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