set of RDF triples with constraints that come from the syntax and the language levels 11:05:36 - mappings are only discussed in AS&S, and that is the only syntax 11:06:04 Jim - the AS&S is the only normative document on the language 11:06:24 - other documents should present this in more human-readable form 11:06:51 jjc - ok, the other documents are informal. How many informal documents do we need? 11:07:21 Jim - doesn't bother me, as long as they are consistent (which isn't the case now), as long as 11:07:28 - their purpose is clearly stated 11:08:28 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 JIm - FS (short synopsis, entry point document) is important to get OWL through the process 11:09:49 DanC - if REF was focused on media type registration and owl.owl, it would seem better to me 11:14:49 Guus - proposes that FS document (perhaps merged with REF) must stay 11:14:57 heflin has joined #webont 11:16:23 - not a formal proposal, no one seemed opposed, jjc and MikeD said they would have abstained 11:17:05 straw poll - 5 abstains, no opposed 11:17:54 Guus observes that there seem to be three proposals regarding REF: 11:17:59 - drop it 11:18:09 - make it correspond to media types and owl.owl 11:18:16 - make a new doc on media types 11:19:59 5 vote for "fixed editors view" 11:20:30 8 vote for new documents 11:20:58 3 for dropping it 11:21:11 6 for dropping document but moving useful material to other docs 11:21:38 Guus: summry: straw poll largely inconclusive. 11:21:41 informal vote just used as input to the editors breakout group 11:22:46 guus describes breakout sessions: FS, REF, GUIDE, SEM groups 11:22:51 make list of things to change 11:22:55 plan how to change them 11:23:00 even do the work in the session 11:23:26 Jim suggests also an intended audience description for each doc 11:23:54 Guus - consistency issues should be discussed in the editors breakout 11:24:00 Jim "suggests" = jim states as chair 11:24:15 FvH - what about differences with DAML+OIL 11:24:23 -should go in REF 11:24:43 Each breakout shoudl have a scribe 11:24:54 pls mail break-out records to connolly,guus,jimh,www-archive@w3.org 11:28:01 heflin has left #webont 11:31:40 s.buswell scribing Guide breakout group 11:32:10 present - welty, dale, horan, schreiber, hefflin 11:35:04 changes to intro definition of ontology 11:37:29 GS has created an example with OWL-full 11:38:44 bh - questions use of para on 'availability of tools' ? 11:39:44 cw - use is generic tools understanding OWL, do not need specific app. 11:40:19 also reduces level of business logic in app 11:41:40 berkowitz also in breakout group 11:47:39 cw - guide is aimed at owl ontology editors, not tool implementers 11:47:48 sb - disagrees 11:48:21 jb - supports cw, but need OWL-DL supports ... 11:49:16 gs - tried 2 examples, need things not in OWL-Lite 11:49:56 gs - ok as guide is based around OWL-DL 11:51:41 bh - waht is 'complete OWL vocabulary' ? 11:52:25 gs/cw - means language constructs 11:52:37 also say that OWL lite does not have all 11:53:31 gs - link to feature synopsis 11:54:44 reword 'type separation' tet 11:56:24 bh - ?reasoning support 'predictable' - about existence of tools or results ? 11:56:43 cw - both readings intended 12:00:36 structure - wine.owl is OWD-DL ontology with marked exceptions 12:01:02 gs - link here to semantics doc 12:04:33 ontology headers - states that doc is intended to be an ontology 12:04:57 cw - analogy is HEAD tag in HTML: ignore tagname 12:05:16 jf - can used rdf:description for this 12:06:29 jh - ontology 'means' reusable vocab 12:06:49 jh - product catalog is not ontology 12:07:03 gs - cannot make distinction 12:09:26 jh - would like to make distinction 12:10:55 bh - may want to subclass instance in someone else's ontlogy 12:14:56 gs - ?maybe rename tag 12:17:12 cw - imports has been updated 12:22:32 jh - move versioning into separate section: most users will not need this in header section 12:23:02 cw - but is part of ontology element 12:23:20 cw - put forward ref to new section 12:24:27 defining data - ref ontology from instance file ? 12:25:22 jh - ?need separate file of instances re-using wine.owl ontology ? 12:26:35 how does one convert an RDF doc into an OWL doc ? 12:26:54 need someone who knows to write this section 12:28:13 cw - we need an example 12:29:45 bh - ?identify target readers? 12:30:09 cw - OWL users defining ontologies (not tool developers) 12:52:11 bwm has joined #webont 13:27:04 jjc has joined #webont 13:32:52 JosD has joined #webont 13:33:26 ============ plenary reporting session from the different breakout sessions 13:33:38 mdean has joined #webont 13:33:41 1. Semantics 13:35:48 [@@ pointer to PFPS's summary] 13:37:25 jeremy: my email with comments on annotations 13:42:04 jeremy: points out to explain/be aware of the consequence of syntactic constaints holding for LITE/DL graphs 13:43:40 see very last paragraph in 4.1 of seamantics 13:43:49 ChrisW has joined #webont 13:43:49 ACTION Welty: explain that "in OWL Lite, all names need types" in the guide 13:44:04 .... and and in OWL DL. 13:47:14 Peter closes his discussion: do the right thing 13:47:21 2. Guide 13:48:15 pfps has joined #webont 13:48:17 [@@ pointers to ChrisW's summary] 13:48:53 GuusS has joined #webont 13:49:46 found it: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/guide-src/wine.owl 13:49:55 under 1.2. Structure of the Document 13:53:36 Guus: rdf->owl full is straight ahead 13:54:30 heflin has joined #webont 13:54:46 Chris, what were you asking me? 13:56:05 ACTION: Jeremy writes a section about the constraints to go from RDF to OWL-DL/LITE 13:56:07 You had said in the group you might be able to take that action (That jeremy took) 13:57:11 3. FS 13:57:38 rename to Overview??!!! 13:58:10 [@@ pointer to FrankVH summary] 14:02:04 FVH's FS summary http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003Jan/0021.html 14:02:53 jeremy: it sound good 14:03:23 frank: good to hear 14:04:05 \me wonders what DanC found 14:04:52 mikeD: is it the entry point? 14:05:05 frank:yes 14:05:13 4. Reference 14:05:55 JimH presents summary http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003Jan/0022.html 14:15:02 Jeremy: section 2 rather as an appendix 14:17:00 JimH: things that are currently hooked into other documents 14:18:15 Guus: main part is language structure and if you shorten that... more convinced about FS 14:19:35 IanH: a quick reference would be a good thing to hava 14:22:30 Jeremy: repeats his concern about timing specifically w.r.t. Reference 14:24:35 JimH: pipeline (document) structure versus portal/dispatch structure and feels we are more going to the latter 14:25:03 [Guus took a picture fron FimH drawing] 14:25:36 JohnS: the "kapstan" document 14:25:42 capstone 14:29:11 Guus: straw poll "option of quick reference: do we need such a document" 14:29:51 CrisW: could be achieved as an index document fron reference 14:32:34 DanC: better if all documents are uniform 14:32:45 better if *each* document is uniform 14:36:48 Guus: feeling confident to decide tomorrow 14:37:19 ============ coffee break 14:50:24 jjc has joined #webont 14:50:33 jjc has left #webont 14:50:37 seanb has joined #webont 14:50:38 jjc has joined #webont 14:51:05 Afternoon session - implmentors 14:51:13 Ray Ferguson - Protege 14:51:28 Presentation to be available at www-archive 14:53:38 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 Some systems have 100,000 classes with 50,000 instances 14:54:35 PSM = Problem Solving Methods 14:54:46 i.e. generic ways to solve problems, e.g. classification 14:55:54 heflin has left #webont 14:56:34 Protege - impl OWL Lite is hard, 14:56:49 so we will probably implement a subset of OWL Full that is not OWL Lite or OWL DL 14:58:13 Protege and RDF history - we worked on an RDF backend 14:58:25 We released it in alpha 14:58:30 it didn't work 14:59:06 so we got the reputation in the RDF world that Protege did not work for RDF 14:59:49 eventually we got a system that worked with RDF, but people no longer believed in us. 15:01:31 jhendler has joined #webont 15:02:05 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 differentFrom problem N^2 problem. 15:06:04 OWL DL and OWL Lite have restrictions ... 15:06:25 range constraints ... 15:06:54 modellers want range constraints with two classes with disjunctive semantics 15:07:55 ACTION: IanH explain how to say "range of P is A union B" in owl lite 15:08:10 Metaclasses are used by more than 50% of users 15:09:58 protege supports any integer for cardinalities ... 15:11:00 protege uses closed world assumption, but only partially enforced 15:11:30 End first presentation 15:11:34 Second presentation 15:14:53 Bijan from Mindswap 15:15:28 quit 15:16:27 use multiple ontologies and pieces of ontologies 15:17:32 seanb has joined #webont 15:18:26 See http://www.w3.org/2003/01/09-webont-irc#T15-17-32 15:18:35 bh has joined #webont 15:19:40 bh is Bernard 15:20:12 demo 15:20:26 parser tries to do the best it can with broken material 15:20:57 reasoner is not sophisticated 15:21:15 follows superclass links 15:21:48 validating markup, not sophisticated reasoning 15:22:25 some tools provide crawling, and text searches of ontology 15:23:45 xsd support 15:25:32 end demo - back to slides (SMore) 15:25:38 (demo was RIC) 15:26:28 SMore creates RDF instance data with explicit knowledge derived by reasoning 15:30:02 End presentation 15:30:06 Next presentation 15:30:27 Network Inference - Sean B. 15:36:47 Grumb les + Issues 15:36:57 freames and roundtripping 15:37:24