OWL Working Group

Minutes of 23 October 2008

Present
Ian Horrocks Boris Motik Peter Patel-Schneider Bernardo Cuenca Grau Sandro Hawke Markus Krötzsch Michael Schneider Achille Fokoue Bijan Parsia Evan Wallace Christine Golbreich Rinke Hoekstra Ivan Herman Alan Ruttenberg
Remote
Elisa Kendall Zhe Wu
Observers
Henson Graves Jeremy Carroll Scott Marshall Blaž Novak Holger Stenzhorn Alexandre Passant
Scribe
Peter Patel-Schneider
IRC Log
Original and Editable Wiki Version
Resolutions

None.

Topics
00:00:00 <sandro> PRESENT: Ian, Boris, pfps, Bernardo, Sandro, MarkusK, m_schnei, Achille, Bijan, Evan, Christine, Rinke, Ivan, Alan_Ruttenberg
00:00:00 <sandro> Observers:  Henson_Graves, Jeremy_Carroll, scott_marshall, novak, holger, alexandre
00:00:00 <sandro> Remote:  Elisa_Kendall, Zhe
06:55:50 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/10/23-owl-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/10/23-owl-irc

06:56:07 <pfps> Zakim, this will be owlwg

Peter Patel-Schneider: Zakim, this will be owlwg

06:56:07 <Zakim> ok, pfps; I see SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM scheduled to start 26 minutes ago

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, pfps; I see SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM scheduled to start 26 minutes ago

06:56:21 <pfps> RRSAgent, make records public

Peter Patel-Schneider: RRSAgent, make records public

06:56:33 <pfps> ScribeNick: pfps

(Scribe set to Peter Patel-Schneider)

06:56:59 <pfps> elisa?

elisa?

06:58:12 <Zakim> SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM has now started

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM has now started

06:58:19 <Zakim> +Elisa_Kendall

Zakim IRC Bot: +Elisa_Kendall

06:58:25 <Elisa> hi

Elisa Kendall: hi

07:07:40 <pfps> IanH: Welcome (to ...)

(No events recorded for 9 minutes)

Ian Horrocks: Welcome (to ...)

07:07:51 <sandro> zakim, who is here?

Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is here?

07:07:51 <Zakim> On the phone I see Elisa_Kendall

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Elisa_Kendall

07:07:52 <Zakim> On IRC I see MarkusK_, sandro, bcueencagrau, IanH, Elisa, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps, ivan, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see MarkusK_, sandro, bcueencagrau, IanH, Elisa, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps, ivan, trackbot

07:12:49 <sandro> zakim, call Riviera_B

Sandro Hawke: zakim, call Riviera_B

07:12:49 <Zakim> ok, sandro; the call is being made

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, sandro; the call is being made

07:12:51 <Zakim> +Riviera_B

Zakim IRC Bot: +Riviera_B

07:14:09 <pfps> Sandro: nothing on local arrangement

Sandro Hawke: nothing on local arrangement

07:14:30 <pfps> IanH: introductions

Ian Horrocks: introductions

07:14:40 <pfps> ...: Hi, I'm me

...: Hi, I'm me

07:14:42 <ivan> zakim, dial Riviera_B

Ivan Herman: zakim, dial Riviera_B

07:14:42 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made

07:14:43 <Zakim> +Riviera_B.a

Zakim IRC Bot: +Riviera_B.a

07:15:51 <pfps> Observers - Henson Graves, Jeremy Carroll

Observers - Henson Graves, Jeremy Carroll

07:16:41 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Timeline

Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Timeline

07:16:42 <pfps> IanH: Timeline (follow link in agenda)

Ian Horrocks: Timeline (follow link in agenda)

07:17:13 <pfps> IanH: I put a real timeine (not T0+)

Ian Horrocks: I put a real timeine (not T0+)

07:17:38 <pfps> IanH: We are about 2 months behind the scheduled time for Last Call

Ian Horrocks: We are about 2 months behind the scheduled time for Last Call

07:17:53 <pfps> IanH: It thus would be good to move forward with due haste

Ian Horrocks: It thus would be good to move forward with due haste

07:18:43 <pfps> Bijan:  The schedule was designed to be aggressive (but with a bit of slack)

Bijan Parsia: The schedule was designed to be aggressive (but with a bit of slack)

07:18:56 <pfps> Sandro:  The slack is ... two months

Sandro Hawke: The slack is ... two months

07:19:09 <pfps> Topic: Document Status

1. Document Status

07:19:19 <pfps> Polycom goes Beep

Polycom goes Beep

07:19:34 <pfps> IanH:  This section is intended as a review

Ian Horrocks: This section is intended as a review

07:19:45 <pfps> IanH:   Can the editors say the status

Ian Horrocks: Can the editors say the status

07:19:45 <Zakim> -Riviera_B.a

Zakim IRC Bot: -Riviera_B.a

07:19:49 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?

Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is on the call?

07:19:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see Elisa_Kendall, Riviera_B

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Elisa_Kendall, Riviera_B

07:20:23 <pfps> Boris: Syntax is up to date - there are some issues that will impact it

Boris Motik: Syntax is up to date - there are some issues that will impact it

07:20:42 <pfps> IanH: There has been internal review (for last PWD)

Ian Horrocks: There has been internal review (for last PWD)

07:20:47 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

07:20:55 <pfps> Ivan: There has been no major external comments

Ivan Herman: There has been no major external comments

07:21:03 <IanH> zakim, who is here?

Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here?

07:21:03 <Zakim> On the phone I see Elisa_Kendall, Riviera_B

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Elisa_Kendall, Riviera_B

07:21:04 <Zakim> On IRC I see bmotik, m_schnei, wallace, MarkusK_, sandro, bcueencagrau, IanH, Elisa, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps, ivan, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see bmotik, m_schnei, wallace, MarkusK_, sandro, bcueencagrau, IanH, Elisa, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps, ivan, trackbot

07:21:09 <pfps> Bijan:  Does current syntax document meet Evan's needs

Bijan Parsia: Does current syntax document meet Evan's needs

07:21:29 <pfps> Evan: Way better than it was - usable - not great because of organization

Evan Wallace: Way better than it was - usable - not great because of organization

07:22:00 <pfps> Evan: Reorganization is currently for the spec/implementation, not users

Evan Wallace: Reorganization is currently for the spec/implementation, not users

07:22:15 <pfps> Bijan: Not explicitly - we did have discussions on the order

Bijan Parsia: Not explicitly - we did have discussions on the order

07:22:29 <pfps> s/Reorganization/Organization

s/Reorganization/Organization

07:22:46 <pfps> Bijan:  There are various organizations of reference docs in the literature

Bijan Parsia: There are various organizations of reference docs in the literature

07:22:59 <pfps> Boris:  Currently Syntax is a *reference* document

Boris Motik: Currently Syntax is a *reference* document

07:23:34 <pfps> Evan: Quick Reference Guide could be used as an index

Evan Wallace: Quick Reference Guide could be used as an index

07:23:47 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

07:24:04 <pfps> Bijan: Primer can serve as another "index"

Bijan Parsia: Primer can serve as another "index"

07:24:42 <pfps> Bijan: Three "indexes" - ToC, QRG, Primer

Bijan Parsia: Three "indexes" - ToC, QRG, Primer

07:24:50 <Zakim> + +1.978.692.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.978.692.aaaa

07:24:57 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

07:25:05 <pfps> Evan: The problem is using it as a reference

Evan Wallace: The problem is using it as a reference

07:25:13 <Zhe> zakim, +1.978.692.aaaa is me

Zhe Wu: zakim, +1.978.692.aaaa is me

07:25:13 <pfps> Evan: The ordering is wrong

Evan Wallace: The ordering is wrong

07:25:13 <Zakim> +Zhe; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Zhe; got it

07:25:19 <pfps> Boris:  What is needed?

Boris Motik: What is needed?

07:25:20 <IanH> Hello Zhe!

Ian Horrocks: Hello Zhe!

07:25:25 <Zhe> zakim, mute me

Zhe Wu: zakim, mute me

07:25:25 <Zakim> Zhe should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Zhe should now be muted

07:25:28 <Zhe> Hi Ian!

Zhe Wu: Hi Ian!

07:25:41 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

07:25:48 <pfps> Evan: Things related to object properties grouped together

Evan Wallace: Things related to object properties grouped together

07:26:11 <pfps> Boris:  But what about domain axioms - they are related to both classes and object properties

Boris Motik: But what about domain axioms - they are related to both classes and object properties

07:27:41 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

07:27:41 <pfps> Christine: What is under discussion now?

Christine Golbreich: What is under discussion now?

07:28:09 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

07:28:11 <pfps> Bijan: We are now discussing the Syntax document - but are also pulling in relationships to other documents

Bijan Parsia: We are now discussing the Syntax document - but are also pulling in relationships to other documents

07:28:47 <pfps> Bijan: Old reference has informal discussions, which are not in the QRG

Bijan Parsia: Old reference has informal discussions, which are not in the QRG

07:29:04 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

07:29:11 <pfps> IanH:  A complete redesign of Syntax is a major effort

Ian Horrocks: A complete redesign of Syntax is a major effort

07:29:39 <pfps> Evan: A complete redesign is not in the cards

Evan Wallace: A complete redesign is not in the cards

07:30:00 <sandro> Evan: I'm fine with using the Quick Reference Guide as the index to Syntax.

Evan Wallace: I'm fine with using the Quick Reference Guide as the index to Syntax. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

07:30:05 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

07:30:06 <pfps> Evan: A reference index is needed - either QRG or part of the document

Evan Wallace: A reference index is needed - either QRG or part of the document

07:30:40 <pfps> IanH:  OK, syntax is in pretty good shape, modulo outstanding issues and perhaps an index

Ian Horrocks: OK, syntax is in pretty good shape, modulo outstanding issues and perhaps an index

07:30:49 <pfps> SubTopic: Semantics Document

1.1. Semantics Document

07:30:59 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

07:31:13 <pfps> Boris: Similar status to syntax - up to date - outstanding issues may need changes

Boris Motik: Similar status to syntax - up to date - outstanding issues may need changes

07:31:38 <sandro> pfps: It's our contention that the Direct Semantics current correctly describes the meaning of OWL.

Peter Patel-Schneider: It's our contention that the Direct Semantics current correctly describes the meaning of OWL. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

07:32:02 <sandro> ian; Finished, modulo outstanding issues.

Sandro Hawke: ian; Finished, modulo outstanding issues.

07:32:05 <pfps> SubTopic: RDF Semantics

1.2. RDF Semantics

07:32:06 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

07:32:15 <pfps> Michael: RDF Semantics is a bit behind

Michael Schneider: RDF Semantics is a bit behind

07:32:18 <sandro> s/ian;/ian:/

Sandro Hawke: s/ian;/ian:/

07:32:30 <pfps> Michael: There are a couple of minor things that need to be added

Michael Schneider: There are a couple of minor things that need to be added

07:32:43 <pfps> Michael:  The two documents are structurally aligned

Michael Schneider: The two documents are structurally aligned

07:33:31 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

07:33:44 <pfps> Michael: Outstanding issues - correspondence theorem, test cases that exercise rdf semantics

Michael Schneider: Outstanding issues - correspondence theorem, test cases that exercise rdf semantics

07:33:51 <sandro> m_schnei: the correspondence theorem proof still needs work.

Michael Schneider: the correspondence theorem proof still needs work. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

07:34:10 <pfps> Bijan: Do we believe that the theorem is correct - if so then we should be able to go to last call - if not then we need to worry

Bijan Parsia: Do we believe that the theorem is correct - if so then we should be able to go to last call - if not then we need to worry

07:34:19 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

07:34:32 <pfps> Michael:  I believe the theorem and that it is a good as we can get

Michael Schneider: I believe the theorem and that it is a good as we can get

07:34:55 <sandro> bijan: Are any proof errors such that the language would have to change?

Bijan Parsia: Are any proof errors such that the language would have to change? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

07:35:00 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

07:35:05 <sandro> m_schnei: I don't think the language will have to change.

Michael Schneider: I don't think the language will have to change. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

07:35:28 <pfps> Bijan:  Do you think that the semantics is OK

Bijan Parsia: Do you think that the semantics is OK

07:35:35 <pfps> Michael: 95 per cent

Michael Schneider: 95 per cent

07:35:56 <pfps> Subtopic: Conformance and Test Cases

1.3. Conformance and Test Cases

07:36:07 <pfps> IanH:  This could be more contentious

Ian Horrocks: This could be more contentious

07:36:15 <pfps> Ivan: We need more test cases

Ivan Herman: We need more test cases

07:36:34 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

07:36:42 <pfps> IanH: Mike Smith wants to participate

Ian Horrocks: Mike Smith wants to participate

07:37:00 <pfps> Bijan:  When I wanted to submit test cases the structure wasn't redy

Bijan Parsia: When I wanted to submit test cases the structure wasn't redy

07:37:12 <pfps> Ivan: What is the experience of the OWL 1 test cases

Ivan Herman: What is the experience of the OWL 1 test cases

07:37:47 <pfps> Bijan: They are great, much better than before, they help a lot in checking initial part of implementation

Bijan Parsia: They are great, much better than before, they help a lot in checking initial part of implementation

07:38:13 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

07:38:16 <pfps> Markus:  Most OWL 1 test cases have been copied over

Markus Krötzsch: Most OWL 1 test cases have been copied over

07:38:35 <pfps> Ivan: We might only need tests for the new features

Ivan Herman: We might only need tests for the new features

07:38:49 <pfps> Bijan: We could do more, but getting to the OWL 1 level is adequate

Bijan Parsia: We could do more, but getting to the OWL 1 level is adequate

07:39:17 <pfps> IanH:  There was also fitting into Lite, DL, Full, so the tests need to be remarked

Ian Horrocks: There was also fitting into Lite, DL, Full, so the tests need to be remarked

07:39:33 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

07:39:44 <pfps> IanH: We also probably need test cases to check the boundaries of the profiles

Ian Horrocks: We also probably need test cases to check the boundaries of the profiles

07:39:46 <MarkusK_> Test cases http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Test_cases

Markus Krötzsch: Test cases http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Test_cases

07:40:08 <MarkusK_> This page contains links to lists showing all test cases, by various criteria

Markus Krötzsch: This page contains links to lists showing all test cases, by various criteria

07:40:59 <pfps> Pfps:  What about the status of T&C itself

Peter Patel-Schneider: What about the status of T&amp;C itself

07:41:09 <pfps> Bijan:  We will ask for tests at OWLED

Bijan Parsia: We will ask for tests at OWLED

07:41:22 <pfps> Ivan:  We need test cases ready for CR

Ivan Herman: We need test cases ready for CR

07:41:41 <pfps> Bijan:  Not so - test cases could come out of CR - we need a reasonable set going in

Bijan Parsia: Not so - test cases could come out of CR - we need a reasonable set going in

07:41:45 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

07:42:23 <pfps> Jeremy: OWL 1 test cases lagged going into LC by two months

Jeremy Carroll: OWL 1 test cases lagged going into LC by two months

07:42:33 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

07:42:55 <pfps> Sandro: At some time there has to be a set of approved test cases

Sandro Hawke: At some time there has to be a set of approved test cases

07:43:10 <pfps> IanH:  Mike Smith wants a process for approving new test cases

Ian Horrocks: Mike Smith wants a process for approving new test cases

07:43:27 <pfps> Sandro: Initially by hand, then we can use implementations to help approval process

Sandro Hawke: Initially by hand, then we can use implementations to help approval process

07:43:51 <pfps> Jeremy:  OWL 1 document included the process for approving test cases

Jeremy Carroll: OWL 1 document included the process for approving test cases

07:44:20 <pfps> IanH:  Conformance part has been approved - and has no outstanding issues

Ian Horrocks: Conformance part has been approved - and has no outstanding issues

07:44:32 <pfps> Subtopic: RDF Mapping

1.4. RDF Mapping

07:44:39 <pfps> IanH:  What about RDF Mapping?

Ian Horrocks: What about RDF Mapping?

07:45:10 <pfps> Boris: Same status as Syntax and Semantics - up to date - some outstanding issues

Boris Motik: Same status as Syntax and Semantics - up to date - some outstanding issues

07:45:23 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

07:46:13 <pfps> Ivan:  Looking at the QRG there appear to be some mismatches between functional and RDF syntaxes

Ivan Herman: Looking at the QRG there appear to be some mismatches between functional and RDF syntaxes

07:47:01 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

07:47:27 <pfps> Boris: There are reasons for some of the mismatches

Boris Motik: There are reasons for some of the mismatches

07:47:36 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

07:47:44 <pfps> ACTION: pfps to check differences between functional and RDF syntaxes

ACTION: pfps to check differences between functional and RDF syntaxes

07:47:44 <trackbot> Created ACTION-232 - Check differences between functional and RDF syntaxes [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2008-10-30].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-232 - Check differences between functional and RDF syntaxes [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2008-10-30].

07:48:12 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

07:48:19 <pfps> Ivan: also XML syntax

Ivan Herman: also XML syntax

07:48:54 <pfps> Bijan:  XML syntax mirrors functional syntax

Bijan Parsia: XML syntax mirrors functional syntax

07:49:04 <pfps> Subtopic: XML serialization

1.5. XML serialization

07:50:13 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

07:50:27 <pfps> Bijan: Document is up to date - potential outstanding issues

Bijan Parsia: Document is up to date - potential outstanding issues

07:50:49 <pfps> Bijan: Would be nice to have a non-normative RelaxNG syntax

Bijan Parsia: Would be nice to have a non-normative RelaxNG syntax

07:51:10 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

07:51:26 <pfps> Bijan: This would an editorial addition - non critical - could even be after last call

Bijan Parsia: This would an editorial addition - non critical - could even be after last call

07:51:49 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

07:52:20 <pfps> Bijan: Issues with aspects of design - too verbose - need to check with Matt Horridge

Bijan Parsia: Issues with aspects of design - too verbose - need to check with Matt Horridge

07:52:42 <pfps> IanH:  There was a query from Alan related to the MOF metamodel - can we generate the syntax from the MOF?

Ian Horrocks: There was a query from Alan related to the MOF metamodel - can we generate the syntax from the MOF?

07:53:25 <Elisa> What would be generated from the MOF metamodel is XMI, which is an OMG specification for XML schema interchange

Elisa Kendall: What would be generated from the MOF metamodel is XMI, which is an OMG specification for XML schema interchange

07:53:32 <pfps> Bijan: Not a good idea - no evidence that it would work - know that conversion to RelaxNG works

Bijan Parsia: Not a good idea - no evidence that it would work - know that conversion to RelaxNG works

07:53:46 <pfps> Bijan: MOF conversion to XML might result in an unreadable schema

Bijan Parsia: MOF conversion to XML might result in an unreadable schema

07:53:58 <pfps> Boris:  Could end up very close

Boris Motik: Could end up very close

07:54:06 <Elisa> This could be mapped to various other surface syntaxes in an automated way

Elisa Kendall: This could be mapped to various other surface syntaxes in an automated way

07:54:28 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

07:54:41 <pfps> Bijan: I want to see the output before I determine whether it is a good idea

Bijan Parsia: I want to see the output before I determine whether it is a good idea

07:55:02 <sandro> Sandro: We can just wait until someone comes forward wanting this, and see if they're offering to do it.

Sandro Hawke: We can just wait until someone comes forward wanting this, and see if they're offering to do it. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

07:55:24 <pfps> Elisa:  Lots of tools generate XML Schema from a metamodel - could be verbose

Elisa Kendall: Lots of tools generate XML Schema from a metamodel - could be verbose

07:55:32 <bijan> q+

Bijan Parsia: q+

07:55:36 <sandro> elisa: The XMI -- the automatic XML schema -- will be generated automatically by any decent UML tool -- but the XMI has extra cruft, which you'd have to map out of it.

Elisa Kendall: The XMI -- the automatic XML schema -- will be generated automatically by any decent UML tool -- but the XMI has extra cruft, which you'd have to map out of it. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

07:55:51 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

07:55:56 <pfps> Elisa:  What does the WG want to do with the result?

Elisa Kendall: What does the WG want to do with the result?

07:56:08 <bijan> q-

Bijan Parsia: q-

07:56:35 <pfps> Boris:  Why do we want XMI?  We then get an automatically-generated syntax

Boris Motik: Why do we want XMI? We then get an automatically-generated syntax

07:56:47 <pfps> Boris: Depends on result of metamodel issue

Boris Motik: Depends on result of metamodel issue

07:57:17 <sandro> Bijan: The question is whether this would result in a better schema.    More accurate, ...?

Bijan Parsia: The question is whether this would result in a better schema. More accurate, ...? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

07:57:21 <pfps> Bijan:  I can see point related to above claim.  However, is the result a better schema?

Bijan Parsia: I can see point related to above claim. However, is the result a better schema?

07:57:52 <pfps> Bijan:  I would prefer RelaxNG but I'm not proposing to change at this point.

Bijan Parsia: I would prefer RelaxNG but I'm not proposing to change at this point.

07:57:59 <pfps> Bijan:  We need to be sure of the benefit.

Bijan Parsia: We need to be sure of the benefit.

07:58:24 <pfps> Boris:  Peter Hasse sent me an automatically generated schema - it wasn't pretty.

Boris Motik: Peter Hasse sent me an automatically generated schema - it wasn't pretty.

07:58:52 <pfps> Boris:  Peter Hasse said that the generation can be controlled, so maybe a good schema could result

Boris Motik: Peter Hasse said that the generation can be controlled, so maybe a good schema could result

07:59:15 <pfps> Boris:  In any case this depends on the metamodel issue and then a benefits analysis

Boris Motik: In any case this depends on the metamodel issue and then a benefits analysis

07:59:21 <pfps> Bijan: Agree

Bijan Parsia: Agree

07:59:35 <pfps> IanH:  Agree and also worry about timeline

Ian Horrocks: Agree and also worry about timeline

07:59:45 <pfps> Bijan: Can we test whether our schema matches the metamodel

Bijan Parsia: Can we test whether our schema matches the metamodel

08:00:09 <pfps> Elisa:  Yes, but I'm not up on the tools - I do know someone who knows how to do this

Elisa Kendall: Yes, but I'm not up on the tools - I do know someone who knows how to do this

08:00:26 <pfps> Bijan:  Testing our Schema would be a good idea

Bijan Parsia: Testing our Schema would be a good idea

08:00:47 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:01:16 <pfps> Elisa:  This can also be a debugging tool

Elisa Kendall: This can also be a debugging tool

08:01:52 <pfps> Elisa: ECLIPSE has tools that help working on ontologies

Elisa Kendall: ECLIPSE has tools that help working on ontologies

08:03:19 <pfps> Evan: The tools check XMI not Schema

Evan Wallace: The tools check XMI not Schema

08:04:06 <pfps> Bijan: But tools turn metamodels into XML Schema - what about doing the reverse?

Bijan Parsia: But tools turn metamodels into XML Schema - what about doing the reverse?

08:04:31 <pfps> Evan:  The tools result in ugly schema

Evan Wallace: The tools result in ugly schema

08:04:41 <pfps> Bijan:  So there are no recognizers?

Bijan Parsia: So there are no recognizers?

08:04:55 <sandro> wikipedia says "exchanging files between UML modeling tools using XMI is rarely possible."

Sandro Hawke: wikipedia says "exchanging files between UML modeling tools using XMI is rarely possible."

08:05:18 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:05:40 <pfps> Boris: If we can automatically generate a nice Schema from the metamodel then we get automatic correspondence

Boris Motik: If we can automatically generate a nice Schema from the metamodel then we get automatic correspondence

08:05:53 <Rinke> (sandro, that's my personal experience as well)

Rinke Hoekstra: (sandro, that's my personal experience as well)

08:06:25 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:06:36 <pfps> Bijan: Correctness (consistence) is the only benefit, I believe the schema over the metamodel

Bijan Parsia: Correctness (consistence) is the only benefit, I believe the schema over the metamodel

08:07:17 <pfps> Sandro:  If what Boris is saying works, then we get some increment to confidence

Sandro Hawke: If what Boris is saying works, then we get some increment to confidence

08:07:25 <pfps> IanH:  Not critical path

Ian Horrocks: Not critical path

08:08:03 <pfps> Rinke: There are tools that generate metamodel from XML Schema

Rinke Hoekstra: There are tools that generate metamodel from XML Schema

08:08:07 <sandro> Sandro: If we can generate a schema from the metamodel, then run it against all the test cases, that would be a nice validation of the metamodel.

Sandro Hawke: If we can generate a schema from the metamodel, then run it against all the test cases, that would be a nice validation of the metamodel. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

08:08:16 <pfps> IanH:  Also a good idea, but not on our critical path

Ian Horrocks: Also a good idea, but not on our critical path

08:08:27 <pfps> Evan: What is the canonical form of an OWL 2 ontology

Evan Wallace: What is the canonical form of an OWL 2 ontology

08:08:51 <pfps> Boris:  The metamodel (but this is not completely formally defined)

Boris Motik: The metamodel (but this is not completely formally defined)

08:09:33 <pfps> Subtopic: Profiles

1.6. Profiles

08:09:33 <sandro> Boris: the metamodel -- in natural language, UML, functional syntax etc -- spread through all these bits -- that's the metamodel, and it's the canonical form.

Boris Motik: the metamodel -- in natural language, UML, functional syntax etc -- spread through all these bits -- that's the metamodel, and it's the canonical form. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

08:09:47 <pfps> Boris: Up to date - some outstanding issues

Boris Motik: Up to date - some outstanding issues

08:09:57 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:10:11 <pfps> Bijan: What about descriptive stuff on the various profiles?

Bijan Parsia: What about descriptive stuff on the various profiles?

08:10:25 <pfps> IanH:  I added some of this stuff - it is controversial

Ian Horrocks: I added some of this stuff - it is controversial

08:10:54 <pfps> Ivan: Want full grammars for each profile

Ivan Herman: Want full grammars for each profile

08:10:57 <bijan> Editor's Note: This appendix will contain the full grammars of each of the profiles. The grammar will be completed when the technical work on each of the profiles has been finished.

Bijan Parsia: Editor's Note: This appendix will contain the full grammars of each of the profiles. The grammar will be completed when the technical work on each of the profiles has been finished.

08:11:01 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:11:10 <bijan> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Profiles#Appendix:_Complete_Grammars_for_Profiles

Bijan Parsia: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Profiles#Appendix:_Complete_Grammars_for_Profiles

08:11:17 <pfps> Boris:  Editorial note - will be done before Last Call - don't want to do before final changes

Boris Motik: Editorial note - will be done before Last Call - don't want to do before final changes

08:11:23 <pfps> Ivan:  What about Theorem 1

Ivan Herman: What about Theorem 1

08:11:41 <pfps> IanH: Up for discussion later

Ian Horrocks: Up for discussion later

08:11:50 <pfps> IanH:  Some issues related to RL

Ian Horrocks: Some issues related to RL

08:12:00 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:12:04 <pfps> Subtopic: Primer

1.7. Primer

08:12:23 <pfps> Bijan:  I'm waiting for the other documents to stabilize

Bijan Parsia: I'm waiting for the other documents to stabilize

08:12:41 <pfps> Bijan:  I might want to change the example - traditional families might be controversial

Bijan Parsia: I might want to change the example - traditional families might be controversial

08:13:17 <pfps> Ivan: For me the example works - I propose not to change unless there are major objections

Ivan Herman: For me the example works - I propose not to change unless there are major objections

08:13:52 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:14:27 <pfps> Sandro: Stay biological - social is controversial

Sandro Hawke: Stay biological - social is controversial

08:15:09 <pfps> Ivan: Turtle examples are not nice - I will work on them

Ivan Herman: Turtle examples are not nice - I will work on them

08:15:50 <pfps> Bijan:  I can't commit to Primer before end of year

Bijan Parsia: I can't commit to Primer before end of year

08:16:33 <pfps> Ivan:  What is the status of the primer - rec track vs note - undetermined so far

Ivan Herman: What is the status of the primer - rec track vs note - undetermined so far

08:16:49 <pfps> Ivan:  What about profiles in primer?

Ivan Herman: What about profiles in primer?

08:16:53 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:17:13 <pfps> Bijan:  As little as possible - bulks up the primer too much

Bijan Parsia: As little as possible - bulks up the primer too much

08:17:22 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:17:35 <pfps> Ivan: How about using the same example for all profiles?

Ivan Herman: How about using the same example for all profiles?

08:17:43 <pfps> Bijan: Could be a good idea

Bijan Parsia: Could be a good idea

08:17:54 <pfps> Ivan: Appendices?

Ivan Herman: Appendices?

08:18:12 <pfps> Bijan: Profiles in text - non-starter - overwhelming

Bijan Parsia: Profiles in text - non-starter - overwhelming

08:18:24 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:18:26 <pfps> Bijan: Profiles in appendices - better

Bijan Parsia: Profiles in appendices - better

08:18:30 <pfps> Ivan: More useful

Ivan Herman: More useful

08:18:41 <pfps> Bijan: Let's try one of them

Bijan Parsia: Let's try one of them

08:18:45 <pfps> Ivan:  I'll try RL

Ivan Herman: I'll try RL

08:19:35 <Zhe> Ivan I can help you if you need anything

Zhe Wu: Ivan I can help you if you need anything

08:19:56 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:20:40 <pfps> Christine:  Primer is similar to Ontology Development 101, which was useful

Christine Golbreich: Primer is similar to Ontology Development 101, which was useful

08:23:14 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:23:22 <pfps> Christine: I don't like the Manchester Syntax - it is frame-like and uses "fact" - may lead to misunderstanding

Christine Golbreich: I don't like the Manchester Syntax - it is frame-like and uses "fact" - may lead to misunderstanding

08:24:29 <pfps> Bijan:  The Primer just uses the majorly-used syntaxes - We used Manchester syntax initially so it comes first

Bijan Parsia: The Primer just uses the majorly-used syntaxes - We used Manchester syntax initially so it comes first

08:24:32 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:25:33 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:26:25 <pfps> IanH:  We will discuss status and schedule later in the F2F.

Ian Horrocks: We will discuss status and schedule later in the F2F.

08:27:26 <pfps> Bijan:  There is some perspective-specific stuff in the primer (that can be removed from the presentation)

Bijan Parsia: There is some perspective-specific stuff in the primer (that can be removed from the presentation)

08:27:32 <Elisa> Latest version of the QRG (wiki) is at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Quick_Reference_Guide

Elisa Kendall: Latest version of the QRG (wiki) is at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Quick_Reference_Guide

08:27:37 <pfps> Subtopic: Quick Reference Guide:

1.8. Quick Reference Guide:

08:28:16 <pfps> pfps: Agenda has pointer to most recent version

Peter Patel-Schneider: Agenda has pointer to most recent version

08:28:21 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:28:26 <pfps> Ivan: QRG has changed tremendously

Ivan Herman: QRG has changed tremendously

08:28:42 <pfps> Elisa: Yes it did change a lot, and it changed again just recently

Elisa Kendall: Yes it did change a lot, and it changed again just recently

08:28:50 <pfps> Ivan: QRG looks good

Ivan Herman: QRG looks good

08:29:08 <pfps> Elisa:  We took a recommendation from pfps to reorganize

Elisa Kendall: We took a recommendation from pfps to reorganize

08:29:18 <pfps> Elisa: Not everything is hyperlinked

Elisa Kendall: Not everything is hyperlinked

08:29:29 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:29:58 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

08:30:01 <pfps> Elisa: Intent is to hyperlink everything (functional syntax, RDF syntax, etc.)

Elisa Kendall: Intent is to hyperlink everything (functional syntax, RDF syntax, etc.)

08:30:17 <pfps> Elisa: Might also link to Primer

Elisa Kendall: Might also link to Primer

08:30:29 <pfps> Elisa: Might require anchors in other documents

Elisa Kendall: Might require anchors in other documents

08:30:43 <pfps> Elisa: Still want a two-page print version from this structure

Elisa Kendall: Still want a two-page print version from this structure

08:30:59 <pfps> Elisa:  Also want a page for the profiles

Elisa Kendall: Also want a page for the profiles

08:31:18 <bijan> I like this a lot!

Bijan Parsia: I like this a lot!

08:31:36 <pfps> Elisa:  Examples - we might not keep them but instead link to Primer

Elisa Kendall: Examples - we might not keep them but instead link to Primer

08:31:39 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:31:39 <bijan> Or link to the syntax, which has examples for every feature

Bijan Parsia: Or link to the syntax, which has examples for every feature

08:32:32 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:32:56 <pfps> Elisa:  We want feedback on structure, later sections need more review

Elisa Kendall: We want feedback on structure, later sections need more review

08:33:22 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:33:22 <bijan> Note- Old documents had a similar multi-docuoment index: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#appA

Bijan Parsia: Note- Old documents had a similar multi-docuoment index: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#appA

08:33:26 <bijan> But this is much nicer

Bijan Parsia: But this is much nicer

08:33:35 <pfps> Ivan:  I like it

Ivan Herman: I like it

08:33:52 <bijan> And is much better than: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#appC

Bijan Parsia: And is much better than: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#appC

08:33:56 <pfps> Ivan: What should the third column link to?

Ivan Herman: What should the third column link to?

08:34:17 <pfps> Elisa:  We are not sure - I think semantics

Elisa Kendall: We are not sure - I think semantics

08:34:30 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:34:44 <pfps> Ivan: Mapping document is just a table - so not good to link to it - semantics is better

Ivan Herman: Mapping document is just a table - so not good to link to it - semantics is better

08:35:44 <pfps> Michael: One problem is that RDF semantics doesn't have the "syntax"

Michael Schneider: One problem is that RDF semantics doesn't have the "syntax"

08:35:54 <pfps> IanH: Semantic isn't great to link to

Ian Horrocks: Semantic isn't great to link to

08:36:18 <pfps> Elisa: Might link to Primer instead - we may try some things

Elisa Kendall: Might link to Primer instead - we may try some things

08:36:50 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:36:53 <pfps> Bijan: Neither RDF mapping nor RDF semantics is useful to link to

Bijan Parsia: Neither RDF mapping nor RDF semantics is useful to link to

08:36:57 <IanH> ack ivan

Ian Horrocks: ack ivan

08:37:08 <pfps> Ivan: perhaps linking to primer is best

Ivan Herman: perhaps linking to primer is best

08:37:30 <pfps> Bijan: Primer is not comprehensive but could serve, perhaps with minor changes

Bijan Parsia: Primer is not comprehensive but could serve, perhaps with minor changes

08:38:53 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:39:00 <pfps> Christine: QRG is most useful as initial point of contact

Christine Golbreich: QRG is most useful as initial point of contact

08:39:31 <pfps> Christine:  QRG is too terse

Christine Golbreich: QRG is too terse

08:40:17 <pfps> Christine: LInk to requirements document instead?

Christine Golbreich: LInk to requirements document instead?

08:40:56 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:41:09 <pfps> Evan:  What about linking from Recommendations to Notes

Evan Wallace: What about linking from Recommendations to Notes

08:41:21 <pfps> Ivan:  Not a good idea

Ivan Herman: Not a good idea

08:41:28 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:41:29 <pfps> Bijan:  I don't see a problem - just need to be careful

Bijan Parsia: I don't see a problem - just need to be careful

08:41:48 <pfps> Ivan:  Need to refer to stable documents

Ivan Herman: Need to refer to stable documents

08:41:55 <pfps> Bijan:  I like the document

Bijan Parsia: I like the document

08:42:18 <pfps> IanH:  QRG is getting close to being done, still needs work

Ian Horrocks: QRG is getting close to being done, still needs work

08:42:44 <pfps> Bijan:  Publish as working draft at last call, even if not done

Bijan Parsia: Publish as working draft at last call, even if not done

08:43:10 <Zakim> -Elisa_Kendall

Zakim IRC Bot: -Elisa_Kendall

08:43:16 <pfps> Subtopic:  Requirements

1.9. Requirements

08:43:49 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:44:17 <pfps> Christine:  I think that requirements is close to done - I would make changes - may need changes based on F2F discussion

Christine Golbreich: I think that requirements is close to done - I would make changes - may need changes based on F2F discussion

08:44:37 <pfps> Christine: There have been several reviews - Bijan, Jie, Elisa

Christine Golbreich: There have been several reviews - Bijan, Jie, Elisa

08:44:48 <pfps> Christine:  Only Bijan had major comments

Christine Golbreich: Only Bijan had major comments

08:44:57 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:45:45 <pfps> Christine:  Addressing Bijan's comments needs input from WG

Christine Golbreich: Addressing Bijan's comments needs input from WG

08:46:21 <pfps> Christine: There are some conflicting reviews

Christine Golbreich: There are some conflicting reviews

08:46:48 <pfps> Christine:  Almost all done - changes needed in response to outstanding comments

Christine Golbreich: Almost all done - changes needed in response to outstanding comments

08:47:15 <pfps> Christine:  Major decision is whether to cut chunks out

Christine Golbreich: Major decision is whether to cut chunks out

08:47:25 <pfps> Ivan:  I like Section 5

Ivan Herman: I like Section 5

08:47:59 <pfps> Ivan: What does the button do?

Ivan Herman: What does the button do?

08:48:23 <pfps> Ivan:  Oh, I see -

Ivan Herman: Oh, I see -

08:48:47 <pfps> Evan: Need feedback on what do to with the document

Evan Wallace: Need feedback on what do to with the document

08:49:02 <pfps> Evan:  One possibility is to split into two

Evan Wallace: One possibility is to split into two

08:49:04 <Zhe> +1 to Evan

Zhe Wu: +1 to Evan

08:50:20 <pfps> Rinke: Large fraction of HCLS use cases - how about recategorizing them?

Rinke Hoekstra: Large fraction of HCLS use cases - how about recategorizing them?

08:51:26 <pfps> IanH:  Need to discuss this document later

Ian Horrocks: Need to discuss this document later

08:51:50 <pfps> Christine: Suggest to move features to Quick Reference Guide

Christine Golbreich: Suggest to move features to Quick Reference Guide

08:53:45 <sandro> BREAK

Sandro Hawke: BREAK

09:17:18 <ivan> alexandre passant

(No events recorded for 23 minutes)

Ivan Herman: alexandre passant

09:17:58 <sandro> holger stezhorm

Sandro Hawke: holger stezhorm

09:18:00 <pfps> holger stenzhorl

holger stenzhorl

09:18:09 <pfps> scot marshall

scot marshall

09:18:22 <ivan> s/scot/scott/

Ivan Herman: s/scot/scott/

09:18:30 <sandro> Blaz

Sandro Hawke: Blaz

09:18:47 <bmotik> Blaz Novak

Boris Motik: Blaz Novak

09:18:58 <pfps> Subtopic: Manchester Syntax

1.10. Manchester Syntax

09:19:35 <pfps> pfps: up to date - perhaps one or two issues that might affect it

Peter Patel-Schneider: up to date - perhaps one or two issues that might affect it

09:20:17 <pfps> pfps: there have 2.5+? reviews - one substantive comment

Peter Patel-Schneider: there have 2.5+? reviews - one substantive comment

09:21:37 <pfps> christine: what about mapping from functional to manchester?

Christine Golbreich: what about mapping from functional to manchester?

09:21:56 <pfps> pfps: responded with comment that the mapping is "trivial" - comment remains in document

Peter Patel-Schneider: responded with comment that the mapping is "trivial" - comment remains in document

09:22:07 <pfps> Subtopic: Internationalized String Spec

1.11. Internationalized String Spec

09:22:34 <pfps> Boris: Still waiting on Axel Polares for built-in functions (wanted by RIF)

Boris Motik: Still waiting on Axel Polares for built-in functions (wanted by RIF)

09:23:58 <pfps> jeremy: should refer to RDF 4647 as well as 4646 - which may result in changes

Jeremy Carroll: should refer to RDF 4647 as well as 4646 - which may result in changes

09:24:11 <pfps> s/RDF/RFC/

s/RDF/RFC/

09:24:33 <pfps> boris: what is the impact

Boris Motik: what is the impact

09:24:51 <pfps> jeremy: may need to change matching

Jeremy Carroll: may need to change matching

09:25:06 <pfps> IanH:  plan / schedule reviewing?

Ian Horrocks: plan / schedule reviewing?

09:25:22 <pfps> Ivan: needs to be at least a WD by last call

Ivan Herman: needs to be at least a WD by last call

09:25:32 <pfps> Ivan: what is RIF status?

Ivan Herman: what is RIF status?

09:25:46 <pfps> Sandro: waiting for Axel's changes

Sandro Hawke: waiting for Axel's changes

09:26:08 <pfps> IanH:  We need to wait for changes

Ian Horrocks: We need to wait for changes

09:26:32 <sandro> I18N

Sandro Hawke: I18N

09:26:39 <pfps> jeremy: also review I18N

Jeremy Carroll: also review I18N

09:26:40 <sandro> I18N == "Internationalization"

Sandro Hawke: I18N == "Internationalization"

09:27:10 <pfps> Bijan: we should push a FPWD ASAP - it blocks us

Bijan Parsia: we should push a FPWD ASAP - it blocks us

09:27:26 <pfps> Bijan:  What does CR mean for this?

Bijan Parsia: What does CR mean for this?

09:28:03 <pfps> pfps: if we don't care about built-ins why not push for our approval

Peter Patel-Schneider: if we don't care about built-ins why not push for our approval

09:28:37 <pfps> Ivan:  The CR criteria are the purview of the OWL WG and the RIF WG

Ivan Herman: The CR criteria are the purview of the OWL WG and the RIF WG

09:29:05 <pfps> Ivan:  There could be different CR exit criteria from the rest of our spec

Ivan Herman: There could be different CR exit criteria from the rest of our spec

09:29:59 <pfps> Boris: I sent Axel a message

Boris Motik: I sent Axel a message

09:30:15 <pfps> Bijan:  let's push the document even without the built ins

Bijan Parsia: let's push the document even without the built ins

09:30:20 <pfps> IanH:  We don't need them at all

Ian Horrocks: We don't need them at all

09:30:24 <pfps> Ivan: RIF wants them

Ivan Herman: RIF wants them

09:30:57 <pfps> Boris: RIF thought that the old version was lopsided (as it had facets but not built-ins)

Boris Motik: RIF thought that the old version was lopsided (as it had facets but not built-ins)

09:31:27 <pfps> Boris: they may not sign off without built-ins

Boris Motik: they may not sign off without built-ins

09:31:58 <pfps> Alan: a WG can have open areas - a section with a missing bit is OK

Alan Ruttenberg: a WG can have open areas - a section with a missing bit is OK

09:32:36 <pfps> Ivan: we vote to publish ASAP even if there is a missing section

Ivan Herman: we vote to publish ASAP even if there is a missing section

<sandro> Meeting in progress. New content inserted above this line.

Sandro Hawke: Meeting in progress. New content inserted above this line.


This revision (#2) generated 2008-10-23 09:38:21 UTC by 'unknown', comments: 'meeting in progress.\r\n'