IRC log of owl on 2007-12-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

09:16:12 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #owl
09:16:12 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/12/06-owl-irc
09:16:25 [pfps]
ScribeNick: pfps
09:16:58 [dlm]
dlm has joined #owl
09:17:07 [pfps]
Meeting: OWL WG F2F1 (Manchester, England)
09:17:22 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #owl
09:17:29 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
09:17:29 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2007/12/06-owl-irc#T09-17-29
09:17:34 [sandro]
rrsagent, make record public
09:17:46 [pascalhitzler]
pascalhitzler has joined #OWL
09:17:51 [sandro]
==Going Around the Room ==
09:17:59 [sandro]
Peter Haase
09:18:02 [pfps]
Topic: Welcome, Logistics, Introductions
09:18:13 [sandro]
Boris Motik
09:18:15 [bmotik]
I'm boris motik, University of Oxford
09:18:22 [jjc]
jjc has joined #owl
09:18:23 [jjc]
jjc has joined #owl
09:18:27 [sandro]
Bernardo Cuenca Grau
09:18:32 [jjc]
SteveBattle
09:18:37 [sandro]
Steve Battle
09:18:47 [sandro]
Jeremy Carroll
09:18:57 [sandro]
Peter Patel-Schneider
09:18:59 [clu]
clu has joined #owl
09:19:35 [sandro]
Uli Sattler
09:20:08 [pfps]
Carsten Lutz, Dresden
09:20:16 [jjc2]
jjc2 has joined #owl
09:20:17 [jjc2]
jjc2 has joined #owl
09:20:40 [pfps]
Thomas Schneider
09:20:53 [sandro]
Michael Smith
09:20:59 [sandro]
Bijan Parsia
09:21:10 [sandro]
(Thomas and Carsten are guests today)
09:21:37 [pfps]
Sebastian Brandt
09:21:44 [GiorgosStoilos]
GiorgosStoilos has joined #owl
09:21:48 [sandro]
(Sebastian also a guest today)
09:22:14 [pfps]
Matthew Horridge
09:22:28 [pfps]
(Matthew is also a guest)
09:23:10 [sandro]
Giorgos Stoilos
09:23:23 [sandro]
Pascal Hitzler
09:23:32 [sandro]
Markus Krötzsch
09:23:43 [sandro]
(Markus is the primary person from Karsruhe)
09:23:56 [sandro]
Vit Novacek
09:24:06 [sandro]
Ivan Herman
09:24:13 [Evan]
Evan has joined #owl
09:24:15 [sandro]
Sandro Hawke
09:24:24 [sandro]
Deborah McGuinness
09:24:31 [sandro]
Evan Wallace
09:24:46 [sandro]
Rinke Hoekstra
09:25:08 [pfps]
Sean Bechhofer (guest from Manchester)
09:25:15 [sandro]
Sean Bechhofer (guest)
09:25:18 [pfps]
Robert Stevens (guest from Manchester)
09:25:44 [sandro]
Ian Horrocks
09:25:47 [pfps]
Ian Horrocks (Uniersity of Manchester [sic])
09:26:25 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
09:26:25 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2007/12/06-owl-irc#T09-26-25
09:26:43 [pfps]
s/Uniersity/University/
09:27:20 [pfps]
Topic: Overview of language features and motivation
09:27:27 [pfps]
Speaker: Bijan Parsia
09:28:13 [pfps]
Topic: OWL 1.0 Implementation Experience
09:28:26 [pfps]
Speaker: Matthew Horridge
09:28:34 [GiorgosStoilos]
GiorgosStoilos has joined #OWL
09:29:04 [jjchplb]
jjchplb has joined #owl
09:30:30 [pfps]
Matthew: implementing OWL DL experience
09:30:44 [pfps]
Matthew: problems - RDF and imports
09:31:09 [pfps]
Matthew: internal API is known as the OWL API - based on OWL abstract syntax
09:31:21 [pha]
pha has joined #owl
09:31:37 [pfps]
Matthew: use of OWL API means that different concrete syntaxes can be used
09:31:49 [CGI204]
CGI204 has joined #owl
09:32:02 [pfps]
Matthew: problems with abstract syntax - distinguishing between, e.g., data and object properties
09:32:41 [pfps]
Matthew: effort required - RDF parser is vast majority of effort, everything else is much easier
09:33:08 [pfps]
Matthew: similar situation for OWL 1.1 API
09:33:17 [pfps]
Ivan: what is the "RDF parser"
09:33:44 [pfps]
Matthew: RDF parser is just triples to internal API, not dealing with RDF/XML
09:33:59 [pfps]
Matthew: RDF mapping - want to be fast, small, and streaming
09:34:19 [cgi-irc]
cgi-irc has joined #owl
09:34:24 [pfps]
Matthew: streaming was too hard, so the parser was not streaming
09:34:31 [cgi-irc]
hello!
09:34:45 [pfps]
Matthew: in new parser - parser is streaming, but still takes resources
09:35:12 [pfps]
Matthew: OWL XML is very verbose - causes problems
09:35:16 [Joanne]
sorry to interrupt - how do I get audio?
09:35:30 [pfps]
Jeremy: what is the size increase
09:35:42 [pfps]
Matthew: not sure - 3 to 5 times
09:36:10 [pfps]
Matthew: triples to OWL API was problematic - inversing a non-deterministic mapping
09:36:28 [pfps]
Matthew: OWL 1.1 thus has two mappings
09:36:45 [pfps]
Matthew: e.g., subclass (see slides)
09:37:28 [pfps]
Matthew: other problem - n-ary constructs go to n or n*n triples
09:37:50 [Uli]
Uli has joined #owl
09:38:42 [pfps]
Matthew: failures of round tripping cause problems
09:39:40 [pfps]
Matthew: missing type triples make ontologies officially non-parsable
09:41:22 [pfps]
Matthew: in many cases there is a fix, but sometimes the fix is not local (may require looking at imported ontologies)
09:42:13 [Joanne]
Sandro - When I dial into Zakim it responds that the conference is restricted.
09:43:40 [pfps]
Jeremy: declaration is good style - RDF graphs are unordered - so declarations can be non-local
09:44:20 [pfps]
Michael: searching for declarations require two passes - which can be expensive
09:44:21 [sandro]
Joanne, alas the hosts were not expecting anyone to call in at this hour, so the speaker phone is not set up yet. We'll try it during the break, in about 60 minutes from now.
09:45:26 [pfps]
Alan: why not do typing "as seen"
09:45:48 [pfps]
Boris: this requires deferring processing, and is hard
09:45:59 [Joanne]
OK, thanks. When I couldn't make the flight last night I vowed to get up early.
09:47:33 [pfps]
Bijan: in any case, there is a lot of extra work to make the RDF parsing go through
09:47:41 [sandro]
Joanne, sorry to not be able to reward that worthy vow! (sorry to hear about the flight)
09:47:58 [pfps]
Jeremy: there are implementations that do good jobs
09:48:23 [pfps]
Bijan: no - there are bugs
09:49:16 [pfps]
Jeremy: but you do get benefits - use of RDF
09:49:34 [pfps]
Bijan: but there is a cost
09:49:49 [pfps]
Jeremy: multiple vocab is an attempt to fix this?
09:49:51 [pfps]
Bijan: yes
09:50:24 [Jeremy]
Streaming OWL DL; ESWC 2004; JJ Carroll; LNCS 2004, ISSU 3053, pages 198-212
09:50:35 [pfps]
Alan: compatibility means that there is no way out
09:50:37 [Jeremy]
describes a streaming approach to OWL DL species validation
09:50:43 [Jeremy]
(but its hard)
09:51:22 [pfps]
Ian: if we make a better way, then the old versions will die out (eventually)
09:51:47 [pfps]
Matthew: imports issues
09:51:57 [Joanne]
Sandro... well, at least I can read Peter's scribing, which is very very good.
09:52:18 [pfps]
Matthew: if //...foo.... imports //...bar... what does it mean?
09:52:30 [pfps]
Matthew: name of an ontology or a location of an ontology
09:52:44 [pfps]
Matthew: what if the name and the location don't match
09:53:49 [pfps]
Matthew: imports on OWL DL is controlled by OWL S&AS 3.4
09:54:09 [pfps]
Matthew: OWL reference says imports is by location
09:54:38 [pfps]
Matthew: OWL guide says something confusing
09:55:25 [pfps]
Matthew: want some direct and normative statement
09:56:03 [Jeremy]
section 5 OWL S&AS:
09:56:05 [Jeremy]
Definition: Let T be the mapping from the abstract syntax to RDF graphs from Section 4.1. Let O be a collection of OWL DL ontologies and axioms and facts in abstract syntax form. O is said to be imports closed iff for any URI, u, in an imports directive in any ontology in O the RDF parsing of the document accessible on the Web at u results in T(K), where K is the ontology in O with name u.
09:56:14 [pfps]
Matthew: solution was by name (essentially)
09:56:28 [pfps]
Matthew: what is the name of an ontology?
09:56:47 [Jeremy]
(that definition is clear)
09:56:48 [pfps]
Matthew: guide is confusing
09:57:42 [pfps]
Matthew: test cases for OWL 1.0 were very useful - we need them for 1.1
09:57:55 [pfps]
Matthew: OWL 1.1 SS diagrams were useful
09:58:44 [pfps]
jeremy: we need some time to talk about testing
09:59:02 [pfps]
Bijan: yes - infrastructure is needed
09:59:12 [pfps]
Jeremy: probably only need a short amount of time
09:59:50 [pfps]
Topic: Introductions
10:00:06 [pfps]
Alan Rector (guest from Manchester)
10:01:36 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl
10:01:44 [ivan]
Ratnesh Sahay (DERI)
10:01:45 [pfps]
Ratnesh Sahay (DERI Galway)
10:02:04 [pfps]
Alan Ruttenberg
10:02:27 [pfps]
Topic: History (including OWLED)
10:02:32 [pfps]
Speaker: Bijan Parsia
10:04:14 [pfps]
Bijan: OWLED - started in 2005 to let people interested in OWL design and use together
10:04:51 [pfps]
Bijan: there was about 1.5 years of experiece in OWL - there were complaints (particularly QCRs and datatypes)
10:05:02 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
10:05:48 [Jeremy]
Jeremy has joined #owl
10:06:32 [pfps]
Bijan: idea for a "bug fix" update to OWL - things that are relatively easy and wanted
10:06:54 [pfps]
Bijan: particularly wanted by users
10:07:52 [pfps]
Bijan: workshop was (largely) to discover what this new version would be
10:09:19 [pfps]
Bijan: workshop was adjacent to ISWC 2005 - about 60 participants
10:10:21 [Michael_Smith]
mailing list archives for initial owled community http://lists.mindswap.org/pipermail/owl/
10:10:25 [pfps]
Bijan: initial design of OWL 1.1 came out of the workshop
10:11:11 [Michael_Smith]
first msg: http://lists.mindswap.org/pipermail/owl/2005-November/000001.html
10:11:46 [pfps]
s/first msg/workshop design summary/
10:12:02 [pfps]
Bijan: desiderata for changes:
10:12:12 [pfps]
Bijan: 1/ requested by major users
10:12:21 [pfps]
Bijan: 2/ have effective reasoning methods
10:12:38 [pfps]
Bijan: 3/ will be implemented
10:13:27 [pfps]
Bijan: (alternatively commitment from users, well understood, committment from implementers)
10:14:50 [sandro]
sandro has joined #owl
10:16:08 [pfps]
Bijan: other goals: quiet whining, promote apps, improve spec, move forward, path for extensions, reduce species confusion (particularly DL/Lite)
10:16:48 [pfps]
Bijan: example - move OWL-S to OWL DL
10:16:48 [Jeremy]
Jeremy has joined #owl
10:17:54 [pfps]
Bijan: tool feature - coercion to OWL DL in Pellet
10:18:07 [pfps]
Jeremy: tools *should* do this
10:19:08 [pfps]
Bijan: *mostly* get the right thing
10:19:15 [Ratnesh]
Ratnesh has joined #owl
10:19:44 [pfps]
Bijan: there are still things that people want to do - e.g., lists
10:20:33 [sandro]
Bijan: I implemented shadow lists -- RDF Lists with a parallel vocabulary, just a different namespace. Pellet can do this silently.
10:20:49 [pfps]
Jeremy: can rdf:list be fixed?
10:21:16 [pfps]
Bijan: issues of modelling lists (eg, breaking them) affecting syntax
10:21:47 [cgi-irc]
cgi-irc has joined #owl
10:22:09 [pfps]
Alan: are lists necessary?
10:22:18 [pfps]
Bijan: yes
10:22:25 [sandro]
Peter: List are only in RDF because OWL-WG demanded them.
10:22:35 [sandro]
Peter: We needed them for the OWL syntax
10:23:28 [pfps]
Deborah: consensus on what do to?
10:23:50 [pfps]
Bijan: no, just consensus on desiderata
10:24:24 [pfps]
Bijan: OWL 1.1 design is driven by the three main desiderata
10:24:56 [pfps]
Carsten: are all three needed?
10:25:12 [pfps]
Bijan: not in all cases, but in most cases
10:25:43 [pfps]
jeremy: some groups want stability
10:26:37 [pfps]
Bijan: main desiderata do lean towards stability
10:26:49 [Jeremy_]
Jeremy_ has joined #owl
10:27:10 [pfps]
Ivan: there is still a long process to use OWL, so change is bad
10:27:41 [pfps]
Jeremy: HP didn't participate in OWLED due to financial desires
10:28:24 [pfps]
AlanRec: missing features in OWL have hindered uptake
10:28:37 [pfps]
Bijan: currently missing feature is keys
10:30:10 [pfps]
Ivan: different markets - some want more features, some want no change
10:30:15 [pfps]
Pfps: why?
10:30:44 [pfps]
Bijan: why should people who are only taking taking part of OWL care about OWL being extended?
10:31:05 [sandro]
Sandro: This is "OWL Pixie Dust". People want some of the OWL Magic, without really knowing what OWL is or does for them......
10:31:38 [pfps]
AlanRec: standards all change so why is new OWL a problem?
10:31:57 [Joanne]
they might care if backwards compatability would break
10:32:03 [pfps]
AlanRec: there are issues with backward compatibility
10:32:30 [sandro]
AlanRec: Standards grow, with backward compatibility. And sometimes there are mistakes that need to be fixed.
10:32:39 [pfps]
Ian: maintenance is needed
10:33:31 [pfps]
Deborah: users want transition path and backwards compatibility
10:33:33 [Joanne]
and fixing mistakes or updating costs.
10:34:01 [Joanne]
updating has costs associated with it is what I meant to say
10:34:38 [pfps]
Ivan: we need to take care of stability concerns
10:35:53 [pfps]
Bijan: model of development - do lots of work outside W3C, then quick recommendation, repeat roughly yearly
10:36:24 [pfps]
Ivan: stability - vague uneasiness (mostly)
10:37:04 [pfps]
Alan: what can we do to help?
10:37:11 [pfps]
Ivan; nothing, really
10:37:47 [Jeremy_]
Jeremy_ has joined #owl
10:37:54 [pfps]
Sandro: if the perception is that OWL 1.0 is broken then that is bad
10:38:07 [Jeremy_]
Bijan quoted DannyAyers "Don't hurt the triples"
10:38:12 [pfps]
AlanRec: for me OWL 1.0 is not usable - so I need OWL 1.1
10:38:43 [pfps]
Bijan: look for people who have real blockage and try to help them
10:39:35 [pfps]
Bijan; OWLED attendance and submissions have been growing
10:39:35 [sandro]
s/that is bad/that is even worse than the perception that things are unstable because we're working on 1.1/
10:40:06 [pfps]
Bijan: many participants felt that OWLED gave them a voice
10:41:27 [pfps]
Bijan: OWLED experience has been positive
10:43:32 [Jeremy_]
Jeremy_ has joined #owl
10:43:37 [pfps]
Bijan: testimonial from Kent Spackman (SNOMED person)
10:45:20 [sandro]
adjourn for coffee
10:52:03 [Joanne]
sandro - will you be hooking up audio?
11:06:35 [sandro]
Joanne, I'm trying to nudge the local host folks to do it. hopefully soon.
11:06:39 [sandro]
(we're in break now)
11:10:23 [Michael_Smith]
Michael_Smith has joined #owl
11:11:00 [Joanne]
- I took a break too.. breakfast. thanks for looking into it.
11:11:01 [Uli]
Uli has joined #owl
11:11:10 [Joanne]
hi Uli!
11:11:40 [Uli]
Hi Joanne !
11:14:44 [Joanne]
I'm good. Taking advantage of the break to make a cup of tea.
11:16:02 [Joanne]
I'm working on an influenza ontology at MITRE and one on Virulence Factors
11:16:12 [Joanne]
How are you?
11:16:45 [sandro]
Joanne, I'm sorry, it turns out the local speaker phone is not available until after lunch. :-( We should have it this afternoon and all day tomorrow.
11:16:53 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl
11:17:35 [Joanne]
OK, thanks for looking into it.
11:18:19 [sandro]
ScribeNick: Jeremy
11:18:21 [Joanne]
Sandro, are others dialing in? I saw others listed as remote participants
11:18:28 [thomassch]
thomassch has joined #owl
11:18:32 [Joanne]
are you starting up again?
11:18:34 [sandro]
Not yet, Joanne.
11:18:34 [Jeremy]
Boris presents slides - anyone got URI?
11:18:37 [sandro]
We starting up again.
11:18:59 [Jeremy]
1) extend expressivity
11:18:59 [Joanne]
Thanks. Are there slides I can access somewhere (URI)?
11:19:23 [IanH_]
IanH_ has joined #owl
11:19:56 [sandro]
Joanne, we're getting the slides sent out.
11:19:58 [Jeremy]
2) Bring spec closer to tools
11:20:20 [alanr]
hi Joanne
11:20:52 [Uli]
Peihong Ke has joined as a guest/observer
11:21:01 [Jeremy]
some features of OWL 1.0 which have not been implemented correctly
11:21:15 [Jeremy]
3) make spec cleaner and clearer
11:21:52 [Joanne]
Hi Alan! Is there a way to listen to the talks over skype? Are there slides anywhere so I can follow along with more than the scribe?
11:21:54 [dlm]
dlm has joined #owl
11:22:12 [Jeremy]
(slides are on their way)
11:23:06 [Jeremy]
on slide 4
11:23:14 [sandro]
Boris: Every OWL API wants to provide "what are the classes in this ontology", but what does that mean for OWL?
11:23:29 [Jeremy]
discussion of mention; use; definition?
11:23:53 [Jeremy]
very difficult to decide
11:23:54 [sandro]
Jeremy: Why do these quesiton matter?
11:23:57 [Jeremy]
between these
11:24:03 [Jeremy]
Jeremy: why does this matter?
11:24:14 [IanH_]
Boris's talk is available at http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/boris.ppt
11:24:25 [sandro]
Boris: The tool builders need answers. EG protege gives a list of classes.
11:25:28 [sandro]
Peter: If protege and swoop list different classes, who cares...???
11:25:56 [Jeremy]
Bijan: if we can improve interop on this, we should ...
11:25:57 [sandro]
Bijan: let's only have UI variance if it's useful.
11:26:03 [Battle]
Battle has joined #owl
11:26:54 [Jeremy]
alan: if these are design criteria they should be exposed
11:27:30 [Jeremy]
boris: there are some explicit answers in the new spec
11:27:50 [Jeremy]
boris: W3C should care, because these things are implicit
11:28:40 [Jeremy]
peter: I still haven't heard a useful answer for tool designers
11:29:11 [Jeremy]
alan: two people are looking at some ontology in two different lists - "please look at class FooBar ..."
11:30:06 [Jeremy]
peter: but there's lots of example where two different UIs are difficult to interop
11:30:13 [Jeremy]
jeremy: let's have tests
11:30:26 [Jeremy]
bijan: serialization tests would be good -
11:30:30 [Joanne]
to alan. what do you mean "in two different lists?"
11:30:35 [Jeremy]
bijan: users care abotu serialization
11:30:50 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #owl
11:31:10 [Jeremy]
bijan: OWL API
11:31:36 [Joanne]
to Jeremy..tests would be good, but what kind of tests do you mean?
11:32:01 [Jeremy]
Ratnesh: a java program on two different dev environments, my program should behave similarly
11:32:20 [Jeremy]
Ratnesh: we care more about behaviour of program, than behaviour of tool
11:33:10 [Jeremy]
Ian: the set of classes in an ontology should be well-defined
11:34:28 [Michael_Smith]
Michael: for explanation and debugging it is useful to have a mapping from entity or axiom to ontology
11:34:44 [Jeremy]
jjc: isn't OWL 1.0 clear?
11:35:03 [Jeremy]
jjc: requires xx rdf:type owl:Class
11:35:23 [Jeremy]
boris: e.g. imports or inferred triples
11:35:47 [Jeremy]
alan: what is the underlying design model?
11:35:47 [sandro]
Alan: If the question is "What classes are mentioned in this ontology?" then we're fine. It's not clear to me that any other question is relevant/important. What motivates other questions?
11:36:08 [Jeremy]
boris: we want to design OWL 1.1 as an object model
11:36:51 [Jeremy]
matthew: imports was too vague
11:38:49 [Jeremy]
sebastian ?: many industrial users like object models
11:39:09 [Jeremy]
descriptions of triples are much less accesible
11:39:53 [ivan]
s/?/Brandt/
11:40:19 [alanr]
re: object oriented modeling of OWL. Cuts both ways: A lot of teaching OWL is unteaching object oriented thinking.
11:40:21 [Jeremy]
thanks ivan
11:40:33 [Jeremy]
slide 6
11:40:48 [Jeremy]
expressivity enhancements uncontroversial
11:40:50 [Jeremy]
slide 7
11:41:02 [Jeremy]
metamodelling needed also in OWL DL
11:41:36 [Jeremy]
e.g. an OWL-S type example
11:42:07 [Jeremy]
punning is a possible solution,
11:42:42 [Jeremy]
applications want syntactic level, and don't want consequences
11:42:58 [Jeremy]
peter: which reasoners would require minor changes to support Hilog semantics
11:43:21 [Jeremy]
bijan/boris: easy to modify pellet
11:44:02 [Jeremy]
(this is on last bullet points of slide 7)
11:44:12 [Jeremy]
bijan: easy cases would be easy ...
11:44:22 [Jeremy]
slide 8:
11:44:37 [Jeremy]
B-nodes
11:44:45 [Jeremy]
slide 9:
11:45:15 [Jeremy]
jeremy: huge exlamation on first bullet
11:46:29 [Jeremy]
bijan: OWL Semantics 1.0 is clear, OWL DL name, OWL Full location
11:47:01 [Jeremy]
alan: caching is a tool's issue
11:47:09 [Jeremy]
alan: caching does not break the spec
11:47:49 [Jeremy]
bijan: some implementations change name when ontologies move
11:48:34 [Jeremy]
alan: if I moved ontology from http:... to file:... then I can't import it, and then spec is broken
11:48:51 [Michael_Smith]
session on imports at 1400?
11:48:51 [Jeremy]
alan: disagrees with first bullet
11:50:14 [Jeremy]
we agree that we don't agree, but we're not clear what we don't agree on
11:50:18 [Joanne]
alan, is the spec broken or the ontology broken?
11:50:22 [Jeremy]
slide 10
11:50:31 [alanr]
I agree with everyone who disagrees with themselves
11:50:51 [Joanne]
Then we are in agreement.
11:51:55 [Jeremy]
Bijan: we have session on annotations
11:52:22 [Jeremy]
Sebastian: annotations on axioms are useful
11:52:55 [Jeremy]
slide 11
11:53:38 [Jeremy]
slide 12
11:54:46 [Jeremy]
peter: all OWL DL reasoners are based on nonnormative docs
11:57:49 [Jeremy]
(sorry scribe missed a bit)
11:58:03 [sandro]
pfps, wiki draft of first session ready for cleanup (not sure if that's your job or not) at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F1_Minutes_Session_1
11:58:32 [Jeremy]
bijan: it would be better if the implementors wer working more closely from normative docs
11:58:55 [Jeremy]
ian: there is no claim that sean's nonnormative doc and normative spec say same thing
12:00:22 [Jeremy]
discussion on pellet and bnodes --
12:00:36 [Jeremy]
alan: pellet departs from spec
12:00:50 [Jeremy]
bijan: we (pellet team) made choices
12:01:26 [alanr]
alan: No reasoner completely implements spec. Didn't mean to pick on Pellet - it's just the one I know best
12:01:29 [Jeremy]
slide 13
12:01:36 [alanr]
Pellet is most complete, in my experience
12:03:07 [clu]
clu has joined #owl
12:03:49 [Joanne]
to Peter - thanks for the minutes. Pls add my name to those present.
12:05:08 [pascalhitzler]
ScribeNick: pascalhitzler
12:05:36 [pascalhitzler]
slide 15
12:07:26 [pascalhitzler]
alan: interactoin of typing with RDF really a problem?
12:09:02 [pascalhitzler]
alan: is the problem in the language or in the documentation of it?
12:09:46 [pascalhitzler]
bijan: pellet does some repairs silently. spec could go in a similar direction
12:10:10 [pascalhitzler]
jeremy: questions on slide 15 answered on OWL 1.0 spec
12:10:55 [pascalhitzler]
boris: some may be, but spec might need fixing or made more explicit
12:12:33 [pascalhitzler]
ian: more clear spec desirable
12:13:15 [pascalhitzler]
bijan: agrees about unclear parts in the spec
12:14:23 [alanr]
Alan agrees too. Took me a year, I reckon, to understand OWL
12:14:24 [pascalhitzler]
next session: on publication schedule and first public working draft
12:14:46 [thomassch]
thomassch has joined #owl
12:16:29 [vit]
vit has joined #OWL
12:16:45 [pascalhitzler]
vit: what short name to use?
12:17:21 [dlm]
hi
12:17:23 [seanb]
hello!
12:17:31 [Rinke]
hello?
12:17:44 [alanr]
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Mapping_to_RDF_Graphs
12:17:45 [Evan]
Evan has joined #owl
12:17:53 [alanr]
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Semantics
12:17:59 [alanr]
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax
12:18:50 [IvanHerman]
IvanHerman has joined #owl
12:19:10 [pascalhitzler]
collecting issues: (1) shortname
12:19:22 [pascalhitzler]
ivan: (1) should include namespace
12:19:37 [pascalhitzler]
(2) document titles
12:19:43 [AlanR1]
AlanR1 has joined #owl
12:19:58 [pascalhitzler]
ian: need to decide if namespace is an issue
12:21:04 [pascalhitzler]
(3) SOTD
12:21:13 [pascalhitzler]
(4) WIKI extraction
12:21:37 [pascalhitzler]
(5) attribution etc.
12:22:23 [pascalhitzler]
bijan: need to do editorial cleanup (part of (4))
12:23:14 [pascalhitzler]
bijan: deadlines need to be watched
12:23:24 [pascalhitzler]
about (1) short name (+ namespace)
12:24:01 [pascalhitzler]
suggestions: owlwot, alan: owltoo
12:24:20 [pascalhitzler]
alan: calling it OWL may overload and thus be difficult
12:24:58 [pascalhitzler]
... something neutral to version name?
12:26:10 [pascalhitzler]
sandro: no problem with same names
12:26:18 [pascalhitzler]
alan: might be confusing
12:26:40 [Joanne]
-> I've lost track of where we are... are we on the Mapping to RDF Graphs?
12:27:15 [IanH_]
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/
12:27:20 [Joanne]
thansk
12:27:33 [IanH_]
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/
12:27:36 [ivan]
current names: owl-features, owl-guide, owl-ref, owl-semantics, owl-test, webont-req
12:27:46 [IanH_]
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/
12:27:55 [Joanne]
which one at this moment?
12:27:59 [bmotik]
bmotik has joined #owl
12:28:03 [IanH_]
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/
12:28:06 [pascalhitzler]
sandro: using same name is only a problem if exactly the same document name is use
12:28:17 [IanH_]
http://www.w3.org/TR/webont-req/
12:28:30 [IanH_]
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-xmlsyntax/
12:28:59 [pascalhitzler]
evan: so why not call it OWL1.1?
12:29:15 [pascalhitzler]
bijan: OWL1.1 is one possibility
12:29:26 [pascalhitzler]
sandro: you want a URL which is the link to the latest version of the spec
12:29:49 [pascalhitzler]
evan: you need a name which redirects to the short name?
12:30:21 [pascalhitzler]
pfps: eventually pointers to owl1.1 docs might go away ...
12:30:39 [pascalhitzler]
... but that's independent of the document names
12:30:58 [sandro]
I see .... in going from 1.1 to 1.2 we're going to have the same problem, so yes, the short-name needs the version. because the WD shadows the REC.
12:31:10 [Joanne]
call it OWL-DL? :-)
12:31:12 [pascalhitzler]
ian: we can't use "owl-semantics" right now. ivan: because that's the working draft
12:32:06 [pascalhitzler]
bijan: OWLWOT, OWLTOO looks strange
12:32:16 [pascalhitzler]
... proposes OWL1.1 or OWL11 or OWL-11
12:32:36 [pascalhitzler]
ian: what about OWLTOO
12:33:01 [pascalhitzler]
sandro: different names suggest different levels of compatibility
12:33:06 [Joanne]
what are we naming????
12:33:27 [dlm]
yes - current proposals are owl1.1 and owl1-1
12:33:28 [pascalhitzler]
bijan: OWL1.1 (with any kind of minor changes)
12:34:23 [Joanne]
I like OWL 1.1 - don't fix what aint broke :-) (thanks!)
12:34:44 [pascalhitzler]
sugestions OWL 1-1, OWL11, OWL-1-1
12:34:59 [pascalhitzler]
ivan: decision has to be formally recorded according to charter
12:35:20 [pascalhitzler]
ian: should discuss point (2) at the same time
12:35:33 [pascalhitzler]
... what is going to be named in document title?
12:35:42 [Joanne]
pascal... the general name of the language? (I'm looking forward to audio)
12:35:58 [pascalhitzler]
alan: procedural question: can we resolve this here? what about absent people?
12:36:12 [pascalhitzler]
bijan explains: may not resolve things which have not been on the agenda
12:36:29 [pascalhitzler]
ppfs: may be arguable
12:36:52 [bmotik]
a/ppfs/pfps
12:36:53 [pascalhitzler]
ivan: was the issue of document titles on the agenda?
12:36:58 [bmotik]
s/ppfs/pfps
12:37:03 [pha]
pha has joined #owl
12:38:13 [pascalhitzler]
some discussion about which things that can be resolved in the F2F
12:38:42 [pascalhitzler]
alan: supports bijan that we should decide things, and people can appeal to chairs to reopen
12:38:47 [pascalhitzler]
... an issue
12:39:19 [pascalhitzler]
sandro: in this case: does it need to be decided right now?
12:39:41 [pascalhitzler]
daborah: against owl2/owltoo
12:39:59 [pascalhitzler]
ian makes straw poll 1.1 against 2 (clear positive outcome for 1.1)
12:40:12 [pascalhitzler]
ian: let's decide for 1.1
12:40:29 [pascalhitzler]
proposed and resolved: it's going to be 1.1 (in some form)
12:40:56 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Our publications will refer to this work as "OWL 1.1" (not OWL 2.0, etc)
12:41:50 [alanr]
any objections?
12:42:02 [sandro]
RESOLVED: Our publications will refer to this work as "OWL 1.1" (not OWL 2.0, etc)
12:42:11 [sandro]
(no abstentions, no objections)
12:42:13 [pascalhitzler]
ian: asks for objections, abstantions on that. none recorded
12:43:12 [pascalhitzler]
ivan: other specs seem to use similars to OWL11
12:43:29 [cgi-irc]
cgi-irc has joined #owl
12:43:31 [pascalhitzler]
sandro: would like to postpone this and find out some background
12:44:05 [pascalhitzler]
ian: straw poll: do we want "owl11" ?
12:44:19 [sandro]
PROPOSED: To ask for shortname "owl11-[whatever]"
12:44:42 [clu]
clu has joined #owl
12:45:00 [sandro]
some interest in OWL-1-1
12:45:10 [pascalhitzler]
some preference in OWL-1-1 mentioned
12:45:25 [pascalhitzler]
ian: what about namespace?
12:45:31 [pascalhitzler]
ivan: tough one
12:45:43 [pascalhitzler]
pfps: proposes brief discussion about it
12:46:23 [pascalhitzler]
pfps: should reuse the namespace
12:46:32 [pascalhitzler]
several people second reusing the namespace
12:46:35 [sandro]
Alan: I know now that I don't know whrether to resuse ns
12:47:25 [pascalhitzler]
straw poll on this: tendency for reusing namespace, but not uncontroversial
12:48:32 [pascalhitzler]
alan: if owl constructs change semantics then it may be difficult to reuse name space
12:49:00 [pascalhitzler]
ulrike: wasn't the idea not to change any of the constructs already present?
12:49:05 [pascalhitzler]
ivan: are we sure this won't happen?
12:49:12 [pascalhitzler]
ian: we don't have to decide on this right now
12:49:36 [pascalhitzler]
bijan: new constructs should have new names
12:50:06 [pascalhitzler]
... we will add new things into to the namespace
12:50:31 [pascalhitzler]
... expanding vocabulary is considered difficult by some people
12:50:51 [pascalhitzler]
ian: summary: tendency for reusing, but issue can be postponed
12:51:11 [pascalhitzler]
pfps: need to be careful on first working draft that it doesn't cause confusion in terms of namespace
12:51:13 [Uli]
Uli has joined #owl
12:51:21 [alanr]
Just to put it on the record, I also lean to reusing the namespace. Just worried about the unknown unknowns
12:51:34 [pascalhitzler]
bijan takes action to take care of this
12:52:02 [sandro]
ACTION: Bijan to put alert box in all the documents about the status of the namespace
12:52:02 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-35 - Put alert box in all the documents about the status of the namespace [on Bijan Parsia - due 2007-12-13].
12:52:35 [sandro]
Alan: say it "owl" subject to change, not "owl11" subject to change.
12:52:39 [pascalhitzler]
boris: old names are still in old namespace (current document)
12:52:53 [Joanne]
We need to be careful not to make "OWL" "OUCH"
12:52:56 [pascalhitzler]
bijan: suggests to leave the two namespaces as they are right now
12:53:10 [sandro]
bijan: let's not make owl 1.1 implementors change anything right now.
12:53:34 [Joanne]
I agree with Bijan ... not make owl 1.1 implementors change anything right now
12:53:37 [sandro]
bijan: there are owl 1.1 ontologies on the web right now.
12:54:23 [pascalhitzler]
alan: straw poll: leave as is with warnings (agreed)
12:54:43 [pascalhitzler]
boris has action to do the changes (add warnings) in the docs
12:54:56 [Joanne]
warnings are good
12:54:59 [vit]
vit has joined #OWL
12:55:14 [pascalhitzler]
ivan about doc titles: suggests owl11 DL
12:55:27 [sandro]
Ivan: functional syntax doc is DL-only, so that should be in the title?
12:56:15 [pascalhitzler]
ian: functional syntax is not entirely irrelevant outside DL
12:56:25 [pascalhitzler]
alan: needs to be decided later
12:56:43 [pascalhitzler]
ian: see 1.0 docs on abstract syntax
12:57:10 [pascalhitzler]
bijan: in some way structural syntax specifies OWL Full
12:57:19 [pascalhitzler]
ivan: but there are statements which cannot be expressed in it
12:57:51 [dlm]
dlm has joined #owl
12:59:11 [pascalhitzler]
... should not forget that this is an issue
12:59:27 [pascalhitzler]
ian: action on this?
12:59:36 [pascalhitzler]
ivan: need a list of editors first?
12:59:50 [pascalhitzler]
moving on to point (5)
13:00:23 [pascalhitzler]
alan: proposes for current draft that attributions should be as they are
13:00:39 [pascalhitzler]
... next draft if substantive changes, attributions should be reevaluated
13:01:08 [pascalhitzler]
bijan: question is if chairs want to assign editors. bijan suggests chairs do that
13:01:11 [Joanne]
Point 5: attribution etc. (reiterated)
13:01:19 [pascalhitzler]
alan: would like to not do that right now
13:02:17 [pascalhitzler]
pfps: somebody needs to put more work into it soon ... credit should be given
13:03:16 [pascalhitzler]
ivan: seconds alan: currently mentioned people stay editors for the current version
13:03:32 [Joanne]
pascal, where's the reference to attributions?
13:04:14 [pascalhitzler]
some more discussio non editors for current version
13:04:17 [Joanne]
where can I find the stuff being discussed about attributions?
13:04:34 [Joanne]
or does everyone mean - how to attribute people who contribute?
13:05:10 [pascalhitzler]
bijan: wants editors assigned now
13:05:43 [Joanne]
ahh, ok, so "attributions" in the geneneral sense, it's not some weird obscure aspect of OWL semantics
13:05:50 [pascalhitzler]
alan proposes current authors are editors for the current version
13:06:34 [Joanne]
I believe I have funding now that could support my ability to contribute as an editor
13:07:37 [pascalhitzler]
ian: should now decide whose job it will be
13:08:06 [alanr]
successful test
13:08:23 [pascalhitzler]
ian: proposal that boris, peter and bijan work on syntax (they would agree)
13:08:40 [pascalhitzler]
ian: bernardo, boris for semantics document? would agree as well
13:09:00 [pascalhitzler]
... bernardo, boris would also do the mapping document
13:09:09 [pascalhitzler]
... are we happy if they do it?
13:09:19 [pascalhitzler]
... straw poll on this: no objections
13:09:54 [pascalhitzler]
was agreed that attributions will stay the same in current version of the documents as they are stated right now
13:10:36 [Joanne]
so is there no room for me to contribute and be attributed?
13:10:38 [pascalhitzler]
ivan: doesn't it need to be called editor?
13:10:58 [sandro]
sandro: I doubt it
13:11:13 [Joanne]
???
13:11:15 [sandro]
Ian: If it has to change from author to editor, then that can be chairs decision
13:11:15 [cgi-irc]
Joanne, we're only talking about FPWD
13:11:20 [pascalhitzler]
editor/author question to be sorted by chairs
13:11:27 [cgi-irc]
We've not mentioned acknowledgements (for examle)
13:11:29 [pascalhitzler]
moving to point (4)
13:11:34 [cgi-irc]
And this is explicitly temporary
13:11:45 [pascalhitzler]
editorial cleanup in the wiki plus wiki extraction
13:11:53 [Joanne]
what's FPWD?
13:12:13 [Joanne]
who's cgi-irc?
13:12:17 [sandro]
First Public Working Draft
13:12:27 [Joanne]
thanks!
13:12:41 [pascalhitzler]
about (4): issues from working drafts will stay
13:13:05 [pascalhitzler]
alan: useful comments should be left but scripted away
13:14:37 [pascalhitzler]
concerning: resolution to publish Syntax, Semantics, and Mapping-to-RDF documents as First Public Working Drafts
13:14:45 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Publish Syntax, Semantics, and Mapping-to-RDF documents as First Public Working Drafts
13:14:45 [pascalhitzler]
ian: straw poll - no objections
13:14:52 [pascalhitzler]
... no objections
13:15:28 [Evan]
Evan has joined #owl
13:15:34 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Publish Syntax, Semantics, and Mapping-to-RDF documents (as on the wiki right now) as First Public Working Drafts
13:16:05 [sandro]
using http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=41712&public=1&order=org
13:16:12 [sandro]
Formal Vote:
13:16:26 [sandro]
Abstain: W3C
13:16:32 [pascalhitzler]
ian: formal vote on this (reminder: only one vote per member): W3C abstains, no objections
13:16:45 [sandro]
In favor: all member orgs present in room.
13:16:54 [alanr]
joanne?
13:17:06 [alanr]
if you are there, could you please vote on proposal?
13:17:07 [Joanne]
i'm here
13:17:10 [Uli]
Uli has joined #owl
13:17:15 [Joanne]
in favor
13:17:31 [IanH_]
Anyone else out there who would like to vote?
13:18:03 [sandro]
RESOLVED: Publish Syntax, Semantics, and Mapping-to-RDF documents (as on the wiki right now) as First Public Working Drafts
13:18:25 [pascalhitzler]
ian: lunch break now
13:18:35 [sandro]
Lunch.
13:18:40 [pascalhitzler]
bijan: thanks to sean for taking care of organisation ...
13:18:52 [sandro]
scribe after lunch to be markus
13:23:16 [Uli]
Uli has joined #owl
13:26:10 [sandro]
Jeremy, Pascal -- http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F1_Minutes_Session_2 is ready for cleanup
13:27:24 [Joanne]
Sandro, thanks. I hope the audio doesn't take too much time away from your lunch.
13:40:17 [pha]
pha has joined #owl
13:44:47 [vit]
vit has joined #OWL
13:44:48 [pfps]
pfps has joined #owl
13:56:52 [MarkusK]
scribenick MarkusK
13:58:26 [Rinke]
Rinke has joined #owl
14:00:43 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl
14:02:59 [IanH_]
IanH_ has joined #owl
14:03:04 [IanH_]
You can dial in to Zakim in the usual way
14:03:24 [Joanne]
great, thanks!
14:03:42 [IanH_]
Can you please dial in and say something so we can see if it works
14:04:18 [IanH_]
Can you please dial in and say something so we can see if it works
14:06:00 [Joanne]
hi sean. i just dialed into zakim
14:06:20 [bmotik]
bmotik has joined #owl
14:07:58 [MarkusK]
topic: Imports
14:08:21 [MarkusK]
wikipage: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Imports
14:09:00 [Joanne]
i just lost audio
14:09:14 [Joanne]
did someone step on the phone?
14:09:33 [Joanne]
back on now. thanks!
14:09:53 [Joanne]
loud and clear. thanks!
14:10:16 [MarkusK]
pfps repeats imports definitions from OWL DL, OWL Full
14:10:24 [MarkusK]
(compare http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Nov/0565.html)
14:10:37 [IanH_]
Peter's talk just sent by email and is also at http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/peter-talk.html
14:11:01 [cgi-irc]
cgi-irc has joined #owl
14:11:19 [bijan]
Text on screen is also on: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Imports
14:11:39 [thomassch]
thomassch has joined #owl
14:12:22 [MarkusK]
pfps: differences relate to whether ontology names or locations are assumed in import statements
14:12:43 [cgi-irc]
cgi-irc has joined #owl
14:13:02 [MarkusK]
bijan: not all ontologies have names, right?
14:13:15 [MarkusK]
pfps: yes, only importable ontologies need a name.
14:13:16 [GiorgosStoilos]
GiorgosStoilos has joined #OWL
14:13:23 [MarkusK]
pfps: this appears to be a bug
14:13:41 [Jeremy]
Jeremy has joined #owl
14:14:14 [Achille]
Achille has joined #owl
14:14:22 [MarkusK]
boris: (1) there should be only one kind of import, not three
14:15:17 [MarkusK]
... (2) it should be possible to reconstruct the location from whic some statement was imported from, e.g. for editing
14:16:07 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #owl
14:16:12 [sandro]
zakim, this is owl
14:16:12 [Zakim]
ok, sandro; that matches SW_OWL(F2F)6:00AM
14:16:15 [MarkusK]
bijan: the name and location can be different, the question is how to deal with it. This seems to be agreed on.
14:16:39 [dlm]
dlm has joined #owl
14:16:42 [MarkusK]
pfps: OWL1.1 imports are based on ontology names only
14:17:04 [MarkusK]
... this is completely different from OWL1.0, where the name must be the location.
14:17:25 [MarkusK]
... We do not have XML inclusions (a mechanism working with location only).
14:17:32 [Joanne]
what are the implications of the differences?
14:17:49 [MarkusK]
... Summing up there are two different designs: name and location based importing.
14:17:56 [Evan]
Evan has joined #owl
14:18:14 [MarkusK]
pfps: various questions arise
14:18:30 [MarkusK]
... (1) should every ontology (be forced to) have a name?
14:18:56 [Uli]
Uli has joined #owl
14:19:10 [MarkusK]
... (2) should name and location be the same (i.e. should the name always indicate the location)?
14:19:51 [MarkusK]
(3) should imports be by name or by location?
14:20:01 [MarkusK]
s /(3)/... (3)/
14:20:08 [AlanR1]
AlanR1 has joined #owl
14:20:41 [MarkusK]
Jeremy: this seems to be a general web architechture issue.
14:21:03 [Ratnesh]
Ratnesh has joined #owl
14:21:30 [MarkusK]
Bijan: in general URIs are not locations, but there might be (multiple) hints for actually finding the document.
14:22:06 [Jeremy]
Alan: are imports broken?
14:22:11 [Jeremy]
Peter: no
14:22:17 [Jeremy]
Boris: yes
14:22:22 [Jeremy]
Jeremy: no
14:23:00 [MarkusK]
pfps: versioning is another problem
14:23:23 [MarkusK]
Alan: this goes beyond the importing issue
14:24:14 [MarkusK]
pfps: every importable ontology needs some location, but it need not be on the web
14:24:45 [vit]
vit has joined #OWL
14:24:51 [Jeremy]
Jeremy has joined #owl
14:25:08 [MarkusK]
boris: a typical use case is that two ontologies (one importing the other) reside in some file repository and then are moved to the web. How do you support this?
14:25:14 [MarkusK]
... locations change ove time
14:25:25 [MarkusK]
... this is not just a caching issue
14:25:37 [MarkusK]
... What they are doing in XML Schema may be a good solution.
14:25:59 [MarkusK]
... When importing an ontology, I do not care where it lives. It might even have many copies.
14:26:18 [Achille]
+1 for an approach similar to XML Schema
14:26:47 [sandro]
zakim, who is one the phone?
14:26:47 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, sandro.
14:26:54 [sandro]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:26:54 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Joanne_Luciano, ??P2, [IBM]
14:26:54 [MarkusK]
Alan: I suggest that names and locations might be different, but importing one ontologies from some location should also make this location a name for the ontology.
14:27:06 [sandro]
Zakim, [IBM] is temporarily Achille
14:27:06 [Zakim]
+Achille; got it
14:27:11 [MarkusK]
Bijan: I do not understand the proposal
14:27:18 [sandro]
Zakim, ??P2 is Meeting_Room
14:27:18 [Zakim]
+Meeting_Room; got it
14:27:53 [MarkusK]
Alan: every importable ontology has a name which is also a location, but it is possible that the same ontologies have different names in the sameAs-sense.
14:28:39 [MarkusK]
... importing may lead to the inference (?) that two names refer to the same ontology.
14:28:46 [MarkusK]
All: clarification needed.
14:29:07 [MarkusK]
Alan: every name should be a location, they are linked together.
14:29:15 [sandro]
q?
14:29:22 [Achille]
q+
14:29:58 [MarkusK]
... just if a name does not match its location, then this alternative name should be deduced.
14:30:26 [MarkusK]
Bernardo: when you have an ontology name occuring in documents in different locations, how do you know they are the same?
14:30:40 [MarkusK]
Boris: well, it is just *the*, say, Wine ontology
14:30:48 [MarkusK]
Bernardo: but there could be versions
14:30:59 [MarkusK]
... e.g. if someone adds axioms
14:31:32 [sandro]
Boris: It's like Java classpath --- it's DELIBERATELY left out of the spec, so name-to-location can be handled in different ways.
14:31:43 [MarkusK]
Boris: this is not specified, but a similar mechanism is found in including classes in Java. Java uses names but the application environment must resolve the locations.
14:31:49 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl
14:31:54 [IanH]
q?
14:32:27 [Joanne]
it would be useful for me to see a table of options and tradeoffs
14:32:53 [GiorgosStoilos]
GiorgosStoilos has joined #OWL
14:33:00 [MarkusK]
Jeremy: there are two cases: creating an ontology and publishing it, and the reverse, downloading and caching an ontology from the web.
14:33:13 [MarkusK]
... we should concentrate on the web/caching aspect, not on the publishing aspect.
14:33:45 [MarkusK]
Evan: Many people in ISO want to use URNs as a name, and these are not locations.
14:34:12 [clu]
clu has joined #owl
14:34:26 [MarkusK]
Alan: I would also say that an ontology name is a URI, not always a URL, but to import it, you need a location which would then become a synonym.
14:34:38 [Michael_Smith]
I second evan's observation that users choose ontology names that are intentionally not resolvable. e.g., tag URIs
14:34:51 [Jeremy]
Jeremy has joined #owl
14:35:09 [bijan]
+1 to that seconding; "on the web, names == locations" is just false.
14:35:54 [Joanne]
+1 agree, separate and deal with separtely - nice proposal on the phone now
14:36:19 [MarkusK]
Achille: the inclusion mechanism of XML Schema (XML Schema import not XMLinclude) is a good solution.
14:36:22 [Joanne]
who was just speaking?
14:36:30 [Joanne]
about the configuration file?
14:36:31 [thomassch]
thomassch has joined #owl
14:36:59 [MarkusK]
... names should not be tied to locations, but further sources should be used to resolve names.
14:37:01 [Jeremy]
achille was speaking
14:37:19 [MarkusK]
Alan: is this consistent with my proposal for having many locations for some ontology?
14:37:36 [Joanne]
Thanks. His proposal makes sense to me
14:37:48 [MarkusK]
Achille: yes, I would like some default mechanism that can be overwritten to specify alternative locations
14:38:04 [MarkusK]
Boris: I have two points.
14:38:15 [MarkusK]
... (1) how many ontologies are really on the Web?
14:38:39 [MarkusK]
... (2) we should not specify in detail what tools are supposed to do when looking for ontologies
14:38:43 [Achille]
and the overwrite should be done outside the owl file
14:39:15 [vit]
vit has joined #OWL
14:39:18 [MarkusK]
... It would have been easier to leave tools some freedom for determining ontology locations, e.g. similar to CLASSPATH in Java
14:39:47 [MarkusK]
Ian: Re (1) appliations may still refer to the web, but ontologies might stilll be local to some server
14:40:07 [Joanne]
even if it's not "on the web" now, we need to support the case that the ontologies are on the web
14:40:15 [MarkusK]
Boris: but aren't there also relevant uses of ontologies without any Web?
14:40:59 [MarkusK]
Bijan: it is not out of scope to consider ontologies that are not on the web
14:41:11 [MarkusK]
... I am disagreeing with Alan.
14:41:44 [Zakim]
+ +1.603.897.aaaa
14:41:47 [MarkusK]
... I often created local copies of ontologies to modify them, while keeping internal names.
14:42:15 [MarkusK]
... It shoud not happen that those modified copies then are deduced to be the same as the original one.
14:42:39 [MarkusK]
... I do not see what Alan's proposal buys us.
14:43:21 [MarkusK]
Ian: summing up, the problem could be that multiple (versions of) ontologies have the same name in their header, and those should not be considered the same.
14:43:30 [MarkusK]
Alan: this would only happen if both were imported.
14:44:04 [vit]
vit has joined #OWL
14:44:06 [MarkusK]
... Considers, e.g. having three variants of one ontology:
14:44:11 [MarkusK]
... B, B', B''
14:44:27 [MarkusK]
... depending on what you import you may get either
14:44:43 [MarkusK]
... only if you import two at one time, these would be merged.
14:45:04 [Jeremy]
Jeremy has joined #owl
14:45:13 [MarkusK]
Bijan: but didn't you say that locations and names then get equated (sameAs) on import. Why would this be good?
14:45:23 [Achille]
q?
14:45:30 [Achille]
q-
14:45:44 [MarkusK]
Ian: these details should be discussed here, and the discussion must probably be taken offline at some point.
14:45:56 [MarkusK]
... including clearly written-up proposals.
14:47:15 [GiorgosStoilos]
GiorgosStoilos has joined #OWL
14:47:36 [g-stoilos]
g-stoilos has joined #OWL
14:48:19 [bijan]
Isn't this sent to the mailing list?
14:48:29 [MarkusK]
Alan: responding to Jeremy saying that we should leave this to the caching mechanism. The reason that I would like to have "location punning" on names is that I would like to use different tools at one time.
14:48:52 [AlanR1]
Alan Rector: Issues a) Scenarios please; b) if locations, need relative paths; c) relation between ontology name and base URI ("namespace")
14:50:13 [MarkusK]
SebastianBrandt: I would like to partially agree with Boris: ontologies are often used offline to make money, but they still are developed online.
14:50:18 [bmotik]
Here is the part of the XML Schema specification about imports:
14:50:20 [bmotik]
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-1/#composition-schemaImport
14:51:19 [MarkusK]
Matthew: when developing tools, we only found it reasonalbe to treat ontology URIs as names. Protege uses a lookup table to map onologies to local files.
14:51:43 [sandro]
Bottom line: is owl:imports like C #include (extended from filenames to URLs), or like java import (which needs classpath).
14:53:12 [MarkusK]
ACTION: Bijan to extend the wiki with information on imports and restructuring it if needed (with Sebastian)
14:53:12 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-36 - Extend the wiki with information on imports and restructuring it if needed (with Sebastian) [on Bijan Parsia - due 2007-12-13].
14:53:41 [MarkusK]
ACTION: Alan Ruttenberg to write up his proposal on dealing with imports
14:53:41 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-37 - Ruttenberg to write up his proposal on dealing with imports [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2007-12-13].
14:56:20 [IanH_]
IanH_ has joined #owl
14:56:51 [Jeremy]
Jeremy has joined #owl
14:57:08 [MarkusK]
MarkusK has joined #owl
14:57:50 [vit]
vit has joined #OWL
14:57:50 [MarkusK]
pfps: basic ideas of rich annotations
14:57:52 [Joanne]
couldn't understand what AlanR said in response to the potentially infiinte nesting of annotations
14:58:26 [MarkusK]
... allow arbitrary syntax as annotations, including annotations
14:58:58 [MarkusK]
... annotations separated into "spaces" and some spaces may indicate that tools must understand the respective annotations (for extensions)
14:59:19 [GiorgosStoilos]
GiorgosStoilos has joined #OWL
14:59:38 [MarkusK]
(pfps presents syntax slide)
15:00:16 [peterhaase]
peterhaase has joined #owl
15:00:24 [MarkusK]
pfps: keywords mayIgnore and mustUnderstand describe whether or not annotations are essential for semantics
15:00:28 [Joanne]
I don't understand what "space" means
15:00:44 [MarkusK]
... yes, annotations with "mustUnderstand" may change the semantics, also of existing constructs
15:01:12 [MarkusK]
... Each annotation belongs to some "space", given as part of the annotation syntax.
15:01:21 [Joanne]
is it a structuring of "the annotation space"
15:01:41 [MarkusK]
... There is a "default space" for annotations without explicit space annotations.
15:02:30 [MarkusK]
Bijan: the term "annotation" is ambiguous. In OWL1.0 it was something given to an annotationProperty. In OWL1.1 it can be any piece of syntax.
15:02:52 [MarkusK]
pfps: Annotations may even exist without relating to any OWL object.
15:03:31 [dlm]
dlm has joined #owl
15:03:49 [IanH_]
q?
15:04:14 [MarkusK]
Alan: do the axioms of the containing ontology also belong to each annotation space?
15:04:27 [MarkusK]
Bijan: no, unless one would import it explicitly.
15:04:45 [MarkusK]
Boris: I do not understand the idea of "annotation spaces"
15:05:13 [MarkusK]
pfps: this is because some annotations are semantic extensions, that should be keeped separate from other annotations.
15:06:04 [MarkusK]
SebastianBrandt: I have another use-case: I have some annotations that are just user documentations, some that contain "code" that is used by the application, and even some that are generated automatically by my applications.
15:06:24 [MarkusK]
Jeremy: we should have a worked example that illustrates this
15:06:56 [MarkusK]
Bijan: the Pronto extension to OWL provides some example
15:07:19 [MarkusK]
ACTION: Bijan to improve examples for rich annotations.
15:07:19 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-42 - Improve examples for rich annotations. [on Bijan Parsia - due 2007-12-13].
15:08:11 [MarkusK]
Boris: it would also be useful if someone could explain in detail how to use this mechanism, starting from ontology creation up to external reuse.
15:08:24 [MarkusK]
Bijan: I can do that after coffee
15:08:51 [Jeremy]
Jeremy has joined #owl
15:09:20 [Joanne]
Bijan, count me in to your coffee break explaination
15:09:43 [MarkusK]
Alan: is there going to be an RDF serialisation to this?
15:09:48 [MarkusK]
Bijan: yes
15:10:07 [MarkusK]
Alan: do annotations then distribute over differnt files?
15:10:37 [MarkusK]
Bijan: no, we can use reification to add extra annotation-space information
15:10:45 [MarkusK]
.. but there are many possibilities
15:10:52 [MarkusK]
s /../.../
15:11:13 [MarkusK]
pfps: I think the idea of annotation spaces changing the semantics of OWL is what is most controversial
15:12:01 [MarkusK]
Bijan: semantic annotation spaces need to have a spec, e.g. to include RIF rules into OWL documents.
15:12:14 [MarkusK]
... this spec then defines the intended semantics.
15:12:31 [MarkusK]
... The annotation space has a URI that may specify this semantics.
15:13:30 [MarkusK]
pfps: annotations usually have no semantics, exceptions being the mustUnderstand annotations that must be taken into account by tools in an adequate way.
15:14:03 [MarkusK]
Ian: we did only talk about rich annotations, but not about the other OWL1.1 extensions to the OWL1.0 mechanism.
15:14:14 [MarkusK]
.. this should also be discussed.
15:14:20 [MarkusK]
s /../.../
15:14:23 [Michael_Smith]
Michael_Smith has joined #owl
15:14:33 [MarkusK]
pfps: we can do that in the compatibility session tomorrow.
15:14:41 [MarkusK]
Coffee break.
15:15:29 [Joanne]
testing audio.... can someone check that you can hear me? I want to hear Bijan's explaination
15:19:50 [Jeremy]
Jeremy has joined #owl
15:31:51 [Jeremy]
Jeremy has joined #owl
15:37:16 [peterhaase]
peterhaase has joined #owl
15:39:24 [AlanRector]
AlanRector has joined #owl
15:39:56 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl
15:40:01 [Ratnesh]
Ratnesh has joined #owl
15:41:23 [dlm]
dlm has joined #owl
15:41:30 [dlm]
test
15:42:51 [Jeremy]
Jeremy has joined #owl
15:43:19 [dlm]
Thanks expressed to the Knowledge Web project for the dinner we are about to enjoy
15:43:22 [Michael_Smith]
Michael_Smith has joined #owl
15:43:31 [dlm]
Bijan about to present
15:43:56 [dlm]
bijan will email his slides after presenting
15:44:22 [dlm]
Bijan will present 2 prior uses
15:44:23 [sandro]
+Jeff_Pan
15:44:29 [sandro]
zakim, this is owl
15:44:29 [Zakim]
sandro, this was already SW_OWL(F2F)6:00AM
15:44:31 [Zakim]
ok, sandro; that matches SW_OWL(F2F)6:00AM
15:44:35 [sandro]
+Jeff_Pan
15:44:40 [dlm]
He is using one annotation space
15:44:42 [Elisa]
Elisa has joined #owl
15:45:10 [dlm]
one annotation blob includes who is responsible for the annotaiton (in this case self)
15:45:27 [dlm]
and sally checked it (thus showing structured annotations with reference to self)
15:45:55 [dlm]
namespaces at top
15:46:04 [dlm]
ontology header next
15:46:26 [IanH_]
IanH_ has joined #owl
15:47:47 [dlm]
ontology uri, followed by comment (which expands to an rdfs comment)
15:49:33 [IanH_]
Two files:
15:49:36 [IanH_]
http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/prontoExample.owlfs
15:50:24 [IanH_]
http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/ontoClean.owlfs
15:50:27 [dlm]
followed by 2 namespace declarations
15:50:52 [Uli]
Uli has joined #owl
15:51:19 [dlm]
going down to womanaged50Plus
15:54:51 [Jeremy]
Jeremy has joined #owl
15:55:21 [dlm]
womanAged50Plus is a subclass of WomanWithBRCInShortTErm with certainty between .027 and .041
15:55:26 [pascalhitzler]
pascalhitzler has joined #OWL
15:55:33 [dlm]
would be ignored if reasoner did not understand pronto
15:55:39 [Joanne]
can someone repeat how to read the certainty "0.027;0.041"?
15:56:00 [dlm]
certainty between .027 and .041
15:57:20 [dlm]
? annotation and must understand would allow you to embed sbml into the document (from alan)
15:57:36 [Joanne]
I thought I just said that?
15:57:52 [dlm]
yes - sorry alan confirmed
15:58:32 [dlm]
boris - how should one encode constraints into an ontology?
15:58:35 [dlm]
this could be a way
15:59:23 [Zakim]
+Elisa_Kendall
15:59:34 [dlm]
bijan notes ontoclean and pronto are working
16:02:15 [dlm]
alan r - we need rich linguistic representations for some applications
16:02:29 [dlm]
alan r - we need rich structure
16:03:20 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl
16:03:21 [dlm]
alan r - a lot of information is provenance knowledge, its structure and how it was put together which is important for passing around between tools
16:03:57 [dlm]
alan r - this is also a way of providing one type of representation and projecting it into an alternative representation
16:04:51 [Jeremy]
Jeremy has joined #owl
16:05:00 [dlm]
alan r - want to take a model in owl and export it in another syntax
16:05:51 [IanH_]
IanH_ has joined #owl
16:05:58 [dlm]
bijan - part of this "must understand" is a retrofit
16:06:46 [dlm]
sandro - must understand may be a reasonable option but there may be other options as well
16:07:16 [dlm]
what if someone wanted to put in rif rules?
16:07:41 [sandro]
Sandro: If every axiom had a URI, you could just use RDF (or OWL, or RIF)
16:07:45 [dlm]
one way you could interact with this is to make applications aware of the spaces
16:07:51 [sandro]
Bijan: yes
16:07:59 [dlm]
ian - question to sandro - what are possibly better engineering solutions?
16:08:05 [dlm]
sandro - ummm
16:08:35 [vit]
vit has joined #OWL
16:09:11 [dlm]
sandro - extend the syntax
16:09:31 [dlm]
alan - this may lead to many different extensions ... maybe this is "too easy"
16:10:08 [dlm]
jeremy - generally amused by mustunderstand that may be ignored
16:10:27 [dlm]
jeremy - concerning named graphs... what about serialization
16:10:34 [dlm]
into rdfxml
16:11:04 [sandro]
Bijan: you could reify, use literals, use separate documnets, etc ---- lots of ways to put named graphs in
16:11:17 [dlm]
jeff - mustunderstand is a nice idea to allow users to specify intended semantics...
16:11:20 [clu]
clu has joined #owl
16:11:34 [Vipul]
Vipul has joined #owl
16:12:14 [Zakim]
+Vipul_Kashyap
16:12:22 [dlm]
alan - is it the case that a mustunderstand on anything, then reasoners may not understand the semantics
16:13:59 [dlm]
alan r - lets consider motivations
16:14:27 [dlm]
1: one wants to use editing tools
16:15:09 [Vipul]
Cool!
16:15:14 [Vipul]
I just had coffee myself
16:15:30 [Vipul]
yes ... Got slides from evan
16:16:08 [dlm]
sandro: suggest people give feedback to bijan on the general scheme
16:16:52 [Jeremy]
Jeremy has joined #owl
16:16:54 [dlm]
Ivan: aestetic comment - word annotation is more what alan r was describing
16:17:14 [dlm]
Ivan: mustunderstand is not an annotation
16:18:04 [Jeremy]
Ivan didn't understand mustUnderstand ?!
16:18:40 [Joanne]
It's reminds me of C++ (?) preprocessing if I"m remembering correctly
16:18:48 [dlm]
Sebastian: any tool that finds something strange could just say I do not know what to do with it... he likes the structure
16:19:23 [Jeremy]
The C preprocessor is, in many ways, too powerful ... give them enough rope ...
16:19:25 [dlm]
Boris: useful to group certain types of properties into annotation or extension.... not sure that this should be in the ontology.
16:20:27 [dlm]
Boris: this may be worthy of putting in a separate document
16:20:54 [dlm]
about to move on to user facing documents (and hoping for test discussion to come)
16:21:31 [dlm]
ian - rich annotation mechanism but without notion of mustunderstand
16:21:37 [dlm]
most people agree a good idea
16:21:52 [Achille]
+1 good idea
16:22:00 [Joanne]
+1 good idea
16:22:04 [dlm]
(jeremy objecting and, steve battelle abstained
16:22:22 [dlm]
that was for the general mechanism without semantics
16:22:27 [sandro]
Jeremy is the only person not generally supportive of a rich annotation mechanism (ignore MustUnderstand issue)
16:22:34 [dlm]
now general idea with flagging semantic intention
16:22:37 [Achille]
+1 good idea
16:22:50 [dlm]
good - 13
16:22:50 [Joanne]
+1 good idea
16:23:04 [dlm]
count good increased to 14 includes joanne
16:23:09 [Joanne]
:-)
16:23:59 [dlm]
discussion about what the vote was...
16:24:34 [dlm]
some kind of decorating mechanism of the existing syntax that would indicate a semantic change
16:24:36 [sandro]
PROPOSED: decoration of existing syntax as a way to make a syntactic change
16:24:44 [dlm]
revoting:
16:24:45 [Achille]
+1
16:25:06 [Joanne]
+1
16:25:42 [Zhe]
Zhe has joined #owl
16:25:54 [Achille]
+1
16:25:56 [Zhe]
+1
16:25:57 [Joanne]
+1
16:26:00 [sandro]
rerun -- not counting observers....
16:26:12 [dlm]
in favor 14 (including the 3 remote participants)
16:26:58 [dlm]
against - pfps, sandro, alan - 3 total
16:27:01 [dlm]
abstain - hp
16:27:48 [dlm]
we could consider adding a swrl extension syntax to this proposal
16:27:54 [dlm]
alan - this may be out of scope
16:28:06 [Joanne]
Please note - I have to get on another conf call at 1630; I will monitor the call, but announce loudly if you move to Testing. I want to participate in that discussion if possible.
16:28:50 [Joanne]
Monitor via the chat - need the phone for th eother conf call.
16:28:51 [Jeremy]
Jeremy has joined #owl
16:29:01 [sandro]
Add a hook for user-defined extensions.
16:29:08 [sandro]
s/Add/Boris: Add/
16:29:16 [Achille]
q?
16:29:35 [dlm]
feedback that it is reasonable to continue developing this
16:30:10 [Zakim]
-Joanne_Luciano
16:30:19 [Joanne]
still on chat though!
16:30:31 [sandro]
Alan: What worries me is that you can have an OWL document that doesn't look like an OWL document.
16:31:26 [pfps]
pfps has joined #owl
16:31:49 [dlmcg1]
dlmcg1 has joined #owl
16:31:49 [peterhaase]
peterhaase has joined #owl
16:32:58 [Jeremy]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Dec/att-0080/UFDTF_overview2.pdf
16:33:29 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl
16:33:49 [Michael_Smith]
Michael_Smith has joined #owl
16:33:59 [cgi-irc]
cgi-irc has joined #owl
16:34:15 [sandro]
scribenick: GiorgosStoilos
16:34:36 [sandro]
Topic: User Facing Documents
16:34:37 [GiorgosStoilos]
Even wallace is presenting the status of User Facing Documents
16:34:43 [dlm]
dlm has joined #owl
16:34:57 [GiorgosStoilos]
s/Even wallace/ Evan Wallace
16:35:22 [GiorgosStoilos]
...documents that will help users into owl 1.1
16:35:40 [GiorgosStoilos]
...like guide, overview, reference
16:36:00 [GiorgosStoilos]
evan: work mainly volunteered
16:36:55 [GiorgosStoilos]
...should these documents be produced as part of the spec?
16:38:04 [GiorgosStoilos]
...what syntax to use for the examples, different users have different preferences...DL syntax
16:38:19 [GiorgosStoilos]
...abstract syntax, etc
16:39:18 [GiorgosStoilos]
evan: e.g. some docs use the DL side, while others use, like the Reference use a Semantic Web side (meaning RDF)
16:39:49 [GiorgosStoilos]
no much progress has been done
16:39:51 [Jeremy]
Jeremy has joined #owl
16:40:44 [thomassch]
thomassch has joined #owl
16:41:47 [uli2]
My (unfinished) tutorial with multiple syntaxes inline: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~bparsia/2007/owltutorial/
16:42:03 [GiorgosStoilos]
preference in producing an overview doc that is between OWL 1.1 overview and OWL overview
16:42:07 [sandro]
Sandro: (rather contovercially) I hope the Semantic Web survives RDF. [ That is, the goals of Semantic Web are important. RDF may not be the best way to meet those goals. I hope those goals are met, even if it mean moving beyond RDF. ]
16:44:00 [dlm]
looking at the overview for 1.0, http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/
16:44:01 [GiorgosStoilos]
bijan: is working in a way to choose to preview an example in the syntax of your choice
16:44:18 [dlm]
that overview suggestion might be drop section 1, and drop it from organizing section 2
16:45:05 [GiorgosStoilos]
deb: looked in OWL 1.1 overview
16:45:47 [GiorgosStoilos]
jeremy: a question is how much of the old docs we will use or start new ones
16:47:20 [dlm]
my comments were on starting from owl 1.0 overview
16:47:38 [dlm]
(and integrating in the owl 1.1 overview diff info)
16:47:40 [GiorgosStoilos]
jeremy: do we want to extend the owl1.0 docs?
16:48:34 [GiorgosStoilos]
bijan: oposes to extending the owl 1.0 docs. Finds them confusing
16:49:16 [GiorgosStoilos]
...don't thinks that good "tutorials" could be written within the WG
16:50:30 [GiorgosStoilos]
bijan: if people want to go forward then he proposes something like RDF Primer
16:51:16 [GiorgosStoilos]
ian: thinks that an entry doc is very important and usefull
16:51:28 [Jeremy_]
Jeremy_ has joined #owl
16:51:28 [GiorgosStoilos]
bijan: what about the homepage?
16:51:50 [thomassch]
thomassch has joined #owl
16:51:50 [GiorgosStoilos]
...contains motivation, intro, etc
16:53:14 [GiorgosStoilos]
mikeSmith: homepage could also be improved to serve as a better intro doc
16:53:43 [Vipul]
q+
16:54:19 [Zhe]
i'd like to see a doc with a complete list of new vocabularies and pointers to examples and semantics
16:54:47 [GiorgosStoilos]
alanRut: people are not learning OWL from the docs. Use them as refs rather than intros
16:55:38 [Joanne]
It would be good to take a poll (if one's not been already) to see objectively how people are learning OWL.
16:55:48 [GiorgosStoilos]
bijan: exaplain some problems related to w3c for updating the docs
16:56:08 [Jeremy]
bijan: proposes changing license on old OWL 1.0 UFD to allow derivatives
16:56:39 [Vipul]
q
16:56:58 [Jeremy]
bijan: this would allow (not this WG) to support the old docs (i.e. publish new versions outside this space)
16:57:09 [sandro]
Vipul, the chairs knows you want to talk, now.
16:57:18 [Vipul]
thanks
16:59:05 [GiorgosStoilos]
vipul: agrees with alan rut
16:59:44 [Jeremy]
vipul: would like to have domain specific examples
17:00:03 [Jeremy]
vipul: how do we decide what goes where W3C or outside?
17:00:23 [GiorgosStoilos]
bernardo: agrees with bijan. Why does educational material go to rec?
17:01:16 [GiorgosStoilos]
uli: what about updating old docs with links to new matterial
17:01:46 [GiorgosStoilos]
deb: don't see how this could be done
17:01:56 [GiorgosStoilos]
sandro: explains a way
17:02:20 [Vipul]
Why not?
17:02:46 [Vipul]
I mean why should educational material/use cases/requirements not be part of the rec track?
17:03:00 [Vipul]
I would like some clear guidance and criteria from W3C
17:04:51 [Jeremy_]
Jeremy_ has joined #owl
17:06:37 [vit]
vit has joined #OWL
17:06:49 [Vipul]
Just forwarded Michel Dumontier's response to the OWL WG mailing list
17:06:50 [Rinke]
Rinke has joined #owl
17:06:55 [GiorgosStoilos]
alanRut: asks for a clarification on sandros example
17:07:22 [pascalhitzler]
Jeremy: RecTrack document means that author gets acknowledgement as W3C Document author, which in turn should mean more commitment towards the work.
17:08:22 [bijan]
q+
17:09:03 [dlm]
+1
17:09:10 [GiorgosStoilos]
evan: a plain language doc that could be used by non-experts is very good
17:09:13 [Vipul]
Jeremy's response is "content independent"
17:09:47 [Vipul]
Doesn't help me decide either way
17:11:32 [thomassch]
thomassch has joined #owl
17:11:33 [Evan]
Evan has joined #owl
17:11:41 [ivan]
ack Vipul
17:11:41 [ivan]
ack bijan
17:12:43 [GiorgosStoilos]
bijan: I am not highly against rectrack docs but more in favour for notes
17:13:25 [GiorgosStoilos]
ian: put the rectrack non-rectrack aside and think about the docs
17:14:17 [GiorgosStoilos]
ian: it seems from today that overall docs are not very good
17:16:00 [GiorgosStoilos]
ian: come again to the question whether starting fresh docs or extending old ones
17:17:08 [GiorgosStoilos]
ivan: has found guide docs of various groups very helpfull, like XML schema
17:17:12 [Zakim]
+jim
17:17:51 [Jeremy_]
Jeremy_ has joined #owl
17:17:55 [GiorgosStoilos]
ivan: if these docs have the blessing of the group then this is much better
17:18:35 [GiorgosStoilos]
....producing similar docs for the community would be good
17:19:17 [GiorgosStoilos]
alanrut: do we agree that we need a reference doc
17:19:37 [Achille]
+1
17:21:11 [Uli]
ivan, if they are notes, they will still have the blessing of the WG?
17:22:05 [GiorgosStoilos]
deb: because there are problems with existing ones does not mean we have to start with new ones
17:23:52 [GiorgosStoilos]
bijan: proposes a fresh "prime" doc as a replacement of overview and guide
17:24:57 [sandro]
PROPOSED: To meet our charter deliverable of covering the intent of 'Overview' and 'Guide', we'll publish a new 'Primer' (written largely from scratch).
17:25:41 [Joanne]
+1 I like the primer idea
17:26:18 [Joanne]
How do we evaluate what we do (in general)?
17:27:02 [GiorgosStoilos]
jim: asks about where the specification of OWL Full would go. Does not see it in OWL 1.1. functional syntax
17:28:31 [Uli]
Uli has joined #owl
17:28:37 [GiorgosStoilos]
jeremy: agrees with jim. It would be helpfull to have a doc which explains to non-experts features of owl full
17:29:51 [Jeremy_]
Jeremy_ has joined #owl
17:30:47 [g-stoilos]
g-stoilos has joined #OWL
17:31:22 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl
17:31:31 [Evan]
test
17:31:34 [g-stoilos]
jim: gives an example of inverseFunctional DatatypeProperties
17:31:42 [Jeremy]
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#InverseFunctionalProperty-def
17:32:00 [Jeremy]
jim's question is where would such text go if we do not have a document like OWL Reference
17:32:24 [Jeremy]
particularly:
17:32:26 [Jeremy]
NOTE: Because in OWL Full datatype properties are a subclass of object properties, an inverse-functional property can be defined for datatype properties. In OWL DL object properties and datatype properties are disjoint, so an inverse-functional property cannot be defined for datatype properties. See also Sec. 8.1 and Sec. 8.2.
17:33:54 [g-stoilos]
ian: maybe we will decide to have such a documents (like the reference)
17:34:54 [GiorgosStoilos]
bijan: functional syntax must not change since it is the formal specification
17:35:07 [sandro]
PROPOSED: To meet our charter deliverable of covering the intent of 'Overview' and 'Guide', we'll publish a new 'Primer' (written largely from scratch).
17:35:55 [Jeremy]
To meet our charter deliverable of covering the intent of 'Overview' we'll work from OWL OVerview 1.0
17:35:56 [Achille]
0
17:36:59 [Jeremy]
To meet our charter deliverable of covering the intent of 'Guide', we'll publish a new 'Guide'
17:37:19 [Vipul]
q+
17:37:32 [hendler]
hendler has joined #owl
17:37:34 [Jeremy]
To meet our charter deliverable of covering the intent of 'Guide', we'll work from OWL Guide 1.0
17:37:39 [Vipul]
I need a clarification
17:37:42 [Vipul]
Hello!
17:38:43 [hendler]
(can each of the things we are being asked to strawpole on be put up one at a time? - and I cannot see IRC from before joining, of course)
17:39:03 [Vipul]
Perhaps working towards a document set like:
17:39:16 [Vipul]
An introductory document between OWL 1.1 Overview and OWL Overview from Rec. (without the species of OWL emphasis)
17:39:26 [Vipul]
A document intended as a language reference written in plain english
17:39:28 [sandro]
PROPOSED-1: To meet our charter deliverable of covering the intent of 'Overview' and 'Guide', we'll publish a new 'Primer' (written largely from scratch).
17:39:38 [Vipul]
Requirements with traceability
17:39:54 [sandro]
PROPOSED-2: To meet our charter deliverable of covering the intent of 'Overview' we'll work from OWL OVerview 1.0
17:40:54 [Jeremy]
no not really (to jim)
17:41:00 [GiorgosStoilos]
pfps: Aparently we should have 3 proposals: i) old docs, ii) fresh docs iii) prime proposal (bijan's)
17:41:21 [hendler]
wish I'd joined call earlier - incremental seems a lot less work than starting from scratch
17:42:21 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Refresh the old documents (otherwise, start mostly from scratch).
17:42:25 [GiorgosStoilos]
straw poll: YES=refresh docs NO=start new ones.
17:42:50 [hendler]
but no way to say yes to some docs and no to others? shouldn't we do this doc by doc?
17:43:43 [Zakim]
+Joanne_Luciano
17:44:06 [GiorgosStoilos]
ian: lets go doc by doc
17:44:20 [Vipul]
Forwarded Christine's response to the OWL WG
17:45:09 [GiorgosStoilos]
straw poll on =overview=
17:45:14 [hendler]
overview = YES
17:45:15 [sandro]
PROPOSED: 'Overview' requirement from charter to be met by cleaned up and expanded-as-needed version of 2004 OWL Overview
17:45:42 [Elisa]
+1
17:45:45 [hendler]
+1
17:45:48 [Achille]
0
17:45:51 [Jeremy_]
Jeremy_ has joined #owl
17:45:54 [Zhe]
+1 (like to see delta)
17:45:58 [Vipul]
+1
17:46:06 [Joanne]
0 (just rejoined)
17:46:07 [sandro]
pro in room - 4
17:46:24 [Vipul]
+1 to start from scratch
17:46:33 [GiorgosStoilos]
votes for no in room - 9
17:46:34 [sandro]
con in room - 9
17:46:46 [sandro]
Ian: essentially a tie....
17:47:54 [hendler]
I VOTE YES
17:47:56 [Elisa]
+1
17:47:57 [GiorgosStoilos]
ian: people from the call are confused
17:48:00 [Zhe]
+1
17:48:07 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
17:48:09 [Joanne]
+1
17:48:19 [GiorgosStoilos]
count on room: 3
17:48:25 [Vipul]
+1 for NO
17:48:28 [GiorgosStoilos]
total for yes: 7
17:48:28 [Achille]
abstain
17:48:40 [GiorgosStoilos]
votes for no=12 (11 + vipul)
17:48:57 [Vipul]
OK
17:49:00 [Vipul]
-1 then
17:49:17 [sandro]
PROPOSED: 'Requirements' requirement from charter to be met by cleaned up and expanded-as-needed version of 2004 OWL publication
17:49:27 [GiorgosStoilos]
next doc to poll =requirements=
17:50:04 [GiorgosStoilos]
voting for yes:
17:50:08 [Achille]
0
17:50:12 [sandro]
Ian: Yes mean keep current document and warm it up.
17:50:12 [Zhe]
0
17:50:18 [Vipul]
-1
17:50:18 [GiorgosStoilos]
count on the room: 2
17:50:23 [hendler]
-1
17:50:24 [GiorgosStoilos]
voting for no
17:50:25 [Elisa]
-1
17:50:31 [Joanne]
+1 voitn for no
17:50:40 [GiorgosStoilos]
room: 12
17:50:49 [hendler]
so it's not just the phone that is confused :-)
17:51:15 [sandro]
PROPOSED: 'Formal Specification' requirement from charter to be met by cleaned up and expanded-as-needed version of 2004 OWL publication
17:51:37 [GiorgosStoilos]
next doc =Reference=
17:51:42 [hendler]
+1 for reference
17:51:44 [GiorgosStoilos]
Starting vote from YES
17:51:44 [Zhe]
+1
17:51:49 [Elisa]
+1
17:51:53 [Achille]
0
17:52:00 [sandro]
PROPOSED: 'Descriptive Specification'' requirement from charter to be met by cleaned up and expanded-as-needed version of 2004 OWL publication
17:52:14 [sandro]
(skipping Formal Spec because it's not user facing)
17:52:29 [GiorgosStoilos]
count yes (refresh) in the room: 4
17:52:36 [GiorgosStoilos]
voting for no
17:52:37 [Joanne]
+1 start fresh
17:52:37 [Vipul]
-1
17:52:48 [GiorgosStoilos]
count in room for no: 13
17:53:10 [sandro]
PROPOSED: 'GUIDE'' requirement from charter to be met by cleaned up and expanded-as-needed version of 2004 OWL publication
17:53:14 [hendler]
+1 yes for Guide
17:53:14 [Achille]
0
17:53:19 [Elisa]
+1
17:53:22 [GiorgosStoilos]
voting for yes:
17:53:24 [Zhe]
+1
17:53:37 [GiorgosStoilos]
room for yes: 2
17:53:43 [Vipul]
-1
17:53:46 [GiorgosStoilos]
voting for no
17:53:56 [Joanne]
+1 do new!
17:54:00 [GiorgosStoilos]
room for no: 13
17:54:40 [hendler]
but this means we cannot do incremental?
17:56:26 [pfps]
rough "page size" for Overview 14 - Reference 50 - Guide 38
17:56:33 [dlm]
An introductory document between OWL 1.1 Overview and OWL Overview from Rec. (without the species of OWL emphasis)
17:56:38 [dlm]
from evan
17:57:31 [Vipul]
+1
17:57:48 [GiorgosStoilos]
ian: maybe not have a poll on evan's suggestion (above) since it is currently not clear
17:58:32 [dlm]
ha ha from joanne
17:58:50 [Joanne]
I want to stay!
17:59:10 [GiorgosStoilos]
topic: test cases
17:59:40 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl
18:00:01 [IanH]
q?
18:00:05 [GiorgosStoilos]
jeremy: explains some ways for doing tests
18:00:40 [GiorgosStoilos]
...every feature in the spec must have a test
18:00:49 [Joanne]
both are important
18:01:26 [ivan]
ack Vipul
18:01:51 [Jeremy_]
Jeremy_ has joined #owl
18:02:04 [GiorgosStoilos]
jeremy: in owl test was a normative doc
18:02:14 [GiorgosStoilos]
ivan: not in sparql
18:02:16 [hendler]
note that to be able to leave PR, one must document that every feature is implementable, and the tests are a way to do that
18:03:10 [hendler]
+1 to postponing the decision
18:03:18 [GiorgosStoilos]
ivan: don't need to decide now about normative or non
18:03:56 [GiorgosStoilos]
alanRut: put test cases on wiki
18:04:05 [sandro]
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Test_Case_Experiment
18:04:45 [GiorgosStoilos]
ian: what will happen with existing test, will they be on the wiki
18:05:09 [Zakim]
-Achille
18:05:16 [Joanne]
response to alanr - would have to update the tests!
18:05:17 [hendler]
do we have any commitment on archivability of the wiki?
18:05:29 [sandro]
yes
18:05:58 [hendler]
and can it be frozen so it cannot be changed after some point (i.e. something that goes to Rec shouldn't have a "live document")
18:06:31 [pfps]
pfps has joined #owl
18:08:47 [sandro]
test cases on wiki -- Sandro coding, Bijan as user, Alan, Jeremy
18:09:01 [Zakim]
-Meeting_Room
18:09:35 [sandro]
ACTION: Sandro to develop scripts to extract test cases from wiki, coordinating with Bijan, Jeremey, Alan.
18:09:36 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-43 - Develop scripts to extract test cases from wiki, coordinating with Bijan, Jeremey, Alan. [on Sandro Hawke - due 2007-12-13].
18:09:36 [Joanne]
do we view test cases as sameas evaluation?
18:09:43 [hendler]
we phone folks just got cut off - meeting room left the wiki...
18:09:43 [Jeremy]
(meeting adjourned)
18:09:55 [Jeremy]
something went wrong with phone
18:09:56 [sandro]
We got hung up on.....
18:10:01 [Zhe]
i can hear someone typing
18:10:02 [Jeremy]
but we decided to adjourn
18:10:41 [Zakim]
-jim
18:10:47 [vit]
vit has left #OWL
18:10:55 [Evan]
Zakim was cut off because we went past our scheduled time
18:10:56 [Michael_Smith]
Michael_Smith has left #owl
18:11:02 [AlanRector]
AlanRector has left #owl
18:11:31 [Zakim]
-Elisa_Kendall
18:12:30 [Zakim]
- +1.603.897.aaaa
18:16:57 [thomassch]
thomassch has left #owl
19:06:21 [sandro]
sandro has joined #owl
19:59:04 [Zakim]
-Joanne_Luciano
20:04:04 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, Vipul_Kashyap, in SW_OWL(F2F)6:00AM
20:04:07 [Zakim]
SW_OWL(F2F)6:00AM has ended
20:04:08 [Zakim]
Attendees were Joanne_Luciano, Achille, Meeting_Room, +1.603.897.aaaa, Elisa_Kendall, Vipul_Kashyap, jim
20:04:11 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #owl