See also: IRC log
<alanr_> All: 41# puts you on the queue
<alanr_> 40# takes you off
<alanr_> 61# mutes
<alanr_> 60# unmutes
<bijan> Uhm, a lot of the Eu people mimght be confused on this point
<bijan> uli was too
<sandro> Adding topics after the fact is easy enough.
<bijan> am I muted?
<alanr_> PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes
<alanr_> RESOLVED: Accept Previous Minutes
<sandro> Who just joined?
<sandro> And who is here from DERI Galway -- Ratnesh?
Issues List: Migrated all issues from OWLED to Tracker
<Ratnesh> yes ratnesh
<Ratnesh> Ratnesh from DERI Galway
<dlm> is there a link to where we are being pointed to look?
<sandro> Attendees: DeborahMcGuiness, Alan, Vipul_Kashyap, Evan_Wallace, Rinke, Ivan, bmotik, Jeremy, MartinD, Sandro, Fabien, Achille, Zhe_Wu, Ratnesh, bijan, pfps, uli, MikeSmith
Issues List: Evan couldn't find an Issue on the Issue List
Issues List: Evan asking about the completeness of the Issues List
Issues List:: Complete wrt google-code and OWL
Issues List: Alan suggests adding issues that were not transferred should be added
<Fabian> Why I am not on the attendees list?
<sandro> Sorry, do we have Fabien here today, or only Fabian?
Issues List: Jeremy wants to migrate issues from the OWL comments list
<sandro> Attendees: DeborahMcGuiness, Alan, Vipul_Kashyap, Evan_Wallace, Rinke, Ivan, bmotik, Jeremy, MartinD, Sandro, Fabian, Achille, Zhe_Wu, Ratnesh, bijan, pfps, uli, MikeSmith
<sandro> corrected, Fabian.
Jeremy: Less Technical Documents (LTDs): Would like to find User Facing Documents Task Force
LTDs: Documents such as OWL 1.0 Overview, Reference, User Guide
UFDs: Reuse OWL 1.0 Overview to create OWL 1.1 Overview in time for the Manchester F2F
<sandro> vipul, don't use "Foo: ....." unless "Foo" is a person's name.
UFDs: Work on the relating to
features to requirements - Traceability Matrix
... Form a task force and report back to the main group
<sandro> Jeremy: The proposal is to form a Task Force
Bijan: Objection: WG will consider these as publication tracks
Alan: Bijan's points - WG
documents should not be the only outlet for the UFDs
... What put to on XML page for OWL for instance
... Appropriate use of WG time .. making sure that this would not interfere with WG Tasks
... Parallel track
... Off WG meetings
... Further approval of documents
<sandro> (Who is +1.408.774.aabb ? )
<Zakim> Jeremy, you wanted to mention charter
Jeremy: Don't want to be not responsive to you
<alanr_> deb next
<alanr_> then ew, bijan
Jeremy: Hence called "Less
... Charter Section 2 specifically taks about documents which all 5 of us want to produce
Bijan: Variety of users
... Not objecting to producing variety of documents
<sandro> bijan: "Outreach documents"
Bijan: That is the only or the
best way to meeting the requirements of the WG charter
... Would like a discussion on this
... Need to sanction whether these are WG documents
<sandro> Bijan: People working on these documents should understand that they might not become WG documents. They might not be how we meet the charter requirement.
Deborah: Something like OWL 1.1 Overivew document out
<Jeremy> No: Deb said OWL 1.0 Overview doc
Deborah: If disagreement about that ... we need a discussion before we put energy in it
<sandro> Deb: If there is disagreement about whether we'll publish something like this, I'd want to hear that disagreement NOW.
Deborah.: OWL 1.1 Overview similar to OWL 1.0 Overview document?
Alan: OWL Overview is simple
presentation of features
... Goal is to produce something of that nature
<bijan> I'll note that I have an interest in working on an Overview document
Alan: Goal of the traceability
document is to have features related to a set of use cases in
... Demonstrate the value of OWL 1.1 over OWL 1.0
<pfps> I am also interested working in an Overview document.
Alan: Issues with some features
Bijan: Overview document will be
... Traceability committed to producing
... Not convinced that it is useful use of your time
... Longevity problems
Alan: Have examples where documents didn't age gracefully?
... Document like requirements document kept live would not be good
<Fabian> I am afraid zakim mistakes me for Fabien. How do I change that?
Jeremy: Traceability is a short term document
<ew> +1 to Jeremy's comment
<Zakim> Jeremy, you wanted to address longevity
<Jeremy> Vipul: we can decide whetehr traceability has long-term value, in the future - we don't need to decide now
Bijan: Communicating to people
... WD may not be the best way to do that
... Feature matrices are very useful for adoption, etc.
... That gets stale over time
... Have some commitment that they could be updated
<dlm> whop yes i did
Deborah: Is OWL 1.0 Overview is a big risk for becoming outdated
<pfps> I'm not keen on an OWL 1.0 style document - it is rather long
<bijan> I would have attended the TF but it came up too quickly forme
<Zakim> Jeremy, you wanted to ask for action to convene next 'user facing' tf meeting
<scribe> ACTION: Jeremy to convene the next UFD task force [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/31-owl-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - Jeremy
<sandro> Alas, Jeremy, you're not officially in the WG yet, so the tracker can't track actions on you.....
<bijan> You can put it in my name
alan: Agreement requirement on
the definition of backward compatibility
... Task Force for Test Cases
<bijan> And I'll delegate to my good friend jeremy :)
<bijan> I can't hear jeremy very well
Jeremy: Its still a bit early to have the test cases
<bijan> I missed soemthing
Alan: OWL 1.0 test cases should run and produce same results as a criteria for backward compatibility
<bijan> alanr could you restate it?
Sandro: Good starting point
<pfps> actually some of the test cases *could* change as a result of the extended expressive power of OWL 1.1
<sandro> Jeremy: Still too early to make new test cases, but not too early to think about how we want to handle them.
<Rinke> Cannot oversee the consequences of such a resolution
Bijan: Could be bugs in test suite
<Jeremy> +1 to bijan
Bijan: Could be a good starting point
<sandro> Bijan: It's a good starting point, but I wouldn't want to RESOLVE it, since we may want to break it in small ways.
Jeremny: Poilicies around test cases
Jeremy: Requirement that WG only approve tests that it regarded as correct
Alan: Test case per wiki page
<sandro> scribe note -- Jeremy said there is NOT a requirement that the WG only apporove "correct" test cases.
Alan: Bias to write as many test
cases as possible in the functional syntax
... Cannot do a test case to check RDF mapping example
Jeremy: In OWL 1.0, tests in some database
<bijan> +1 to all syntaxes
Jeremy: Can generate all possible syntaxes for the test
<bijan> This is very easy with the OWL API
<bijan> vipul, tha'ts jeremy, not me
<sandro> EVERYTHING is totally programmable. :-)
Alan: Wiki is programmable
<Rinke> +1 to all syntaxes as well, seems weird to focus on the FS if we are still tinkering with it
<bmotik> I aplologize, but I need to take a 3 minute break to attend to something.
<MikeSmith> +1 to multiple syntaxes
<Zakim> Jeremy, you wanted to mention problem with alternative syntaxes
Jeremy: Flexibility => Tool has a bug => Bug in your test suite
<sandro> Alan: Trust But Verify
Alan: Explicit tests that tool translation matches the correct answer
<bijan> You have a core set of tests about the translation (Alan suggested this
<bmotik> I'm back and I have bernardo on the speakerphone
<bijan> Btw, for the interested, i started work on an OWL 1.1 tutoiral a long time ago, and I found a swoop like tabbed interface that I adapted: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~bparsia/2007/owltutorial/
<Jeremy> (what about the RIF report???)
<bijan> Might be fun for test cases
<bijan> Or for examples
Alan: Dependency on another group on our charter - what are expectations and why does W3C do that?
Sandro: some interaction between
... Implementor needs to understand both spects
<Rinke> I like the tabbed interface!
Sandro: Bad thing for two specs to contradict each other
Alan: Have people to be
... communicate any changes
<bijan> We have different groups,s ome are producing specs (like RIF) and others which don't (e.g., HCLS, at least not specs that affect us)
<bijan> I'm on RIF and HCLS
Alan: Any volunteers for liastions
<ivan> I am on SWEO
<bijan> I could do RIF
<Elisa> I'm active in SWD
<ivan> I am also on SWCG:-)
<bijan> What's SWD?
<bijan> Ah! Good
I could do HCLS
<bijan> Also, several of us are OWLED steering committee members
<ivan> note: both HCLS and SWEO will be rechartered early 2008
<bijan> Are they really relevant?
<ivan> URW is an incubator group
<Rinke> I think Anne Cregan is in the uncertainty thing
<ivan> Rinke: yes, she is
Alan: Liasons with other groups - Bijan with RIF, Ivan with SWEO, Elisa with SWD, Vipul with HCLS
<uli_> ...and I think Jeff is as well in the uncertainty one
<ew> Jeff Pan and others are members of Uncertainty XG
Alan: Liasons with XML Schema and Uncertainty XG to be decided
<ew> +1 on user defined datatypes by any name
<uli_> +1 to Bijan
Bijan: XML Schema group did not give OWL WG defined datatypes by name
<sandro> XML Schema Participants: * BEA Systems, Inc. (1 representative) * Boeing Company (1 representative) * Bologna, University of (3 representatives) * Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) (5 representatives) * Ecole Mohammadia d'Ingenieurs Rabat (EMI) (1 representative) * Edinburgh (HCRC Language Technology Group) (1 representative) * IBM Corporation (2 representatives) * Mark Logic Corporation (1 representative) * National Association of Convenience Stores (NA
<sandro> CS) (1 representative) * National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (1 representative) * Oracle Corporation (2 representatives) * Sun Microsystems, Inc. (1 representative)
Alan: Connections to the OMG
<ivan> note: mapping by Vipul refers to a possible XG on mapping between relational data in an RDB and RDF
Elisa: Evan and Elisa could do the coordination... Both of them co-chair the Ontology WG there
<sandro> Elisa: Evan and I co-chair the ontology PSIG at OMG.
Alan: Future meeting - Elisa and Evan could speak on similarities nd dependencies
<sandro> Sandro: say +1 if you have read Peter's response....
<Jeremy> (some hp eyeballs looked at some version, but I haven't)
Sandro: Need some people to
... If it comes down to more substantive issues then it may make more sense to review them
<bijan> Sorry I've been out of contact
<alanr_> qck pfps
<bijan> And want to chime in
<alanr_> qck vipul
<uli_> which symbols do you mean, Vipul?
Sandro: Disagrees with the Peter Re: consideration from RIF
<sandro> s/Disagreed/doesn't really disagree/
<uli_> I was only slow in verifying that we were talking about the same email...
<Zakim> Jeremy, you wanted to suggest a procedural approach ....
Jeremy: If specific endorsement of Peter's technical comments is required, then communication should be sent to OWLWG
<sandro> +1 Jeremy --- endorsing Peter in broad terms and put the onus on RIF to come back on specific points as necessary.
Alan: Gotta go...
<alanr_> by vipul
Can someone take over scribing?
<alanr_> I will
<alanr_> Bijan: Bijan, as rep will review, then have phone call soon. RIF/OWL compat doc has been removed
<alanr_> sandro: moved to other document
<sandro> Alan: Based on Ivan and Uli having vetted Peter's review, I think we can make this officially from OWL WG.
<uli_> indeed, peter's document is a nice, understandable overview of RIF with a few polite questions
<uli_> oups - I meant "overview of BLD"
<bijan> Noting that my modifications may be None
<Zakim> Jeremy, you wanted to mention XML Schema comment
<sandro> PROPOSED: Bijan check over Peter's review, and if he doesn't have any problem with it, he conveys it to RIF as a review from OWL WG
<Jeremy> (with minor mods_
<pfps> i like jeremy's addendum
<sandro> PROPOSED: Bijan and Peter come to consensus on the 0066 review; if they suceed, they convey it to RIF as a review from the OWL WG
<Jeremy> process tricks ....
<pfps> +1, of course
<sandro> RESOLVED: Bijan check over Peter's review, and if he doesn't have any problem with it, he conveys it to RIF as a review from OWL WG
<sandro> RESOLVED: Bijan and Peter come to consensus on the 0066 review; if they suceed, they convey it to RIF as a review from the OWL WG
<sandro> (first version of resolution was in error!)
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/Less/Jeremy: Less/ Succeeded: s/Sandro/Jeremny/ Succeeded: s/Sandro/Jeremy/ Succeeded: s/Bijan/Jeremy/ Succeeded: s/Bijan/Jeremy/ FAILED: s/Disagreed/doesn't really disagree/ No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: vipul Inferring Scribes: vipul WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: Achille Alan All Attendees Deb Deborah DeborahMcGuiness DeborahMcGuinness Elisa Evan_Wallace Fabian Fabien IBM Ivan Jeremny Jeremy LTDs MarkusK MartinD MikeSmith P0 P1 P27 P30 P32 P33 P7 PROPOSED Ratnesh Rinke UFDs Vipul_Kashyap Zhe_Wu aabb alanr_ bijan bmotik dlm ew jjc note pfps sandro trackbot-ng uli uli_ vipul zhe You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Got date from IRC log name: 31 Oct 2007 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/10/31-owl-minutes.html People with action items: jeremy WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]