OWL Working Group -- 17 Oct 2007

<sandro> zakm, who is here?

i'll volunteer

<jjc> Note: I have not completed paperwork to join WG yet, technically I guess I am observer or something.

what do I need to do to set up as scribe?

<bijan> one sec

<bijan> Peter, see: http://dev.w3.org/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm

<bijan> Here: http://dev.w3.org/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm

<scribe> Scribe: pfps

<scribe> Scribe: Peter Patel-Schneider

<scribe> ScribeNick: pfps

<scribe> Meeting: OWL WG Teleconference

<scribe> Chair: Alan Ruttenberg

Roll Call

<Zakim> jjc, you wanted to note I am here before joining WG

jjc: not a member of the WG

sandro: jjc is invited

<sandro> jjc is Jeremy Carroll of HP

Agenda amendments

ianh: no amendments

Topc: Accept minutes

Accept Minutes

ianh: any corrections to minutes?

<sandro> PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2007.10.10/Minutes

<sandro> RESOLVED: Accept Previous Minutes: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2007.10.10/Minutes

Action items status

alan: action1 (login alignment) still in progress

ianh: action item 2 html is possible
... action item 3 comments on RIF BLD done

<sandro> Peter's comments <http://www.w3.org/mid/20071016.102615.212787570.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

Charter Review

ianh: assumption is that everyone has read all the documents (including the charter)
... quick run-through of charter followed by discussion
... scope of WG is extensions to OWL (logic, datatypes, expressive power)
... plus language fragment definition
... OWL 1.1 submission is starting point
... starting issue list is OWL 1.1. issue list plus postponed issues from WebOnt
... backwards compatability is important
... feature addition is to be conservative

<alanr> here now

<sandro> welcome, Alan-on-IRC :-)

<bijan> Structural specification

ianh: deliverables (not necessary documents) - overview, requirements, formal spec (3 docs), outreach (...), test suite, language fragments
... XML exchange syntax also possible deliverable
... timeline is quite tight, first documents beginning of Feb
... last call august 2008, ...,
... first F2F is december
... dependencies from other workings groups (on agenda)

<alanr> question, or discussion point?

bijan: backwards compability is good but not absolute

ianh: let's not make a decision, but make it a case by case basis

<alanr> a+

<bijan> This is off topic, isn't it?

vipul: multiple wikis (W3C and ESW) mean multiple logins, can they be aligned?

sandro: no

<IanH> ?q

alanr: questions on charter need resolution in the future, e.g., backwards compatability

<jjc> ack

<alanr> it's in the charter already

<alanr> no need to put it on the queue

<bijan> +1 to ianh saying "wait until backwards compt comes up to discuss it"

<achille> +1 to ianh

<sandro> Ian: Let's not talk about Backward Compatibility until we come up with a specific instance of a question about it? Any objections? No.....

Deliverables

<bijan> I just wanted to make sure it was *open* so that we *will* have that discussion rather

sandro: w3c has software for tracking issues and action items (TRACKER)

<sandro> trackbot-ng, help

<trackbot-ng> See http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/ for help (use the IRC bot link)

<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/OWL_Working_Group

sandro: trackbot-ng sits on the IRC and records things
... the owl wg home page has a pointer to the information gathered
... the web page allows management of actions and issues
... products (documents or tasks) are linked to issues and actions

<bijan> I got an email

<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/

<bijan> With: Subject: ISSUE-1 (test): Test Issue

<bijan> I see the webpage too

sandro: using the names of issues, (actions, etc) verbatim (ALLCAPS-#) in email links them in
... wiki integration is not yet available (but might be coming)

ianh: are we going to use this?

alan: PROPOSED: move all current issues to trackbot

<alanr> PROPOSED Move current issues to tracker

sandro: there was discussion of this offline

bijan: let's discuss this on email

sandro: one issue is that it would be nice to have proposed issues and accepted issues

<alanr> ok. wait one week. withdraw proposed

alanr: will there be an open-to-the-world issues list?

<bijan> Isn't that what I'm sending email about?

<alanr> yes

<alanr> +1

sandro: interest but no decision yet

ianh: for next week's agenda: discuss this

Publication Schedule

sandro: process requirements for WGs

<sandro> Sandro: Very roughly, our job, as a W3C Working Group, is to create specifications which everyone in the world regards as "good enough". ("Good enough", perhaps to by not worthwhile to produce a competing spec.)

<sandro> Sandro: The W3C process has evolved over the past ~13 years to help us achieve this goal.

<sandro> Sandro: Step 1 - we come up with a design that's a starting point; ask the world for input. (First Public Working Draft - WD1)

<trackbot-ng> Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/

<sandro> Sandro: Step 2 - we iterate the design until we think it's good enough (more Working Drafts, Last Call Working Draft - LC)

<sandro> Sandro: Step 3 - we incorporate any LC feedback to produce an even better spec, and ask for people to implement it. (Candidate Recommendation - CR)

<sandro> Sandro: Step 5 - once there is proof of interoperability, we incorporate feedback into another draft (Proposed Recommendation - PR)

<sandro> Sandro: Step 6 - the PR is evaluated by W3C members; if they approve, it becomes a Recommendation (REC).

<sandro> Sandro: If a problem comes up in the later stages, we may have to go back to step 2, iterating the design some more.

<alanr> qq?

<Zakim> jjc, you wanted to comment on step 6

jjc: step 6 is not a vote, but something different involving the director

sandro: no observable differences yet
... there is internal consultation within the W3C staff to make decisions

PROPOSED: Our first working drafts are: Structural Specification, Semantics, RDF Mapping

alanr: this means focussing on the core documents, not to say that the current versions are what the first working draft would be

<jjc> Comment: it would be more usual to publish requirements before the answers ...

<Zakim> bijan, you wanted to say we should publish earlier than F2F

bijan: working drafts are not commitments
... we should publish working drafts before the F2F
... this makes transition from webont.org to w3c space
... PROPOSE making the documents as WDs ASAP

<bijan> yes

alanr: two steps in resolution 1/ are these docs OK for WDs, 2/ when to publish

PROPOSED: existing webont documents are first WDs (appropriately edited)

<sandro> NOT RESOLVED

<IanH> PROPOSED: Our first working drafts are: Structural Specification, Semantics, RDF Mapping

<sandro> this is as-per http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/ ?

jjc: deliverables have a requirements document, which logically should preceed the technical document

<jjc> Requirements:

<jjc> A description of the goals and requirements that have motivated the design of OWL 1.1.

<sandro> ie http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/owl_specification.html http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/semantics.html and http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/rdf_mapping.html

alanr: jeremy, would doing things with requirements later damage our process

<IanH> Note: charter says that requirements are "A description of the goals and requirements that have motivated the design of OWL 1.1"

<Zakim> jjc, you wanted to note requirements logically precede

ianh: charter says that requirement doc is a description of how owl 1.1 was developed

<JeffP> +1 IanH

<bijan> -1 to internal review

vipul: shouldn't there be an internal review before the WDs are published
... my votes on other issues depend on this issue

bijan: first WG is first *public* WD

ianh: can we move the documents to editor's drafts to have the same effect

alanr: Q1 are the three documents the ones to target for first WDs

<sandro> PROPOSED-1 :Our first working drafts, to be published before the 3-month heartbeat, will be: Structural Specification, Semantics, RDF Mapping, based closely on http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/

alanr: Q2 when should we make the three documents be WDs

<ekw> +q

<IanH> ?q

<sandro> PROPOSED: Our first working drafts, to be published before the 3-month heartbeat, will be: Structural Specification, Semantics, RDF Mapping, based on the text for each of these at http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/

<sandro> PROPOSED: Our first working drafts, to be published before the 3-month heartbeat, will be: (1) Structural Specification, (2) Semantics, (3) RDF Mapping, based on the text for each of these at http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/

bijan: there was requirements work going into owl 1.1, but no doc was made
... putting requirements doc first would significantly delay technical work

<bijan> No

<sandro> Evan: Are we implying that SS fills the role of the descriptive spec?

<bijan> I do think we might evolve the structural specification toward a descriptive as well a formal specification, but that's a distinct decision.

<sandro> Ian: No -- we're implying that these three document form the technical spec

<Zakim> jjc, you wanted to suggest s/will be:/will be one or more of:/

<sandro> PROPOSED: Our first working drafts, to be published before the 3-month heartbeat, will be one or more of: (1) Structural Specification, (2) Semantics, (3) RDF Mapping, based on the text for each of these at http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/

<sandro> PROPOSED: Our first working drafts, to be published before the 3-month heartbeat, will be one: (1) Structural Specification, (2) Semantics. We may include (3) RDF Mapping in this list. These are based on the text for each of these at http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/

<bijan> The current docuemnts are already hugely public. Publishing as WD does not endorse the current design. We know it will changed. We know all three will be changed. Many times.

<sandro> jjc: HP may object to (3), so let's make it optional.

<sandro> RESOLVED: Our first working drafts, to be published before the 3-month heartbeat, will be one: (1) Structural Specification, (2) Semantics. We may include (3) RDF Mapping in this list. These are based on the text for each of these at http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/

<bijan> Which discussion?

<bijan> +1 to proposing discussion of document roles and task forces to next week

<IanH> +1

<sandro> Alan: next topic was to be authors/editors role, task areas.... I propose we put these off until next week.

<Elisa> +1

<ekw> +1 on Bijan's suggestion for email discussion of postponed items

<sandro> Bijan: When we postpone things, let's talk about it on the mailing list.

<sandro> Alan: I can create the draft of the next agenda early, and send that out, to help start discussion.

<sandro> Bijan: It doesn't need to be the whole agenda, although that's fine.

<bmotik> E-mail discussions can be tedious, though.

<IanH> +1

<bijan> There's a secodn proposal

<JeffP> +1 bye

<MarkusK> bye

<sandro> decision to adjourn, as per Alan's proposal.

<sandro> ADJOURN

<bijan> So we postpone the second decision as well?

<sandro> I guess so, Bijan! Oops.

- DRAFT -

OWL Working Group

17 Oct 2007

Attendees

Contents