F2F1 Minutes Session 8

(Scribe changed to Uli Sattler)

Organizational Things and Scribing

Jeremy Carroll: has resigned from UFDT, but wants to cancel next monday?

Alan Ruttenberg: will arrange next UFDT

ACTION: on AlanR to arrange next UFDT meeting

Sandro Hawke: has seen 7 sessions' minutes, currently 57 pages and asks how to read to accept them and asks the scribes, when cleaning them up, to add sub headers: syntax is "===" for sub headers

ACTION: AlanR to arrange next UFDT meeting

Michael Smith: asks whether to serialize shuffled subdiscussions

Sandro Hawke: yes, please disentangle

Ian Horrocks: asks what to do with parallel discussions, esp. on the IRC

Sandro Hawke: keep them if they are relevant

Sandro Hawke: scribes finish cleaning up this wednesday

Jeremy Carroll: wants to see actions & resolutions in the minutes

Bijan Parsia: subgroups affected by discussions at F2F should update their documents with pointers to minutes

Jeremy Carroll: suggests to minimize effort on minutes

Alan Ruttenberg: asks for subjects for discussions

Bijan Parsia: non-OWL full issues with RDF mapping

Alan Ruttenberg: agrees with Bijan, mentions reification

Bijan Parsia: axioms annotation asserted versus reified

Alan Ruttenberg: wants to see both

Ian Horrocks: we already agreed that we should explore both assertions & reifications

Sandro Hawke: what about b-nodes and reification?

RDF Mapping Issues and Minutes (mixed discussion)

Bijan Parsia: can we discuss now some RDF mapping issues?

Michael Smith: has added such an issue wrt declarations

Bijan Parsia: you can't specify a signature for an ontology without using the elements of that signature in an axiom or a declaration (which requires owl11 terms)

Matthew Horridge: reports on user complaints regarding declarations

Joanne Luciano: asks for a summary sections of minutes and wants to discuss evaluation issues

Peter Patel-Schneider: disagrees with JLucianos suggestions: scribes should never paraphrase

Alan Ruttenberg: suggests to have summaries outside minutes

Ian Horrocks: suggests to post summaries on the mailinglist

Sandro Hawke: add links to presentations in minutes

Ian Horrocks: suggests clean up/mark up other material as well

Sandro Hawke: mentions that chairs could, if they wanted, blog meetings

Jeremy Carroll: doesn't want to do them

Alan Ruttenberg: hasn't seen a lot about evaluation

Jeremy Carroll: wants to give 2 examples reg. OWL Full compatibility: (1) we have an OWL11 document with reified annotions, we save and modify it....

Matthew Horridge: do we discuss punning or declaredAs?

Jeremy Carroll: is worried about (starts reading out from the text above)

Jeremy Carroll: there are various rules like this one, and they are the wrong ones

Bijan Parsia: understands why: if we have r subproperty of s, and then I add a composition, then this addition would lead to a different kind of serialization

Bijan Parsia: suggests that using different syntax for SubPropertyOf would solve this issue

Bijan Parsia: this is different from round tripping

Jeremy Carroll: suggests to have some form of switch that safes an ontology in OWL11, then we shouldn't expect it to be saved in an OWL10 format unless I require this explicitly

Matthew Horridge: asks whether the spec shouldn't specify this behaviour

Michael Smith: asks whether Jeremy wants tools to save ontologies only in OWL10 if explicitly asked to do so

Jeremy Carroll: observes a subtle relationship between the 2 OWL syntaxes

Ian Horrocks: comes back to AlanR' spoint, and points out that it would introduce nasty non-determinism wrt serialisation and that our n-ary disjointness axioms would cause trouble

Alan Ruttenberg: regards it as a bug to have these 2 possibilities for reading/serializing n-ary disjointness

Bijan Parsia: sees an issue with the mapping, we need to decide what to do with it: deal with it or not. And it would be nice to be clear on our decision in the spec and to have test cases.

Alan Ruttenberg: declarations fall into similar league

Matthew Horridge: disagree - we can throw them in/out

Michael Smith: points back to Issue 89

Alan Ruttenberg: asks whether we like declarations

Matthew Horridge: mentions that we can have both, declarations and roundtripping, but with a different mapping

Matthew Horridge: mentions discussions on the mailinglist

Boris Motik: explains that there are 2 readings of declarations. Declarations, possibly using rdf:type can and should be used for linting/simple syntactic check

Bijan Parsia: adds that we can also throw out some "used terms"

Boris Motik: wants to distinguish declaredAs from type. Since there is no notion of typing of RDF, things become problematic, especially with imports, e.g, do we need to re-declare when importing? In the owl10, there was no difference between "class" and "declaration"

Alan Ruttenberg: there wasn't even a notion of an ontology containing an axiom

Bijan Parsia: there is something about documents and ontologies (how to get one from the other)

Jeremy Carroll: suggests to use lateral thinking to solve this: use a new way of imports, namely one where we put import statements at the top of our ontologies and then all declarations will be there!

Boris Motik: seems to agree that this will help tools - if I knew what the type of things are, I could use streaming mode

Bijan Parsia: if they come late, they can still be useful (eg to find typos), but they are most useful at the top

Jeremy Carroll: suggests that we can do this via searching & process imports first

Boris Motik: asks whether typed vocabulary will be obsolote - if yes, we can re-use it

Boris Motik: we can merge the notion of typing and declarations, but cleanly

Jeremy Carroll: wouldn't it make a difference wrt model theory

Boris Motik: no, it's all syntax

Matthew Horridge: we need orphaned entities rather than declarations

Michael Smith: paraphrases that we want to be clear whether rdf:type is a declaration or something else?

Boris Motik: can we add a class to an ontology without adding an axiom? Declarations are a way to mention an entity outside any axiom.

Alan Ruttenberg: asks whether in OWL11, can we have X owl:class Class?

Bijan Parsia: yes, it's in OWL Full, but it disappears in the OWL DL mapping and in the XML syntax

Sandro Hawke: wants to add next F2F meeting to agenda

Bijan Parsia: wants to see from Boris examples explicating differences and consequences of both solutions

Alan Ruttenberg: and we need to check our claims re. what appears/disappears in mappings

Alan Ruttenberg: wants to see backwards compatibility on the agenda

F2F2

Peter Patel-Schneider: F2F2 will be on April 3 and 4, in the Washington DC area, venue to be determined. OWLED might be in the area, but perhaps not. One possibility is to make use of NIST, but access is restricted

Evan Wallace: access to NIST is a bit tricky, but only first time

Peter Patel-Schneider: downtown DC or near to NIST are possible, too.

Peter Patel-Schneider: considers the possibility to move 1 day earlier to make AlanRector happier

Joanne Luciano: has mentioned MITRE

Peter Patel-Schneider: says that access at MITRE is even more difficult than at NIST. This time of year, the DC area will be extremely busy and thus we need to book Hotels early

Bijan Parsia: offers to make use of C&P rooms

Peter Patel-Schneider: reinforces the need to book hotels early

Peter Patel-Schneider: will come up with proposal together with Kendall Clark

ACTION: ppatelsc to tell us by 2 weeks where F2F2 will be

Alan Ruttenberg: wants to talk about backwards compatibility

Ian Horrocks: closes, thanks Sean Bechhofer for hosting