See also: IRC log
<trackbot-ng> Date: 24 October 2007
<sandro> Hey, Jeremy.
<sandro> scribe: Elisa
<achille> sandro, it is Achille - not AchElle.
<sandro> Sorry, Achille!
<achille> no problem
<dlm> deborah mcguinness also just joined on the phone (and irc)
<sandro> present on unknown phone lines: Ratnesh Sahay (DERI), Zhe Wu (Oracle), and Bernardo Cuenca Grau (UM)
<dlm> how can i check what p i am?
<alanr> not: 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/
Resolved: based on email discussions, this issue is reopened at this meeting
Resolved: accept minutes of meeting 10/24/2007
Peter: with regard to ACTION 1 from last week, will need this resolved in the near future
How can we transition this to the wiki if this isn't resolved
Sandro: action 1 is the log-ins?
while we can redirect links, but we can't merge at this point
strategy may be to rename accounts, use open id
if the history is attributed to your old login name rather than new, that may not be a big issue
Peter: it probably isn't too much of a problem if my inputs are split over two logins
Everyone can create logins with new names, since nothing has been edited yet
Sandro: maybe W3C logins are the proper logins to use
Alan: let's take this up this week and try to resolve it
<pfps> ok, but I'm not going to wait to get the "right" login to start doing things then
Ian: there are more people on the call than have accounts on the wiki; everyone needs to create a wiki account
<sandro> ACTION: Alan to send e-mail reminding and instructing people to make Wiki accounts [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/24-owl-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-4 - Send e-mail reminding and instructing people to make Wiki accounts [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2007-10-31].
agendum Front Page
Alan: the front page should represent consensus of what we all think it should be and what W3C would
like it to be
If someone wants to change the front page, they should send a request to the chairs and they will
<JeremyCarroll> +1 to prposal
address it accordingly
<bmotik> +1 to proposal
<Rinke> +1 to proposal
<TommieMeyer> +1 to proposal
<CarstenLutz> +1 proposal
Vipul: why is it a bad idea for anyone to add what they want (not disagreeing with guidelines, just asking)
when something is approved or disapproved, some sort of reasons should be given, and an alternative proposed
<uli> +1 to proposal
<vit> +1 to proposal
Alan: we should add these to the agenda and discuss
I'm in favor of taking a wiki approach, that said, what does it mean to be as permissive as possible
<pfps> +1 to proposal, as accidents can end up making it hard to find things (yes you can go to the history, but ...)
we should develop a set of policies that everyone can live with, but the front page may be special -
the front page may need to look a certain way depending on W3C policies, etc.
Vipul: I agree with what you're saying but this should evolve over time
Addition to agenda for next meeting to discuss further
Bijan pointed out Michelle's table from use cases
Alan: any other comments on this proposal?
<achille> +1 for the proposal
<alanr> PROPOSED: Edits to the Front Page should be vetted by WG chairs
Alan: Resolved: Edits to Front Page should be vetted by WG chairs
<alanr> Should there be a functional requirements section with links on the front page. proposed by Vipul
<alanr> for next agenda
<bijan> Blog post with Dumontier table: http://clarkparsia.com/weblog/2007/06/18/two-interesting-quotes/
<bijan> The original paper: http://webont.org/owled/2007/PapersPDF/submission_36.pdf
Vipul will work on functional requirements based on this for next time
Alan: there was a fair amount of discussion on this topic last week, that we would effectively put the
current set of documents as a public working draft, sometime before the heartbeat requirement for a public
working draft, around the 6th or 8th of January
Subsequently, there was discussion in email regarding both content and process issues
<bijan> My discussion summary, which alan just recapped: http://www.w3.org/mid/AF17523E-0EAC-41BC-8289-76B763AEFFF1@cs.man.ac.uk
In light of this, we decided to slow down a bit and reconsider how we should proceed
<vipul> Bijan, is it possible for you to post this link under publications or something on the wiki page?
<vipul> The paper above
<bijan> I presume so
<bijan> But I think it's possible for you too :)
Alan: what we're proposing is that the editing of the 3 docs, whatever comes out of this will be the first draft, but
<vipul> Well, I just got one change of mine rolled back :)
we will migrate these to the wiki and effectively, everyone who has an interest in contributing would
<bijan> That doesn't make me *more* inclined to try :)
be able to edit them in the wiki and make them our own.
<vipul> BTW, I noticed that we need a publications/resources tab on the wiki
<vipul> :) to bijan
The procedure would be to post an issue to the tracker
Use pages on the wiki to draft changes, issues will be discussed during meetings and changes made
based on resolutions
shortly before or during f2f we will make a decision about publication as first wd
then sandro will take wiki contents and format back out as draft doc
<JeremyCarroll> +1 to proposal
depending on group consensus
<ew> +1 to proposal
<bmotik_> \nick bmotik
Peter: not that it's likely to come to pass, but I'm a bit uneasy about a decision to not publish
for some period of time
Alan: it is self-imposed,
Ian: I wouldn't describe this as a publication black-out - we'll decide before a certain date
Peter: well shortly before
Bijan: one thing that caused a lot of difficulty - the proposal was to publish this week, then we
we might target the F2F instead, and say that's what we're going for, when we feel ready
<sandro> Bijan: Maybe we should just set a goal for ourselves of trying to publish before the F2F.
DLM: I was reading some of the
email, are we now proposing that we're going to have three docs
come out ...
... I want to make sure we don't have something that only theoreticians can read
Is the structural specification something we expect to be readable by a broad audience
<bmotik> Many nontheoreticians were able to use and implement OWL 1.1
Alan: we were trying to triage to see which documents were available for publication first
<bijan> +1 to bmotik
The reasoning wasn't to avoid publication of the more readable docs
We should take the same approach to the other docs, post issues, and publish them when they are ready
DLM: Now matter how hard we work, we're not going to be able to make the semantics document, for example, readable for a large audience
we need another document to come out at the same time that is readable by the broader audience
<JeremyCarroll> +1 to sense of urgency for more readable docs
Alan: what will the users go to as the ultimate set of docs we produce, and what are the steps in the process
I think what you're saying is that you want some kind of overview document to be in the first set we publish
<bijan> There's a queue!
DLM: yes or something that can take its place
Alan: it might be confusing to have some version of user docs if there is flux in the set of features discussed
DLM: But if there isn't something available that is readable, people won't be able to follow what's going on
Bijan: I'm strongly against this - reasons include that we don't have such a document available for OWL 1.1 yet, although quite a few people
have been able to comment on what we do have
There is a limit even with the OWL Guide on who can read it and comment effectively
Most working groups he has participated in recently publish tech docs first, long before publishing a guide, until the tech docs are farther along
He doesn't think that other WGs would have a problem with publishing the tech docs well in advance of the guide
We can deal with some questions in email along the way
Vipul: I agree with Deborah and disagree with Bijan
I believe that this depends on who we believe our audience is
Bijan: I work with end users all the time on various lists, and my primary customer is the end user (people building and using ontologies)
I want to provide sufficient infrastructure, including tools and documentation, that serves their needs
<bijan> I didn't say that
Vipul: this reinforces my claims, because he provides these things to implementors and technical teams
Alan: he has clarified that this isn't his primary audience
<bijan> can I clarify?
Vipul: if you think your end user is someone using OWL, then that's not the same as an end user who is a business user presenting
<alanr> wait pleae
this technology to a CIO or business users
<alanr> bijan use q ?
<sandro> Rinke, the IRC logging convention in use here has "/me" actions, like you just did, NOT included in the log. So you may want to re-enter that, if you want it in the record.
I'm in favor of Deborah's position - the first thing in the SW dev lifecycle is to go out and develop use cases (end user use cases rather than technical use cases)
<bmotik> We had two years of collecting use cases at OWL-ED, as documented in 50+ papers
<IanH> See survey at http://dme.uma.pt/jcardoso/sw-survey-2007.pdf -- seems that 80% edit OWL using Protege or SWOOP. Guide argument seems predicated on belief that "end users" will look directly at OWL.
we should bring this issue of use cases forward in the development cycle
<Rinke> I think the audience differs per document
<ew> Question for Vipul and Deb: what kind of feedback are you looking for from end users?
<bijan> Including a panel of industry people
<bijan> And a specific HCLS panel
<bijan> Plus, all this is not remotely normal behavior for a working gorup
the table Michelle developed is fantastic - we need to do the same thing in [other domains] - we need to give
<bijan> Plus if we look at the documents deb cites as models, they are not for CIOs
primacy to the end user
Ian: it seems to me that alot of this argument in favor of guides, etc. is predicated on the belief that end users will look at OWL; in a way they care less about OWL and more about the editors they use that are based on the standards
I believe that the goal is to bring all of these documents into the domain so that we can work on them as soon as possible
there is an overview document that isn't great but provides some idea of the features which we can point people to
this whole discussion has drifted quite away from the agenda - if people believe that we should start working on a guide or other doc we should propose an agenda item for that for next week
<Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to mention requirements
Jeremy: if the best way to move forward is to propose to create these end user facing documents ...
I believe that a requirements document would be useful, but agree with Ian ...
<pfps> \me can we please move on?
Vipul: I was attempting to differentiate my view of an end user ...
<ew> call the question
Alan: there is broad agreement that we should have good user facing docs
<IanH> +1 to Peter's (and my) request!
<CarstenLutz> +1 peter!
the current procedure doesn't preclude that, but talks about focus on the tech docs and working on them via the wiki
<uli> +1 to Peter and Ian and to move on
<bmotik> +1 to peter
<bernardo> +1 to peter
Do you believe that we have adequate support for these user docs (to Deb and Vipul)
<bijan> It's not clear to me that Deb and Vipul mean the same documents
Vipul: the issue may be sequencing - we should add this to a future agenda
<bijan> OWL overview, guide, and references are fairly narrowly targetd
Alan: do you agree that we can migrate the three proposed tech docs to the wiki as soon as possible, that people can raise issues, etc., and that we
can move forward to work on these between now and the F2F...
<IanH> Charter already calls for "Descriptive specification" and "User guide", so clearly we as a group are committed to working on these.
Vipul: maybe we should consider trying to publish a use cases and requirements document at the same time, which we can
take up in the next agenda
<pfps> i'm against delaying documents that are ready to wait for documents that are not
<IanH> Charter also calls for "Overview"
DLM: I was pushing much more for the overview than the guide - updating the guide is a massive amount of work
<Rinke> +1 to peter
<JeremyCarroll> A FPWD of an overview could just be the new bits for O|WL 1.1 does not to have OWL 1.0 part as well
my worry is that if the focus is just on the three docs that work on an overview would be relegated to the end of telecons and ultimately wont get addressed
<bijan> I would like some evidence of this broad user base.
<bijan> With these specific complaints
I'm trying to support a broad user base of scientists and business people who are trying to work with this
something like an overview is really critical for them
<bmotik> But nobody doubts that both an overview and a user's guie should be produced by the WG
<uli> Boris, the question is the order of publication: what goes first/what waits?
<JeremyCarroll> (I would prefer not to work on user facing docs ... not really my skill set ... but I will cheer someone else on!!)
Alan: to address the issue of these getting short shrift on the agenda - Ian and Alan are responsible for the agenda, and will make sure it gets appropriate time
I will take this seriously to make sure that all of the concerns of people in the group are considered
<Rinke> I'm all for working in parallel
are there any objections currently to adopting this proposal to the group
<IanH> PROPOSED: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Oct/0170.html
<Rinke> +1 to proposal
<JeffP> +1 to proposal
<bmotik> +1 to proposal
<Ratnesh> +1 to proposal
Alan: this document does not preclude an additional resolution that we would publish another document
on a similar schedule
<vipul> +1 conditionally to publishing the use cases document on the same schedule
<bijan> I don't think jim asbtains
not hearing any objections, and with one abstention from Jim
He indicated support for the chairs proposal
<JeremyCarroll> If Jim wants to abstain he can abstrain by e-mail
<IanH> RESOLVED: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Oct/0170.html
<pfps> these meetings are scheduled for 90 minutes, not 60
Ian: we should take a quick stab at the next agenda item ... what form these docs are going to take in the wiki or otherwise
<bijan> I propose we talk about task forces
Alan: there seems to be productive discussion on this in the mailing list at this point
Ian: I would like to get this moved forward as quickly as possible so that people can start working on the documents
Peter: I would prefer that we keep the meetings to 90 minutes
<bijan> one solution is shorter agendae
Alan: there are a number of people that can only attend for 60 minutes, and this is an issue for the entire working group, so we should address it at the next meeting
<sandro> Alan: Let's talk about meeting length next time.
Bijan: I'd like to talk about the task forces - and have some guidance about how we are going to proceed with reviews
Alan: So in between the wiki docs and task forces is the issues list, tracker, and so forth
<bijan> +1 to talking about the issues list
<JeremyCarroll> +1 to talking about issues
should we address those first or skip to the task forces
<JeremyCarroll> (i will leave in ten mins)
Peter: I'd like to be able to have something happen before the next telecon - like moving docs to the wiki, or getting the issues list set up, or something
<IanH> +1 to Peter -- let's get on with it!
Alan: the last discussion was on how we might mark up the docs
<bijan> +1 to doing stuff
Peter: we have documents in html, let's just move them over to the wiki and figure out how to deal with the math tags later
Alan: when you say html, does that mean wiki vs. html?
<uli> +1 to Peter
Sandro: right now the docs are pure html, for math will they use images or what
<bmotik> the images are used only for the diagrams in the strucutral specification
<bmotik> All other documents use plain HMTL
<bijan> +1 to the migration simply and soonly
Ian: the structural spec uses images, so it would be possible to move the other two over that don't use images, and deal with the images later
<bijan> How about moving to wiki markup over time?
<bijan> Some participation and editing is better than none
Alan: I think use of wiki mark-up is alot cleaner, I'm concerned with broad participation in editing
<bijan> And we can move over time
<bijan> if it seems happy
<bijan> to do so
there is a converter that seems to do reasonably well, but we should be sure that we can use html if that's not the case
Sandro: we don't need full html to do the equations ...
<bijan> It's not
<bijan> No scripts
Peter: I would be very surprised if there were scripts
<bmotik> We are currently using a stylesheet for the fonts in the HTML, and we are using <sub> and <sup>.
<bmotik> No scripts whatsoever
Sandro: we would convert to wiki markup but not wiki math - math equations stay in html
<bernardo> as boris sat=ys, we are just using very simple stuff for the math
<bijan> +1 to math in current html and every else in wiki syntax
Alan: the complicated stuff is in html, but the uncomplicated stuff goes to wiki markup
Sandro and I will do this before next week
<bijan> Isn't this jsut an action?
<bmotik> We were fairly strict with usage of stylesheets, so this information might be used for migration into Wiki
<bijan> Do we need a decision per se? Maybe so.
<alanr> PROPOSED: Documents to be edited using wiki markup facilities, but leave complicated markup in html. Revisit if there are problems. Target: Next TC
<bmotik> "Strict" in the sense that we tried to use them everywhere in the same way
Boris: the important bits of markup in the documents are always in style sheets, so it may be possible to automate the process of migration
Alan: that's our thought as well; the OWL WG front page was done in a similar way
<bijan> Any abstensions?
<alanr> RESOLVED: Documents to be edited using wiki markup facilities, but leave complicated markup in html. Revisit if there are problems. Target: Next TC
<achille> I am leaving in one mintute
<IanH> unmute me
<scribe> ACTION: Alan and Sandro will migrate documents to the wiki by the next telecon [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/24-owl-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-5 - And Sandro will migrate documents to the wiki by the next telecon [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2007-10-31].
agendum Task Forces
Alan: If we can get one or two of the activities identified for task forces we would be in good shape
if people can start working on issues related to backwards compatibility audits, for example, they can submit issues, comments
Bijan: we may want to create wiki pages for this
<IanH> +1 to poking Jim
Alan: There are two people that should be involved in this - I'll poke at Jim and Jeremy
we should define what this means
As soon as we can start working on test cases against the specs the better as well
If we can start to create test cases, then a harness that can be run right out of the wiki
if we can identify people who want to start working on this, that would be good
Bijan: I can start to send email out to people who might want to work on this
Alan: We should create a wiki page, and start adding these issues to the wiki
Sandro: the tracker doesn't support this yet
On the tracker page -
Alan: the last thing i noticed is that the tracker didn't let me enter an issue due to permissions
<sandro> ACTION: Sandro to edit http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/HowIssuesAreProcessed to document a REPORTED and ACCEPTED convention on issues [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/24-owl-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-6 - Edit http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/HowIssuesAreProcessed to document a REPORTED and ACCEPTED convention on issues [on Sandro Hawke - due 2007-10-31].
<bijan> sandro, the base of <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/> has group specific text...maybe we can pop some help in?
Alan: this is just an introduction to get the topic started
Ian: we skipped over this issue list in order to get to the task forces, but getting the issues and tracker sorted out
is important to supporting the task forces
now we're in a position where we may end up with two parallel issues lists
Alan: my understanding was that we were going to migrate the OWL 1.1 issues to the tracker once it was working
Ian: so what is the issue with doing that
Alan: I think it means someone has to manually do this, so perhaps we should manually move them over once the tracker is up and running
Ian: ok, we can do this offline, but we need to get to it.
<Rinke> Is there some way to 'close' the google code page?
We wanted to have a publicly open place (the google site) for people to enter issues, but that the working group should use the tracker
Ian: by moving issues to the tracker now, what happens to new issues added to the google site, and what is the status of those that are moved
<pfps> I note that the tracker requires you to log in, but then doesn't know who you are.
Alan: they are all reported, and Alan and Ian have to decide how to address those
<sandro> Indeed, pfps. :-(
It should be a lower priority to deal with new publicly added issues, but we should decide what to do with them going forward
<bijan> I can do that, probably
Ian: it would be a big commitment to continue monitoring the other list and moving issues on an ongoing basis
Alan: maybe what we can do is have people monitor this and move them accordingly
<bmotik> Wouldn't it be simpler to have just one issues list, let eveyone add issues then, but be able to flag different issues appropriately?
<IanH> Time check?
Bijan: maybe we can set it up so that they can be monitored automatically and moved
<sandro> Attendees: Sandro, Carsten, Rinke, IanH, MikeSmith, bijan, vit, Elisa_Kendall, bmotik, pfps, TommieMeyer, Alan, uli, Bernardo, Zhe_Wu, Deborah, Evan_Wallace, GiorgosStoilos, JeffP, FabienG, Ratnesh
Alan: we might be taking on more work that we are chartered to do, which I'm reluctant to do right now
Ian: just to conclude, the initial action is that we will divvy up the work to manually move these issues
to the tracker once the tracker is working sufficiently to do so
Alan: anything else we want to cover at this point
Alan: move to adjourn
<ew> Did Sandro's suggested convention for inserting into tracker get recorded somewhere?
<alanr> sandro should have action to modify the http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/HowIssuesAreProcessed to reflect it
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.128 of Date: 2007/02/23 21:38:13 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/I want/...I want/ Found Scribe: Elisa Inferring ScribeNick: Elisa Default Present: +1.312.052.aaaa, Sandro, Rinke, +49.351.4.aabb, Carsten, MikeSmith, +012736aacc, JeremyCarroll, bijan, Elisa_Kendall, vit, bmotik, pfps, Vipul_Kashyap, Alan, TommieMeyer, +1.603.897.aadd, uli, Achille, Evan_Wallace, GiorgosStoilos, Zhe_Wu, JeffP, FabienG, Deborah, Bernardo, Ratnesh, IanH Present: +1.312.052.aaaa Sandro Rinke +49.351.4.aabb Carsten MikeSmith +012736aacc JeremyCarroll bijan Elisa_Kendall vit bmotik pfps Vipul_Kashyap Alan TommieMeyer +1.603.897.aadd uli Achille Evan_Wallace GiorgosStoilos Zhe_Wu JeffP FabienG Deborah Bernardo Ratnesh IanH Regrets: SkypeOut_is_broken_(in_Germany?_worldwide?) my_regrets_for_this_telco. Found Date: 24 Oct 2007 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/10/24-owl-minutes.html People with action items: alan documents migrate sandro will WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]