F2F2 Minutes

From OWL
Jump to: navigation, search


See F2F2 and F2F2 Agenda.

See also: IRC Log day 1, day 2




(No activity for 19 minutes)





Sandro Hawke: sandro has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F2 CONFERENCE CODE 26632

(Scribe changed to Jeremy Carroll)

Opening Administrivia

RollCall

Boris, Peter, Bernardo, Rinke, Marcus, Deb (Thursday am only), Michael Schneider, Carston, Achille, Jie Bao, Evren, Mike Smith, Bijan, Uli, Jeremy, Evan, Sandro, Joanna, Ian, Alan, Zhe.

Elisa dialed in much of the time.

Observers

Hanson Graves (Lockheed Martin), Alex Tucker, Petr Kremen, Francis Gasse, Michael Grove, Dimitri (Univ of Manchester), Thomas Schneider, Kendall Clark, Matthew Horridge.

Local Arrangements

Kendall Clark has arranged dinner, sponsered by Clark&Parsia

22 for dinner

PROPOSED: Vote of thanks to Clark and Parsia

RESOLVED: thanks to Clark and Parsia

Sandro Hawke: show up at 7. 800 W Diamond Ave.

some people have not paid registration fees ... (scribe decides not to minute who!)

Agenda Review

Agenda review: Ian

Thurs am - discussion candidate FPWD docs

Thurs pm - roadmap and timeline

Thurs pm - 2nd session - OWL 1.1 Full

Fri am 1 - RDF mapping

some of these issues have been roadblocks

Fri am 2 other issues

Fri pm TF reports

Jeremy Carroll: 18.00 is a late end time

Ian Horrocks: who needs to leave before

Jie Bao 4pm

Peter Patel-Schneider 5.45

Joanne Luciano 5

Ian Horrocks: will try to adjust agenda to finish by 4.30

Publication Schedule

Ian Horrocks - straw poll on each doc - are we ready to publish?

Alan Ruttenberg: expectations for publication

The goal is to get current work out for review. The docs do not have to be complete. It is common to have a mark "this is incomplete". The judgement to be made is: is it harmful to publish this? It is good to get things out as quick as possible.

For the straw poll assume the sort of editorial changes we might expect over the next couple of days, so we can publish tuesday?

Deborah McGuinness: what changes should we be expecting before we vote in straw poll

Sandro Hawke: vote expecting your small reasonable changes to have been made

STRAW POLL: Given some editorial changes that we might determine in this meeting, to be made in the next couple of days, would you agree to publish Primer on Apr 8?

lots of hands in favour

deborah no


several abstentions


STRAW POLL: Given some editorial changes that we might determine in this meeting, to be made in the next couple of days, would you agree to publish Fragments on Apr 8?

more lots in favour

none against

STRAW POLL: Given some editorial changes that we might determine in this meeting, to be made in the next couple of days, would you agree to publish XML Serialization on Apr 8?

lots in favour

none against

side comment about relax ng ... ignored

Ian Horrocks: we will go in reverse order of contention, start with fragments

Sandro Hawke: are we going to republish the three other docs?

Ian Horrocks: no - we discussed at telecon and decided against.

Publish OWL Profiles (Fragments)?

Jeremy Carroll: I had one MUST fix editorial changes, and that has been fixed, but there are weaknesses I would like fixed. 1: the name. 2: abstract and intro are quite poor (an obstacle to decent review by the public). 3: I would really like a comment that we haven't discussion, on OWL-R, ... [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Jeremy Carroll: It should be: OWL-R implementations CAN provide OWL-Full entailments. The document doesn't say that. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

ACTION: Jeremy to RAISE issue on relationship between OWL-R non-entailments and OWL-Full entailments, and link to it from Fragments as EDITORIAL NOTE.

trackbot-ng: Created Action 117 - RAISE issue on relationship between OWL-R non-entailments and OWL-Full entailments, and link to it from Fragments as EDITORIAL NOTE. [on Jeremy Carroll - due 2008-04-10].


ACTION: Carsten to draft intro text for Fragments given high-level motivation, and add it into draft, as per his OWLED presentation


Achille Fokoue: range has been added to EL fragment

Achille Fokoue: as a result we don't have the right restrictions

Carsten Lutz: regarding EL we have a few glitches that lead to intractibility

Carsten Lutz: these are simple errors (editorial)

Boris Motik: there is a note in doc that these will change

Carsten Lutz: I could make these changes quickly

Achille Fokoue: we could also update references

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to having carsten making change

Ian Horrocks: are we happy to carsten to make these changes?

Sandro Hawke: I would like someone else to review Carsten's changes

Ian Horrocks: there are others who can

ACTION: Carsten remove features that cause intractable in EL++


ACTION: Bijan to review Carsten's change of EL++

trackbot-ng: Created Action 118 - Review Carsten's change [on Bijan Parsia - due 2008-04-10].

ACTION: Bernardo to review Carsten's change of EL++

trackbot-ng: Created Action 119 - Review Carsten's charge [on Bernardo Cuenca Grau - due 2008-04-10].

(above discussion was regarding EL++ fragment)

Deborah McGuinness: we should mention OWL Lite

Jeremy Carroll: I would like to say "OWL Lite is deprecated", pfps agrees


Alan Ruttenberg: we could add editorial comment: "How we are going to document OWL Lite is not yet determined by the WG"


Deborah McGuinness: I don't want the people using OWL Lite to think they made a mistake [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Alan Ruttenberg: Although we don't specifically document OWL lite in this document, it is the intention of the WG that all OWL Lite ontologies witll be OWL 1.1 DL ontologies [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

We all agreed on the following sentence ...

ACTION: Alan to add sentence "Although we don't specifically document OWL lite in this document, it is the intention of the WG that all OWL Lite ontologiies witll be OWL 1.1 DL ontologies" to Fragments

trackbot-ng: Created Action 120 - Add sentence \"Although we don't specifically document OWL lite in this document, it is the intention of the WG that all OWL Lite ontologiies witll be OWL 1.1 DL ontologies\" to Fragments [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-04-10].
Michael Schneider: let's make a WG note which snapshots OWL Lite as in 2004. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Alan Ruttenberg: let's postpone this; eg we may deprecate it. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

see Issue 107

ACTION: m_schnei to RAISE issue about how to refer to OWL Lite as a stable standard


Sandro Hawke: related to Issue 107

The name of the document

Fragments-- peter, boris ...

Alan Ruttenberg: Ivan requested profile as W3C practice as recommended by QA group

Sandro Hawke: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Apr/0002.html

Joanne Luciano: we should give justification for name in document

Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-spec-variability-20050831/#subdivision-profile

Joanne Luciano: I personally found the name 'fragments' confusing

Michael Schneider: sandro, is there any precedence of a w3c rec for which profiles exist?

proposal for profiles; seconded jjc

Ian Horrocks: will anyone speak against? Pfps holds nose.

Bijan Parsia: is OWL Full a profile?

Bijan Parsia: are we only using 'profile' for fragment

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: reads wikipedia defn




Ivan Herman: to m_schnei : yes, SVG
Michael Schneider: thanks ivan for example "SVG"
Sandro Hawke: ivan, the room is not dailed in yet ... I'll wait until we have a little pause in the argument.
Michael Schneider: i am very indifferent about name, but people use word "fragments" for quite a while now

discussion of whether to raise this is an issue ....

Ian Horrocks: "In logic, these are often called 'fragments'" [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: can the word fragments be used in the intro

jeremy and ian: yes if in the context of logic

Sandro Hawke: to define "profile" link to http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-spec-variability-20050831/#subdivision-profile

Alan Ruttenberg: the editorial change will be to leave one use of fragment in the intro

Alan Ruttenberg: and to use the word profile instead of fragment throughout

PROPOSED: we use the word "profile" instead of "fragment" throughout what has been called Fragments, with a reference to logic fragments, and explanation of the term "profiles"; and the title is ....@@@

Ian Horrocks: all docs are called OWL 1.1 Web Ontology Language: ...

PROPOSED: we use the word "profile" instead of "fragment" throughout what has been called Fragments, with a reference to logic fragments, and explanation of the term "profiles"; and the title for now is "[OWL 1.1 Web Ontology Language] Profiles"

Ian Horrocks: suggests just "Profiles" for the rest of the name

Jeremy Carroll: there was a nice adjective from Sandro

Sandro Hawke: but I've forgotten

Joanne Luciano: somehow have the title evocative of Fragments. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Sandro Hawke: "Subsetting Profiles"

PROPOSED: doc title is "profiles"


carsten is against other people in favour

Carsten Lutz: really, "subset" is a much better word. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]


PROPOSED: we use the word "profile" instead of "fragment" throughout what has been called Fragments, with a reference to logic fragments, and explanation of the term "profiles"; and the title for now is "[OWL 1.1 Web Ontology Language] Profiles"

Alan Ruttenberg: I like "subset" too, but I like a happy W3C better
Sandro Hawke: +1
Bijan Parsia: +1
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 for profiles (but holding my nose)
Alan Ruttenberg: +1
Ian Horrocks: +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1
Boris Motik: +1
Evren Sirin: +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +!
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1
Evan Wallace: +1 for profiles
Zhe Wu: +1
Michael Smith: +1
Rinke Hoekstra: obviously meant +1
Deborah McGuinness: 0
Jeremy Carroll: +1
Carsten Lutz: 0 [Scribe assist by Alan Ruttenberg]
Joanne Luciano: "subset" is a better word

RESOLVED: we use the word "profile" instead of "fragment" throughout what has been called Fragments, with a reference to logic fragments, and explanation of the term "profiles"; and the title for now is "[OWL 1.1 Web Ontology Language] Profiles"

Joanne Luciano: +1 profile in this context is correct
Michael Schneider: why not first let people get accoustomed to this new name (forgotten ;-)) and then vote later officially

(Bijan notes that a formal vote should be by organization, but this is not an issue for unopposed resolution)


ACTION: bernardo implement change of fragments -> profiles

trackbot-ng: Created Action 121 - Implement change of fragments -> profiles [on Bernardo Cuenca Grau - due 2008-04-10].

Zhe Wu: would like to reorganize OWL-R section to get rules first

Ian Horrocks: do we need to do this for FPWD?

Zhe Wu: no, an editorial to do note is OK.

Alan Ruttenberg: a note should be added that the names of the profiles are not stable

ACTION: Alan to RAISE issue on picking good Names for Profiles AND link to this issue from Profiles document.

trackbot-ng: Created Action 122 - RAISE issue on picking good Names for Profiles AND link to this issue from Profiles document. [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-04-10].
Zhe Wu: I can just add a reviewers comment. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Michael Schneider: zhe can create a branch version of the fragments (oops) document in the Wiki
Uli Sattler: Flowers around document? [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Alan Ruttenberg: Everyone is happy that the reviewer comments are on the wiki but NOT in publication. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Sandro Hawke: actually reviewers comments have been in, but invisible by CSS

we could have a switch


PROPOSED: Let the TR actually keep the (yellow) wg-review-notes, with a switch to turn them on, default to off --- subject to W3C PubRules.

RESOLVED: Let the TR actually keep the (yellow) wg-review-notes, with a switch to turn them on, default to off --- subject to W3C PubRules.

(This resolution was amended the next day, to instead just link to the Wiki.)

PROPOSED: Publish Profiles (formerly known as Fragments) on or soon after Apr 8, given the changed agreed to in the past hour.

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to publish Fragments (Alcatel-Lucent)
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 (Amsterdam)
Deborah McGuinness: +1 publish fragments RPI
Zhe Wu: +1
Michael Smith: +1 (Clark & Parsia)
Achille Fokoue: +1 (IBM) [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Ian Horrocks: +1 (Oxford)
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 publish profiles (science commons)
Bijan Parsia: +1 to publish profiles (Manchester)
Evan Wallace: +1 (NIST)
Sandro Hawke: +1 to publish Profiles (W3C)
Deborah McGuinness: i meant profiles for the vote for rpi

RESOLVED: Publish Profiles (formerly known as Fragments) on or soon after Apr 8, given the changed agreed to in the past hour.

Thanks and applause to authors


Sandro Hawke: yes m_schnei  :-)

XML Serialization

Sandro Hawke: we need to have an issue about the namespace, an editorial note

ACTION: Bijan to RAISE issue on namespaces (if necessary) and link to it from document.

trackbot-ng: Created Action 123 - RAISE issue on namespaces (if necessary) and link to it from document. [on Bijan Parsia - due 2008-04-10].

chairs will accept issues raised as a result of actions in this meeting

Bijan and jeremy: there is a separate issue about the OWL 1.1 namespace, this is different from the syntax namespace

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: there is a reference to 'fragments' in this doc

Sandro Hawke: Bijan to clean up word "fragments" in this document and others.

Alan Ruttenberg: won't the data-object property punning issue tomorrow impact these docs?

Jeremy Carroll: yes - but let's decide tomorrow

Bijan Parsia: If you see a typo, just fix it in the wiki ASAP. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Bijan Parsia: fix typos when you see them

Rinke Hoekstra: The examples in section 2 are confusing

Rinke Hoekstra: they should either be exhaustive or non-existent

Evren Sirin: assuming functional syntax is normative are we expecting a mapping from XML syntax to functional syntax

Bijan Parsia: there is a couple of sentences that describe

Ian Horrocks: two issues: a) examples b) mapping should be explicit

Sandro Hawke: a complete example would be silly



Sandro Hawke: but a small example is helpful

Alan Ruttenberg: the example should be a repeat of some other example

Michael Schneider: +1 to sandro on small and useful examples instead of heaving a "complete" example

Bijan Parsia: we could have pointer to the primer

Sandro Hawke: I would be happy with this

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: so the only doc with examples would be the primer

Bijan Parsia: I like that

lots of positive noises about this idea to examples

Sandro Hawke: Yes! Let's have the examples in XML_Serialization just be tabs in Primer and Syntax. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

PROPOSED: kill example section replaced with pointers to primer

PROPOSED: We remove the examples section and just refer people to Primer, where they can use the XML tab to see examples.

Michael Schneider: the examples are not the same, it doesn't make sense to move it

Ian Horrocks: no the proposal is not to move the example but to delete it

Sandro Hawke: Add query parameter to set default syntax for primer? [Scribe assist by Alan Ruttenberg]

Joanne Luciano: do the examples in the primer illustrate the right things?

Sandro Hawke: s/Sandro:/Sandro,/


Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Section 1 Overview -- ending with link to Primer; Section 2 Schema [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Alan would like the link from serialization to primer to automagically come up in the right syntax

Alan claims this can be done in javascript

Alan Ruttenberg: the schema referred to in this doc needs to be accessible from this doc

Ian Horrocks: points out that Alan is out of order

PROPOSED: We remove the examples section and just refer people to Primer, where they can use the XML tab to see examples.

Boris Motik: +1
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to excise examples and put in pointer to Primer
Rinke Hoekstra: +1
Sandro Hawke: +1
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1
Michael Smith: +1
Zhe Wu: +1
Michael Schneider: +1 to drop examples (provided that this is our general approach)

lots in favour

Achille Fokoue: 0 but we should make the mapping more explicit [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Achille Fokoue: I liked this example - relationship to mapping - hence I abstain

Alan Ruttenberg: +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 to having a small, complete example in XML_Serialization

Achille Fokoue: also the namespace stuff, schemalocation etc, may be absent in primer

Bijan Parsia: but the primer may do these....

Sandro Hawke: +1 Hello World, in XML_Serialization
Jie Bao: agree with sandro, a small example in XML_Serialization, a longer example in Primer

Joanne Luciano: I feel this is important

Jeremy Carroll: let's add a to-do

Ian Horrocks: let's put helloworld example in intro

Michael Schneider: <Ontology name="HelloWorld"/> ;-)
Sandro Hawke: m_schnei :)

Boris and Ian talk about mapping

Achille Fokoue: jeremy's proposal doesn't address mappings, but is otherwise OK

Ian Horrocks: mappings is next

PROPOSED: delete current example, add pointer to primer, and have Hello World in Intro

PROPOSED: delete current example, add pointer to primer, and have Hello World in Intro (eg bicycle subclassof vehicle)

Sandro Hawke: (RESOLVED silently, Bijan making change, as we move on....)

RESOLVED: delete current example, add pointer to primer, and have Hello World in Intro (eg bicycle subclassof vehicle)

Sandro Hawke: (by show of hands)
Sandro Hawke: come back to issue of mapping, after break.

(No activity for 17 minutes)

ACTION: Sandro make sure that namespaces work right in the hello world example, and that the "separate document" link goes to the schema rather than the wiki page

trackbot-ng: Created Action 124 - Make sure that namespaces work right in the hello world example, and that the \"separate document\" link goes to the schema rather than the wiki page [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-04-10].

(No activity for 10 minutes)

(Scribe changed to Michael Schneider)

Continuing on "Publication Schedule"

Alan Ruttenberg: next point is question about xml mapping

Bijan Parsia: suggests to add note "mapping should be enhanced"


PROPOSED: Publish "XML Serialization" on or soon after Apr 8, given the changes agreed to so far this meeting.

Alan Ruttenberg: +1 (science commons)
Achille Fokoue: +1 (IBM)
Michael Smith: +1 (Clark & Parsia)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to publish XML Serialization
Sandro Hawke: +1 (W3C)
Bijan Parsia: +1 to publish XML syntax (Manchester)
Ian Horrocks: +1 (Oxford)
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1 (Oxford Univ)
Evan Wallace: +1 (NIST)
Zhe Wu: +1 (ORACLE)

Jeremy Carroll: asks about GRDDL

Rinke Hoekstra: +1 (Amsterdam)
Sandro Hawke: Bijan is putting in the ed-note linke to Issue 97 now.

Jeremy Carroll: we have already an issue on this

Sandro Hawke: (for Jeremy)
Jeremy Carroll: +1 (HP with GRDDL change)

RESOLVED: Publish "XML Serialization" on or soon after Apr 8, given the changes agreed to so far this meeting.

Primer

Alan Ruttenberg: next point is primer

Alan Ruttenberg: what needs to be changed before vote to publish?

Deborah McGuinness: what plans exist for the primer, what has still to be done?

Bijan Parsia: explains list of things he wants to do (scribe did not get all the points)

discussion about whether deb's issues should be only marked as editorial

Alan Ruttenberg: something vaguely like: "The WG is committed to making these domain-specific sections be accessible by professional in the industry. We particularly solicit comments on whether this is the case" [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Jeremy Carroll: Deb, I think you're asking Bijan to reach too-high a bar at this point. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Zhe Wu: I want diagrams, please.  :-) [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Zhe Wu: likes this whole document, but has problems with the database section

Zhe Wu: I don't agree with the point about "concrete" in the database section. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Zhe Wu: disagrees that database stuff is the most distinguishing point

Evren Sirin: s/concrete/complete
Sandro Hawke: I wonder about a particularly humble editor's note about how we can't possibly understand all the technical backgrounds people are coming from. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Jie Bao: (1) More concete examples [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Jie Bao: concern that primer is not ok for every one

Rinke Hoekstra: I think Zhe rather said that 'completeness' is the most distinguishing point between database and owl -approaches

Alan Ruttenberg: asks for suggestion for concrete words to put as editorial note

Jie Bao: point 1: more concrete examples

Bijan Parsia: hates database section because he thinks it is wrong

Deborah McGuinness: scribe assist from dlm - my goal is to bring more people in to the document and reduce alienation from communities. One section in particular, the db section, i believe may not capture why db researchers may come to owl and it may be likely to be confusing.
Sandro Hawke: cgi-irc is Jae
Jie Bao: point 2: make clear the diff between OWL 1.0. and OWL 1.1
Sandro Hawke: s/Jae/Jie/

Bijan Parsia: still several months of work for the primer to do

Sandro Hawke: normally there is a sentence "please comment" at the beginning of a document, perhaps there should be more of these in the documents

ACTION: Bijan to draft the "humble" editor's note / SOTD request for comments for Primer

trackbot-ng: Created Action 125 - Draft the \"humble\" editor's note / SOTD request for comments for Primer [on Bijan Parsia - due 2008-04-10].

Alan Ruttenberg: option: remove the offending sentence from the database section?

Alan Ruttenberg: option2: remove complete database section?

straw poll on remove paragraph: 15 people

straw poll on remove whole database section: much less votes

Alan Ruttenberg: jie should put his points into document as note

ACTION: Bijan to add a from-community section for OWL 1.0 users, to Primer

trackbot-ng: Created Action 126 - Add a from-community section for OWL 1.0 users, to Primer [on Bijan Parsia - due 2008-04-10].

Bijan Parsia: explains to deb that primer is intended for non-DL people

Jeremy Carroll: It is this embracing of incompleteness that most distinguishes OWL from databases, driving the different capabilities of OWL and databases.

PROPOSED: Removing the paragraph from Primer beginning "It is this embracing of incompleteness..."

Alan Ruttenberg: +1
Sandro Hawke: 0 no opinion
Achille Fokoue: 0
Rinke Hoekstra: +1
Deborah McGuinness: +1
Zhe Wu: +1 (ORACLE)
Jeremy Carroll: 0 (I think the WG is micromanaging)
Peter Patel-Schneider: 0
Ian Horrocks: 0 (Oxford)
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: 0
Boris Motik: 0
Jie Bao: 0
Michael Smith: +1
Evan Wallace: +1 (NIST)
Markus Krötzsch: 0
Peter Patel-Schneider: 0 (and agree with jeremy :-)

Peter Patel-Schneider: asks about why the whole paragraph should be removed instead of a single sentence

RESOLVED: Removing the paragraph from Primer beginning "It is this embracing of incompleteness..."


PROPOSED: Publish "Primer" on or soon after Apr 8, given the changes agreed to so far this meeting.


Deborah McGuinness: does someone has a list of intended changes?

Sandro Hawke: Elisa, the room hasn't called in yet. Hold on and we'll do that in a minute.
Elisa Kendall: thanks :)

ACTION: Deb to review primer+editorial changes after Bijan is done making them


Michael Smith: +1 to publish (C&P)
Sandro Hawke: +1 (W3C)
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 (Amsterdam)
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 (Science Commons)
Zhe Wu: +1 (ORACLE)
Deborah McGuinness: dlm will review the primer+editorial changes after bijan does them
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to publish Primer (Alcatel-Lucent)

ACTION: dlm to review primer+editorial changes after Bijan is done making them


Uli Sattler: +1 (Manchester)
Boris Motik: +1 (Oxford)

ACTION: Deborah to review primer+editorial changes after Bijan is done making them

trackbot-ng: Created Action 127 - Review primer+editorial changes after Bijan is done making them [on Deborah McGuinness - due 2008-04-10].
Evan Wallace: +1 (NIST)
Achille Fokoue: +1 (iBM)
Deborah McGuinness: +1 with updates RPI

RESOLVED: Publish "Primer" on or soon after Apr 8, given the changes agreed to so far this meeting.

alanr congratulates authors and wg

Sandro Hawke: congrats to chairs for getting us done an hour early? [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

(Scribe changed to Michael Smith)

Roadmap and design principles

Alan Ruttenberg: we will start with review of timeline

http://www.w3.org/2007/06/OWLCharter.html#deliverables

Review of Timeline

Bijan Parsia: BTW, XML Syntax is updated per my actions: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/XML_Serialization
Sandro Hawke: splendid, Bijan.  :)
Bijan Parsia: Pls review

Alan Ruttenberg: in one view, there is much work to be done and that could prevent add'l items

...do we want to commit to this schedule and drop other things. lets open for discussion

Michael Schneider: we're making a lot of progress and shouldn't be constrained by a schedule set up front

Alan Ruttenberg: example of something that might not be done?

Michael Schneider: its too early to do so, that's my point

...our previous perception of timing has been incorrect

Jeremy Carroll: 6 months ago, rdf mapping was better than it is now, that suggests several more months are needed

Bijan Parsia: not all docs must march together

...I care about all features and have been expanding all the add'l proposals. I/Manchester is not ready to compromise on them.

Ian Horrocks: I agree with Bijan. Do we need everything to go to last call at the same time?

Peter Patel-Schneider: rdf mapping is not progressing b/c there are philosophical differences

... what are the philosophical differences? In 1.0 WG, once such issues were resolved, things went very fast

Sandro Hawke: to bijan, owl 1.2 is possible, this wg could continue for 10 years

...no promises, etc.

...this supports sticking to the current timeline, moving other issues to 1.2

Jeremy Carroll: in general, hp prefers longer gaps before versions. our target audience needs a perception of stability, and sandro's proposal undermines that

...suggest looking at charter to determine what must be at last call when

...I would personally vote against last call without rqmts doc

...it makes sense to do a cluster of docs together

Peter Patel-Schneider: HPs desire, of slowness, seems antithetical to Web and W3. i.e., we often hear of web years being 3-4 months

Jeremy Carroll: I think I would have difficulty selling sandro's proposal to colleagues

Ian Horrocks: to pfps on philosophical, I don't see such big philosophical differences

...on rqmts, yes we need such a doc, but note such rqmts have been gathered, just not pushed into a doc

Bijan Parsia: agree with ianh on rqmts being gathered

Alan Ruttenberg: on user facing docs, we're in good shape on what were the big issues

...a 1-2 pg quick start guide is part of this

...(scribe missed first of two things)

...I haven't heard other major problems in this area

...(review of charter wording and deliverables and current status)

...we're in good shape, but new features are outside and not r'qed by charter

...we need to be ready to slip schedule or drop these features

...anyone disagree on this characterization?

Jeremy Carroll: on test suite, we need something by last call

Alan Ruttenberg: I agree

Jeremy Carroll: you can't exit CR without test suite

Alan Ruttenberg: sandro noted slack in timeline, 3 months for dealing with feedback

Bijan Parsia: CR on timeline is generous b/c we have tracking implementations of the features

Jeremy Carroll: paperwork types will take some time

Sandro Hawke: if implementations are tracking, we don't need CR at all

Alan Ruttenberg: more feedback on features vs. time?

Achille Fokoue: stay on track, don't slip for non-charter features [Scribe assist by Elisa Kendall]

Achille Fokoue: keep on timeline, not add new features

Zhe Wu: agree with achille, note that vendors have to set a timeline

Bijan Parsia: not all the "slip" features weren't on the charter

Ian Horrocks: jeremy voiced hp concern on version numbers, how about IBM and Oracle

Achille Fokoue: I think the point is valid and think IBM might agree with HP

Zhe Wu: I agree

Joanne Luciano: provides example when sticking to timeline for sake of timeline has resulted in poor product

Sandro Hawke: if 1.2 option is off the table, schedule takes priority over features

Achille Fokoue: clarification, would 1.2 mean new charter, new WG

Sandro Hawke: no. this group would work in multiple phases

Achille Fokoue: that would be an issue, an ongoing commitment like that

Jeremy Carroll: its per feature

...nary i don't like

...easy keys sound good

...annotation spaces less clear, can be easily persuaded

Bijan Parsia: the new features are useful, this shouldn't be so absolute

Alan Ruttenberg: (scribe missed)

Alan Ruttenberg: If we do a 1.2, then I want to start it immediately after we release last call of 1.1

Michael Schneider: examples of impact

... if only semantics is broken it can be fixed, but rdf mapping is broken in a way that impacts owl-full, it can never be fixed

Rinke Hoekstra: some features are more important than others, that's obvious. we shouldn't confuse these things

...on 3 features, annotation is most important

Jeremy Carroll: hp is not expecting wg to meet timeline, I can't argue in favor of timeline

Achille Fokoue: I agree with rinke, not everything is equally important.

...slipping for 2-3 months is ok, longer commitment (e.g., 1.2 or another year) is a bigger issue, particularly if for non-essential features

...on 3 features, nary > annotation > easy keys

Zhe Wu: if 1.2 is on table, what's the timeline?

Alan Ruttenberg: charter schedule is last call at 10 months, 1.2 would be similar

Zhe Wu: delay 2-3 mos ok, another year not ok

Bijan Parsia: year not ok for me either

Zhe Wu: on 3 features, no preference

Markus Krötzsch: 2-3 mos ok, longer not, on 3 features annotation > easy >> nary

Deborah McGuinness: i propose that we collect information about relative importance of proposed additional features in a straw poll probably on the web (to keep records for counting). I could really use annotations on annotations.
Alan Ruttenberg: I hear priority 1 == what's in now, slippage of 3-4 months is okay for including nary, easykeys, annotations. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Alan Ruttenberg: first priority is what is on table now, willingness to extend up to ~4 months for new features

Backward Compatibility

Michael Schneider: well running projects do not need deadlines :)
Alan Ruttenberg: this may not be the way we want to ADVERTISE b.c. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

statement on table: "Take an OWL DL 1.0 ontology O, serialize it to RDF and reverse map to an OWL DL 1.1 ontology O' in functional style syntax. O and O' have the same models as defined by their respective semantics."

Jeremy Carroll: observation - 1.0 is in terms of abstract syntax and semantics, 1.1 is not.

Ian Horrocks: the first order models are the same

Evan Wallace: this is only for DL, not full

Alan Ruttenberg: we have no proposal w.r.t. owl full

Jeremy Carroll: for full, everything true in 1.0 is true in 1.1

Michael Schneider: wait for my presentation

Bijan Parsia: can m_schnei inlcude a proposal in his presentation

Peter Patel-Schneider: what about the annotation exception

Alan Ruttenberg: status of annotations is not resolved, we want to avoid that now

Alan Ruttenberg: strawpoll on this defn of backwards compat for OWL DL

...see virtual unanimity

Bijan Parsia: I object

...I'd prefer to allow some small tweaks that would break formal but not de facto backwards

Bijan Parsia: my issue with this defn of backward compatibility is that we may want to change some things -- specifically skolemizing bnodes. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Alan Ruttenberg: noted

Jeremy Carroll: my abstain is based on ... @@ [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Jeremy Carroll: I abstained b/c I don't care, we know backwards compat when we see it. i.e., I agree with Bijan, we shouldn't prejudge some other issues

Issue 100 - Roundtripping DL through RDF Graphs

Ian Horrocks: (summarizes Issue 100) as should we be able to create OWL ontologies that we can't serialize as RDF

...we shouldn't have what alanr views as a bug in 1.0 (w.r.t. punning)

Ian Horrocks: (clarifies) this is about rdf GRAPHS, not rdf xml. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Sandro Hawke: Issue 100

Bijan Parsia: objection, same as before, I don't see need to prejudge

Jeremy Carroll: I agree with Bijan and think this slightly knocks the previous WG

Alan Ruttenberg: no knocking involved

...I think it rises to a design principle b/c its relevant to users

Alan Ruttenberg: I think this rises to a design principle [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Alan Ruttenberg: a proposal was made to me to handle punning for which I didn't have grounds to object to

Peter Patel-Schneider: previous wg had objectives, as different from, rqmts

Peter Patel-Schneider: WebOnt had "Requirements" and "Objectives". This could be an Objective. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Bijan Parsia: you can always object for the specific cases

Alan Ruttenberg: object to personalization. I'm speaking for a community, not trying to "win"

Jeremy Carroll: I agree with alan's design principle, agree with bijan on wg procedure

Sandro Hawke: perhaps we should record this as a use case

Ian Horrocks: there was a proposal this be a "design objective"

Alan Ruttenberg: what are our design principles, what are our rqmts

Uli Sattler: this design principle could conflict with some future case we don't know about and we should prohibit that case now

Jeremy Carroll: this should be in a document, not an issue

Sandro Hawke: having rqmts that conflict is normal

...this rqmt conflicting with a future one is ok

...I agree with jeremy on procedure

Bijan Parsia: apology to alan if taken personally

...I object to future debates being resolved by appeal to a design principle

...I believe your previous perception was incorrect and that you can object to specific issues w/o such a principle

...I think there is some issue with re-opening in the future b/c alan is a chair and has more significant power w.r.t issues

Ian Horrocks: adjourn for lunch


(No activity for 60 minutes)

(Scribe changed to Joanne Luciano)



Jeremy Carroll: discussing tech issues seems a good approach,

Alan Ruttenberg: round-tripping with RDF winds up with same set of models

Jeremy Carroll: add one or two sentences to current doc. if it turns out to be a bug then we fix it.


PROPOSE to close Issue 100 as resolved by adding round tripping text to the mapping document

PROPOSED: Close Issue 100 as resolved by adding roundtripping text to the RDF Mapping document.

Sandro Hawke: +1
Jeremy Carroll: jeremy proposed
Achille Fokoue: +1
Boris Motik: +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1
Jie Bao: +1
Ian Horrocks: +1

PROPOSED: Close Issue 100 as resolved by adding roundtripping text to the RDF Mapping document.

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1
Bijan Parsia: +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1

+1


Elisa Kendall: +1
Deborah McGuinness: waiting for reposting of proposal
Uli Sattler: ?

PROPOSED: Close Issue 100 as resolved by adding roundtripping text to the RDF Mapping document.

Deborah McGuinness: +1 dlm (RPI)
Boris Motik: +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 (science commons)
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1

+9 (MITRE)

Zhe Wu: +1

OOPS! +1 (MITRE)

Ian Horrocks: +1
Michael Smith: +1


Evan Wallace: +1
Uli Sattler: +1 (Manchester)

RESOLVED: Close Issue 100 as resolved by adding roundtripping text to the RDF Mapping document.



Language Name (Issue 51)

PROPOSED: by Alan Call our product OWL 1.1

Elisa Kendall: and in press releases :)

seconded by Bijan


Elisa Kendall: there's some marketing appeal to "OWL 2.0", fwiw


Jeremy Carroll: from some previous WWC doc, a point release should be minor shift, this seems more like a major shift and suggests OWL 2.0

Sandro Hawke: Elisa, I'm baffled.  :-/
Deborah McGuinness: bijan is stating your point elisa - do you want to speak?

Bijan Parsia: Elisa suggests 2.0 because changes in structuarl syntax affects the UML form that perspective

Elisa Kendall: I think we should seriously consider "2.0", given the change in functional syntax.

Evan Wallace: agrees from tha tperspective

Sandro Hawke: Concern about backwards compability that may not hold for 2.0


Michael Schneider: personal feeling - most docs start with OWL 1.1, few but useful features

Elisa Kendall: Unless we simplify the functional/structural syntax/BNF to be closer to OWL 1.0, though, we at OMG would disagree with that position

Achille Fokoue: Not much opinion on Name, IBM doesn't care, but concerned that will adding more will delay and prolong the process

Michael Schneider: no new stuff, what we have now is a big change

Zhe Wu: From Oracle, Oracle produces database, OWL 2.0 form marketing pt of view implies new features and supports it


Bijan Parsia: Keeping OMG in mind, regardless of naming issues, the fact that we're changing it from their perspective we need to listen and understand more


Bijan Parsia: Stability vs change, refers back to previous discussion about small vs big changes, and perceptions

Bijan Parsia: not a big change

Sandro Hawke: what would clinch this decision are there other major changes in mind for the future?

Bijan Parsia: Had sorted by his thoughts about the size of change, suggests going back and looking at what he thought then

Jeremy Carroll: owl1.1 changes api, so that's big [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Alan Ruttenberg: Agrees that changes API is big, though he's not done that

Alan Ruttenberg: owl api change means I have to change my code. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Boris Motik: I've implemented the resolution of Issue 100 and have added a note about this to the issue. Here is the diff: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Mapping_to_RDF_Graphs&diff=5317&oldid=5315

Matt Horridge: re: OWL API were needed anyway, i.e. for OWL 1.1 and could have put them in previous version

Sandro Hawke: How could we ever have industry consensus on "breaking OWL" ? [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Alan Ruttenberg: An example of a non-backward compatible change to OWL that we might want to have is hilog semantics

last coment from Horridge --correction, were needed for OWL 1.0 not 1.1

Elisa Kendall: This is a marketing decision. Don't make it for technical reasons. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Michael Schneider: Can we try to compare with other W3C standards?

Alan Ruttenberg: +1 to Kendall
Elisa Kendall: well, don't make it primarily on technical grounds, anyway. :> [Scribe assist by Elisa Kendall]

Bijan Parsia: we have different opinions of what's huge

Jeremy Carroll: owl 11 would call possible more typos than 12

Alan Ruttenberg: s

Carsten Lutz: can we draw on history

Alan Ruttenberg: s/12/20/

Carsten Lutz: tends to think of this as 2.0

Sandro Hawke: lot of 2.0 and 1.1 type of standards at W3C. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Elisa Kendall: +1 to jeremy's point about "1.1" and "2.0" and which is easier to type, scan, read
Elisa Kendall: that's actually the core of a marketing point, IMO

Rinke Hoekstra: bulk of people are those who download protege - doesn't matter to them // 2.0 might be a big disappointment because they've been waiting for these features for years

Rinke Hoekstra: people might be disappointed if they are expecting a big "2.0". [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Michael Schneider: what about 1.5 (firefox, thunderbird) ;-)

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: continues speculating

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: epic fail! :) [Scribe assist by Elisa Kendall]

difference in opinion about speculation of user's response

8 people 1.1

Elisa Kendall: +1 for 2.0 (or at least 1.5)

votes for name 2.0 number is 6

Bijan Parsia: thinks 1.5 seems interesting

Elisa Kendall: suggests as compromise 1.55

Elisa Kendall: as a joke
Elisa Kendall: :)
Elisa Kendall: I would object to 1.1 ...

who would object strongly as 1.1 --> 1

Elisa Kendall: I can live with 1.5

Bijan Parsia: pitch for 1.5, Elisa stated, reduce typo, indicated smaller change than 2.0, but larger than 1.5

Sandro Hawke: counter argumen - unprecedented - confusing

Markus Krötzsch: owl 1l.1 has been around, would confuse?

Ian Horrocks: same goes for 2.0

Uli Sattler: for user we called it 1.1

Jeremy Carroll: would need to consult with colleagues

Michael Schneider: I think ms dos started with 3.11 or something like this :)

Peter Patel-Schneider: if Elisa is objecting on OMG, Peter is objecting to her objection

votes for 1.5 approx 4

against 1.5 approx same

Elisa Kendall: no, the reason is that there is significant change in the functional syntax / api

jjc would vote for with OMG reason

Sandro Hawke: we are using 1.1 now, can postpone

Ian, Alanr: don't want to put decision off

Michael Schneider: 2-\epsilon with \epsilon \in [0,0.9]

PROPOSED: The name is "OWL 2"

Elisa Kendall: +1 for OWL 2

PROPOSED: The name is "OWL 2" (Issue 51)

Boris Motik: +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 for OWL 2
Jie Bao: +1
Sandro Hawke: +1
Elisa Kendall: I prefer 2

11 votes for 2, one vote for 2.0

Deborah McGuinness: has to go, but doesn't care

Uli Sattler: +1
Bijan Parsia: +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 for OWL 2
Elisa Kendall: +1 for OWL 2
Peter Patel-Schneider: +0 to OWL 2
Michael Schneider: +1
Jeremy Carroll: +1
Alan Ruttenberg: = -1 for OWL 3

PROPOSED: Resolve Issue 51 by saying the name is "OWL 2"

Sandro Hawke: +1
Evan Wallace: +1 for OWL 2
Ian Horrocks: 0 (Oxford)
Zhe Wu: +0.5 (Oracle)
Michael Smith: +1 for OWL 2 (C&P)

0 (MITRE)

Rinke Hoekstra: +0.5 (Amsterdam)
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: 0
Elisa Kendall: +1 to resolution
Bijan Parsia: +1 for OWL 2
Boris Motik: implement before next release? [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Sandro Hawke: I think we can do it. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

RESOLVED: Resolve Issue 51 by saying the name is "OWL 2"

Bijan Parsia: call the old one, "OWL", "OWL 1", or "OWL 1.0" [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Sandro Hawke: "OWL 2 DL"
Michael Schneider: "ancient OWL", "classic OWL", choose your favourite
Sandro Hawke: "OWL 1"
Sandro Hawke: Agreed -- "OWL 1" and "OWL 2 DL"
Elisa Kendall: OWL Classic :)

Boris Motik: change name now, will take 15 mins


No object to change doc name now

Boris Motik: changed his doc

Question about "short name"

Sandro Hawke: cross-references will be painful if we don't change name now

Bijan Parsia: do it when we re-publish /

Ian Horrocks: disagrees .... the sooner the better

Alan Ruttenberg: objects because we didn't publish that we would be making this change

Ian Horrocks: difference between publishing and updating

Sandro Hawke: software desitgned to be published all at once (a software issue). also, looks cumberson to reference "correctly"

Jeremy Carroll: these issues may justify breaking the normal process rules

Jeremy Carroll: state that they are being republished in order to substantiate the name change

Jeremy Carroll: can say we're not taking comments on these versions

Alan Ruttenberg: objects to publish doc that is about to be republished (alan correct if i got wrong)

Bijan Parsia: proposes making explict that it's same doc, only the name change and that subsequent will be the one to be reviewed

Boris Motik: syntax is already done

PROPOSED: REVERT, CHANGE, PUBLISH, REVERT BACK to roll back to last snap shot, change all 1.1 to 2, take new snapshot, status of doc is only name change

PROPOSED: Publish new versions of Syntax, Semantics, and Mapping-to-RDF with the ONLY change being the "1.1" -> "2" name change.

Uli Sattler: +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1
Jie Bao: +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1
Zhe Wu: +1
Achille Fokoue: +1
Sandro Hawke: +1
Michael Smith: +1
Evan Wallace: +1
Elisa Kendall: +1
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1

RESOLVED: Publish new versions of Syntax, Semantics, and Mapping-to-RDF with the ONLY change being the "1.1" -> "2" name change.

Jeremy Carroll: BTW +1 for that resolution

ACTION: Sandro to manage the previous documents 1.1->2 change

trackbot-ng: Created Action 128 - Manage the previous documents 1.1->2 change [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-04-10].
Sandro Hawke: (and I'll just do it on copies, so it wont even change the wiki history.)

finished naming discussion

Jeremy Carroll: "OWL 2 Full" [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Rinke Hoekstra: Boris, perhaps we should not change the reference to the OWL 1.1 member submission to OWL 2

OWL 2 Full Semantics Issues

Alan Ruttenberg: the submission was 1.1, so that shouldn't change, I think.
Elisa Kendall: +1
Elisa Kendall: that's another reason for owl 2 being a good change; the submission is now distinct, 1.1, from the new standard
Alan Ruttenberg: yes - makes us feel like we've accomplished something ;-)
Elisa Kendall: that's a nice clarification for people not paying a lot of attention
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 to accomplishment :)
Alan Ruttenberg: s/something/something good/ ;> [Scribe assist by Elisa Kendall]
Alan Ruttenberg: :)
Evan Wallace: Michael Schneider is presenting slides

Slide: "OWL Full overview"

Jeremy Carroll: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/FullSemantics
Ian Horrocks: It is true that every RDF graph is syntactically valid input to OWL Full and every RDF graph is sematically interpreted [Scribe assist by Evan Wallace]

(Scribe changed to Evan Wallace)

But that doesn't mean that the interpretation is sensible

Slide: "OWL Full and OWL DL"

Michael Schneider: a class itself is itself an individual in the domain

State of OWL 1.1 Full Development

Michael Schneider: for 1.1 the semantics for Full should be conservative extension to OWL 1 Full semantics

Michael Schneider: Every DL entailment should also be a Full entailment in 1.1


Sandro Hawke: is it also true everything that is not entailed in Full should be not entailed in DL

Michael Schneider: see http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Full for current state of OWL 1.1 semantics proposal

Michael Schneider: about 1/2 the language features in this are ready for review

Jeremy Carroll: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/FullIssues

Slide: "Issues with OWL DL Compatibility"

Michael Schneider: OWL Full has infinite universe. This is simply shown

Michael Schneider: OWL Full always has entailments not existing in OWL DL

Peter Patel-Schneider: hope was: IF premise AND conclusion were BOTH in DL, THEN they would be equally strong. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Michael Schneider: Have a feeling that OWL DL might have entailments not existing in OWL Full

Jeremy Carroll: http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2007/HPL-2007-146.pdf

Jeremy Carroll: Dave Turner did a study of the semantics of OWL 1.0 which the ref'd doc discusses

Jeremy Carroll: verified the theorem from OWL 1.0 semantics doc
Jeremy Carroll: with minor errata

Slide: "Issues with OWL 1.0 Full"

Michael Schneider: Found bugs in semantics

Bug in sem for boolean axioms lead to OWL Full inconsistency

Boris Motik: I've just updated all the documents from 1.1 to 2. I've also changed owl11 -> owl2 owl11-xml -> owl2-xml. Finally, I've changed all references for OWL 1.0 to OWL 1.

Michael Schneider: I will be writing this up in the Wiki page referenced earlier

Michael Schneider: Fixing this bug will lead to incompatibility with 1.0

Michael Schneider: RDFS has a collection of so called axiomatic conditions

Michael Schneider: PD* assumes certain of these semantic conditions that were not actually imposed on OWL Full

Slide: "Issues with OWL 1.1 Full"

Michael Schneider: Mapping for QCRs have a problem (which Peter has noted)

Michael Schneider: Every QCR will also be a normal CR in Full

Relevance is: Essentially QCRs unusable in Full because of this

Peter Patel-Schneider: All different is actually OK (This statement is incorrect.)

Jeremy Carroll: with owl 1 , the self-restriction on type (the PS paradox) is well known.... What is new in OWL 2 here? [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Michael Schneider: Comprehension Principals ... something [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Bijan Parsia: the comprension princpals entail a contradiction [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Boris Motik: for all x r(x,x) [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Ian Horrocks: We've never proven that OWL Full is consistent, so adding stuff isn't likely to help us prove that! [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

(Scribe changed to Boris Motik)

Alan Ruttenberg: Issue 69: punning is incompatible with OWL Full

Alan Ruttenberg: The main problem is with equivalence: if A sameas B, then A equivalent B in OWL Full but not in OWL DL

Alan Ruttenberg: What to do with these entailments?

Bijan Parsia & Alan Ruttenberg: We could say that this is not a ligal OWL DL entailment

Alan Ruttenberg: When we talk about semantic subsets, we talked about the status of the missing entailments

Alan Ruttenberg: There is a parallel with the fragments/profiles

Alan Ruttenberg: We should decide in general what our position is on such situations

Bijan Parsia: We should not have any additional entailments

Sandro Hawke: This sounds like a "loose" vs "strict" mode on a reasoner. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Jeremy Carroll: We always think in terms of reasoner behavior

Jeremy Carroll: W3C talks about documents

Bijan Parsia: In OWL DL reasoning you care about the missing entailmens

Bijan Parsia: In OWL DL you care about "no" answers -- for example, when classifying an ontology

Alan Ruttenberg: Two points: (1) the analogy to DL-safe rules is not a good analogy because they require a new syntax, (2) Sandro brings up another option: we have always two modes

Sandro Hawke: yes, Jeremy, but the meaning of an OWL document found on the web is NOT specified in the case where there is a difference between OWL DL and OWL Full. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Sandro Hawke: This WG does not flag documents as being DL and Full; hence, we are not really specifying the meaning of documents

Bijan Parsia: Jeremy Carroll does not like punning because from the syntax we don't know which type of reasoning to use for a given ontology

Sandro Hawke: modulo the differences between DL and Full.

Boris Motik: We might have an ontology property that would say which semantics it requires

Alan Ruttenberg: We have OWL Full, OWL DL, OWL-R; we should make a parallel between all these situations

Jeremy Carroll: Agrees with Alan Ruttenberg

Ian Horrocks: Clarifies that there is a problem with nonentailments in all these (sub)languages

Ian Horrocks: Is providing additional entailments optional or an error?

Peter Patel-Schneider: Does not agree with this analogy

Sandro Hawke: Does agree with the analogy

Sandro Hawke: It sounds like we should have unnamed languages, "DL+" and "OWL-R+", where the "+" can be turned off in "Strict" mode. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Bijan Parsia: Some people might not implement nominals, but missing entailments for nominals is an error

Peter Patel-Schneider: If you are not in OWL DL mode, you have to say you're not in the OWL DL mode

Jeremy Carroll: if you make a DL reasoner or a OWL-R reasoner, you must have a "strict" mode. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Peter Patel-Schneider: How far does the + go?

Peter Patel-Schneider: Can you go above OWL Full?

Peter Patel-Schneider: How far does the "+" go? All the way to Full, and beyond to collapse? [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Bijan Parsia: Yes, you should be able to go above OWL Full.

Jeremy Carroll: If I introduce additional vocabulary and give it semantics, I see nothing wrong with allowing my reasoner to provide additional entailments

Bijan Parsia: We should not have a strict or nonstrict mode

Bijan Parsia: If people want to extend their tools, they are free to do so.

Bijan Parsia: Such extensions might fail the test suite, but who cares.

Sandro Hawke: If you add "+" stuff, then you fail the test suite. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Bijan Parsia: yeah, so what? [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Ian Horrocks: Of course we can't stop implementors from implementing extensions

Ian Horrocks: In question is whether there should be a defined +

Ian Horrocks: Such + would have OWL Full as its top

Alan Ruttenberg: implicit is OWL-DL+ == OWL-Full [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Joanne Luciano: My first interpretation of + is any addition that someone might want to put on

Joanne Luciano: We should specify what we specify and not overlegislate

Alan Ruttenberg: Legislation means that we specify exactly what entailments we should specify

Alan Ruttenberg: This is a minimum

Alan Ruttenberg: Question to Zhe: are you comfortable about specifying OWL-R Full as "this is precisely the set of entailments that your reasoner should make"?

Zhe Wu: A strict mode is a good thing (it enhances compatibility)

Zhe Wu: Oracle has user-defined rule support

Zhe Wu: People might want to define uncles

Zhe Wu: Oracle wants to support the OWL-R subset in a strict mode, but it also wants to have the ability to extend this

Alan Ruttenberg: So a strict mode seems like a good idea

Ian Horrocks: I don't even thing it is necessary to say "you can do more"?

Ian Horrocks: If people want to do more, there is no way for us to prevent them from doing this

Sandro Hawke: But there is the test suite that says to the people what they can't do

Boris Motik: We might split the test suite into the positive and the negative part

Boris Motik: If people do additional stuff, they can then say what negative part they violated

Bijan Parsia: Vendors might distinguish the strict and "sensible" entailments

Jeremy Carroll: Whatever we decide, the DL tools will do what they want to do

Jeremy Carroll: Punning between classes and individuals is a "lost cause"

Jeremy Carroll: OWL-Full vendors will say whatever they wanted to do (sameAs implies equivalence)

Jeremy Carroll: This issue seems not worth discussing, because it will not make the difference to the world

Achille Fokoue: The reailty is that people will implement more and they will go beyond the strict mode

Ian Horrocks: I agree with Jeremy, but isn't that the argument to write the spec in exactly the way that the users want to do?

PROPOSED: We define our languages with an exact set of entailments

PROPOSED: We define our languages as some set of entailments. DL does not have certain entailments. OWL-R does not have certain entailments. Vendors can implemented other/related languages if they want.

Boris Motik: most people in favor, Jeremy Carroll has a problem with what the document means

Peter Patel-Schneider: I would prefer the situation where we had different document types for each kind of entailments

Peter Patel-Schneider: The WebOnt working group did not allow us to have this

Alan Ruttenberg: There is an uncertainty about what would happen in DL if sameAs should imply equivalence

Alan Ruttenberg: We should defer such questions to future WGs

PROPOSED: Resolve Issue 69 by specifying OWL DL and OWL Full by an exact set of entailments

PROPOSED: We define our languages as some set of entailments. DL does not have certain OWL Full entailments. OWL-R does not have certain OWL Full entailments. Vendors can implemented other/related languages if they want.

Bijan Parsia: +1

PROPOSED: Resolve Issue 69 saying that define our languages as some set of entailments. DL does not have certain OWL Full entailments. OWL-R does not have certain OWL Full entailments. Vendors can implemented other/related languages if they want.

Jeremy Carroll: -epsilon (HP)
Michael Smith: +1 (C&P)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to resolve Issue 69
Boris Motik: +1 (Oxford)
Bijan Parsia: +1 (Manchester)
Sandro Hawke: -0
Achille Fokoue: +1 (IBM)

PROPOSED: DL does not have certain OWL Full entailments. OWL-R does not have certain OWL Full entailments. Vendors can implement other/related languages if they want.

Boris Motik: {{{what}}}
Bijan Parsia: +1 (Manchester)
Achille Fokoue: +1 (IBM)
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 (Science Commons)
Evan Wallace: +1 (NIST)
Zhe Wu: +1 (Oracle)
Jie Bao: 0
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to the resolution
Jeremy Carroll: -epsilon (HP)
Sandro Hawke: -0
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 (Amsterdam)
Michael Smith: +1 (C&P)
Elisa Kendall: +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 (FZI)
Sandro Hawke: Jeremy Carroll states -epsilon as non-blocking

RESOLVED: DL does not have certain OWL Full entailments. OWL-R does not have certain OWL Full entailments. Vendors can implement other/related languages if they want.

Bijan Parsia: There is no way to indicate the semantic intent. We could introduce MIME types

Alan Ruttenberg: Not on the agenta, bijan should raise an issue

Alan Ruttenberg: Issue 12 is closed

Alan Ruttenberg: Issue 67, Issue 81: Reification issues

Alan Ruttenberg: Jeremy split this into two cases: (1) the use of reification for annotations, and (2) the use of reification for negative property assertions

Alan Ruttenberg: I'd like to split these two issues

Alan Ruttenberg: Issue 81 is different from Issue 67 in the sente that annotations might not have semantics at all, so they would not affect the formal meaning of an ontology

Alan Ruttenberg: Question to jeremy and m_schneider: could we say that Issue 67 is not a problem and focus on Issue 81

Michael Schneider: The use of reification is opposed by the community, so this is why I would not use it

Michael Schneider: Do we want to use RDF reification.

Michael Schneider: It is not a technical or a semantic problem; this is a nicety issue

Michael Schneider: People just don't like reification

Bijan Parsia: There are lots of alternative encodings

Bijan Parsia: Boris was in favor of reification because reification was designed for this purpose

Boris Motik: We need to encode more than binary predicates, so we'll need to reify them

Boris Motik: Reification is necessary and people are doing it already in general

Michael Schneider: I don't see some other opporunity for encoding negative assertions

Alan Ruttenberg: Achille and Zhe, do you care about this?

Achille Fokoue: I don't care

Zhe Wu: People hate reification

Zhe Wu: Reification requires joins so I'd like to avoid it

Alan Ruttenberg: We could reolve this issue by saying "we can try something else"

Jeremy Carroll: We are then not resolving, but just postponing the issue

Jeremy Carroll: What is the problem with a complemented hasValue assertion?

Bijan Parsia: This is bad because you can use negative assertions without nominals

Bijan Parsia: I don't lilke the Compliment-Of approach to Issue 81. Using a nominal in that way hides the fact that you don't support nominals. I mean, ... I can encode a lot of things into more expressive logics! [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Bijan Parsia: Using a nominal for just a property assertion makes it difficult to say what is allowed in which fragment

Uli Sattler: Yes, it would be difficult in the fragments. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Michael Schneider: Likes shadow vocabulary

Jeremy Carroll: Dislikes shadow vocabulary

Alan Ruttenberg: Solving this technical problem in this room is likely not to work

Alan Ruttenberg: I propose that we record that we don't like this issue and that we postpone the resolution until later

Sandro Hawke: (where "this" == use of RDF Reification in OWL)
Michael Schneider: bijan, we have simply *luck* that we have this totally different kind of encoding (actually a semantical circumscription) of neg prop assertions; but what about annotations?
Jeremy Carroll: I would vote -0 on the reification vocabulary. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Bijan Parsia: Have we learnt that people really dislike reification?

Jeremy Carroll & Sandro Hawke: Would vote -0 on using reification

Sandro Hawke: SCRIBE CORRECTION -- I said I might have to vote "-1" on this -- I need to check.

ACTION: Bijan to come up with proposals for Issue 67 and Issue 81.

trackbot-ng: Created Action 129 - Come up with proposals for Issue 67 and Issue 81. [on Bijan Parsia - due 2008-04-10].

Jeremy Carroll: HP has discovered that special support for reification is costly and we'll drop it in future

Jeremy Carroll: SCRIBE CORRECTION: I said "we'll probably drop it"

Alan Ruttenberg: Issue 90, Issue 91: Related to backwards compatibility

Michael Schneider: I have a proposal for addressing this

Michael Schneider: I propose to have deprecations as semantic-free annotations

Michael Schneider: I propose to keep OWL-Full as is

Michael Schneider: Do not deprecate Deprecation

Peter Patel-Schneider: Let me say what Michael's proposal should be

Peter Patel-Schneider: There should not be deprecated classes and properties in OWL 2 DL

Peter Patel-Schneider: owl:DeprecatedClass and owl:DeprecatedProperty should be the same as owl:Class and owl:Property

Michael Schneider: In OWL 1 DL, the following was the case:

Michael Schneider: There were OWL 1 DL deprecated classes and properties

Michael Schneider: There was a special "deprecated" flag in the abstract syntax

Michael Schneider: There was a special trick for handing the "deprecated" flag in the AS

Michael Schneider: This flag was handled in the semantics using an artificial rdf:type property

Michael Schneider: This was confusing

Michael Schneider: From the semantic point of view: there no mapping of an rdf:type property from OWL/RDF into AS

Michael Schneider: In OWL 1, annotations do have a semantics, so all this mattered

Peter Patel-Schneider: This was done in order to turn a one-place thing into a two-place thing

Michael Schneider: My proposal is to map owl:DeprecatedClass and owl:DeprecatedProperty into annotations in the structural spec

Ian Horrocks: Do you care about round-tripping RDF -> FS -> RDF?

PROPOSED: Is it okay to read in an OWL 1 ontology (with deprecated classes) into an OWL 2 system -- then you write it out again, is it still OWL 1

Ian Horrocks: You take an OWL 1 ontology with deprecated classes, you read it into an OWL 2 system, you write it out. Do we care about whether the deprecated triples are the same?

Michael Schneider: objects to this

Jeremy Carroll: It only costs two mapping rules to preserve this. If this is the only time we violate the round tripping (1->2->1) goal, then I'm for including the ugly hack mapping rules. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Michael Schneider: If we have an RDF graph with some deprecation statements.

Michael Schneider: I put such an ontology into an OWL Full reasoner

Michael Schneider: I put it into an OWL DL system, and serialize it again

Michael Schneider: What I get in the end is something that is quite different from what I started with

Jeremy Carroll: it's reasonable to do a sparql query for deprecated classes and assume if you don't get any that you don't have any deprecated classes. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Jeremy Carroll: Because DeprecatedClass has only informal semantics, using sparql query is plausible. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Bijan Parsia: What is the general cost of existing ontologies?

Bijan Parsia: If this is a corner case in practice, this might not be worth investigating

Achille Fokoue: I agree with m_schneider that this might be a problem, but we might put the compatibility bar too high

Achille Fokoue: You can have the ability in your tool to preserve depecations

Achille Fokoue: I don't see the absolute need with perfect round-tripping

Achille Fokoue: it could be a value-added feature that your OWL 2 tool can maintain OWL 1 ontologies, but we shouldn't mandate it. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Boris Motik: I see the question as more: do we want to have deprecation? [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Rinke Hoekstra: The functional-syntax is suited for OWL DL

Rinke Hoekstra: I cannot really imagine anyone loading an OWL Full ontology in an OWL DL tool

Rinke Hoekstra: Deprecation is a tool issue

Michael Schneider: I create an OWL DL ontology with Protege

Michael Schneider: I want to use an OWL Full reasoner to get additional entailments

Michael Schneider: To me this is a valid use case

Jeremy Carroll: The issue is whether we want to have deprecation

Alan Ruttenberg: I'm taking it as given that we are not getting rid of it

Jeremy Carroll: My point, Alan Ruttenberg

Jeremy Carroll: There clearly is a use for deprecation

Peter Patel-Schneider: I do not believe that the WG has made any decision about deprecating Deprecation

Alan Ruttenberg: I don't think it would be a good decision to deprecate deprecations because this might give us problems

Jeremy Carroll: If we are not going to deprecate deprecations, then let's just do a bit of hackery to make it work

ACTION: bmotik2 to Propose a way to reintroduce annotations into the structural specification and to provide RDF mappings

trackbot-ng: Created Action 130 - Propose a way to reintroduce annotations into the structural specification and to provide RDF mappings [on Boris Motik - due 2008-04-10].

PROPOSED: Hack the RDF mapping and functional syntax as necessary to allow DeprecatedClass and DeprecatedProperty to work as in OWL 1

Michael Schneider: ian, i don't understand what you mean by "roundtripping through OWL2 DL"?

PROPOSED: Close Issue 90, resolved. We will hack the RDF mapping and functional syntax as necessary to allow DeprecatedClass and DeprecatedProperty to work as in OWL 1

RESOLVED: Close Issue 90, resolved. We will hack the RDF mapping and functional syntax as necessary to allow DeprecatedClass and DeprecatedProperty to work as in OWL 1

Boris Motik: No objectors, resolved unanimously

Alan Ruttenberg: Issue 91: Spec lacks ontology properties

Jeremy Carroll: I would be happy with a NOTE saying These are only intended to be used on ontologies. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Jeremy Carroll: Add a note that these ontology properties should be used only on ontologies

Sandro Hawke: NOT PROPOSED: Close Issue 91, with text saying not to do this (ontology properties should only be used to relate ontologies -- if you go against our advice, you're on your own.
Michael Schneider: why not introducing OntologyAnnotationProperties? ;-)

PROPOSED: Close Issue 91, with text saying not to do this (ontology properties should only be used to relate ontologies -- if you go against our advice, you're on your own.

PROPOSED: Reolsve Issue 91 by adding a note in the structural spec by saying that ontology properties should not be used elsewhere as annotations

Ian Horrocks: there are no entailments in DL. In Full, you may get weird entailments if you violate these rules. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

RESOLVED: Close Issue 91, with text saying not to do this (ontology properties should only be used to relate ontologies -- if you go against our advice, you're on your own.

Sandro Hawke: ADJOURN
Michael Schneider: exit

Boris Motik: Here is the implementation of Issue 91: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Syntax&diff=5375&oldid=5331

Day 2 Admin

Ian Horrocks: Thanks again to Clark & Parsia for dinner last night, and to NIST for local organizating. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

(Scribe changed to Bijan Parsia)

RDF Mapping Issues

Ian Horrocks: First up is fixing a bunch of issues by eliminating data/object property punning. Boris has a lil presentation on a proposal.

Boris Motik: Two basic roots to many issues in the mapping: 1) object/data/annotation punning and 2) typing occurances of terms (2 gets driven by 1)

Alan Ruttenberg: But we require typing in OWL 1.0?

Boris Motik: But in 1.0 it's not quite worked out.

[And in 1.0 you can get away with *global* typing whereas with punning you need *local* typing --- bijan]

Jeremy Carroll: Do we need typing for annotations?

Boris Motik: yes; and there is object/data punning in annotation properties (even in 1.0)

Boris Motik: Propsoal: disallow property punning and require a type for every (property) URI

Boris Motik: Changes to the specs. Use declarations in the struc spec/functional spec (but map them to type triples) (see slide 3 for details)

Alan Ruttenberg: Do we type ontology properties as well?

Boris Motik: With the current ontology properties there's no need since we have a list of them.

Jeremy Carroll: And that was deliberate...ontology properties were a closed set so you can just look for them.

Michael Schneider: What about typing vocabulary?

Boris Motik: I'm talking about at the level of the structural spec so no type triples

Michael Schneider: I mean the typing in the quantifers, e.g., objectSomeValuesFrom

Boris Motik: getting to it

Jeremy Carroll: What about typing inference?

Boris Motik: I deal with that. But i think at the structural spec level we should require declaration. But what your are talking about is "repair" and we should allow that. But the tool should generate the type triples internally.

Bijan Parsia: are we specing the repair rules?

Ian Horrocks: (as chair) We have a later agenda item on it.

Boris Motik: Have a separate notion of "repair" for using ontologies which omit declarations. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Boris Motik: UML diagrams stay the same. We augment the grammar for functional style syntax with some annotations indicating the required global type.

...this means that the diagrams match the grammar, but we don't have in the explicit syntax any typed terms but we do have productions that indicate what the type of the construct is (e.g., no typed terminals, but the non-terminals can be typed so there is not a large change from the current spec or apis)

Discussion about whether tools should add types in all files where there are missing types. A lot of discussion about whether to make this recommondation. This behavior is highly undesired for some people.

Sandro Hawke: the implication of "ontologies SHOULD put declarations at the top of the file" is "OWL tools SHOULD NOT use triples stores." or maybe not... [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Evan Wallace: "Suggested Practice" [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Discussion is actually about whether to recommende putting htings at the tope of the store.

Alan Ruttenberg: Suggests adding more context making clear that devianting from this advice is ok, but has costs.

Jeremy Carroll: "declare before use" [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Michael Smith: +1 to jeremy
Markus Krötzsch: +1 to jeremy
Sandro Hawke: q+ sort-order of triples in rdf serialzation
Michael Schneider: what does "declare before use" mean in a *set* of axioms?

Alan Ruttenberg: Declare before use still suggests a per document bias.

Markus Krötzsch: "declare before use" refers to the serialisation, not to sets of axioms

Sandro Hawke: This falls into the "if you put triples in a particular order you can do well"

Bijan Parsia: But we could incorporate this in the "nice serialization" stuff that I've suggested we offer earlier.

Sandro Hawke: wide acclaim to bijan there.

Boris Motik: Changes to RDF mapping; this fixes tons of problems, e.g., non-mon gone, remove duplicate vocabualry etc.

Boris Motik: We should make clear that repair isn't part of the spec....type validation is based on the explicit set of triples

Boris Motik: (and agreed by JJC loudly) the doc should be clear you don't do RDFS reasoning around declarations [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Boris Motik: "declaredAs" will go away in RDF

Boris Motik: Given cyclic imports and typing triples occuring anyway, the parsing algorithm has to be two pass.

s/boirs/boris/

Boris Motik: parsing has to be two pass --- (1) imports closure, (2) look for declarations, etc. The document should be more clear about this. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Jeremy Carroll: While we can express this, we shouldn't say it is *required*

Jeremy Carroll: "Streaming OWL-DL" by me --- you can do it in one pass. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Boris Motik: yes, but I think *speccing* it as two pass will be clearer...obvious people can optimize better.

Jeremy Carroll: so the spec should no say you MUST do it in two pass. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Alan Ruttenberg: "Notes to Implementors" [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Alan Ruttenberg: This is another notes to implementors. We should have an additional section

Ian Horrocks: Do we need an Implementor-Facing-Document Task Force?  :-)  :-) laughter [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Boris Motik: importing files of different syntaxes?

...But now we can formulate things at the object model so mixed imports (and typing) becomes clean.

Boris Motik: Changes to XML Syntax: Drop typed quantifiers as in the functional syntax. Regularizes all the syntaxes and makes the parsing (at a high level) exactly the same.

Boris Motik: by having declarations at the syntactic-object level, we are clear about how to handle import-closures which include OWL serialized in different syntaxes. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Sandro Hawke: (lots of nods)

Jeremy Carroll: secondes the proposal

Michael Schneider: Can we defer some other issues?

Generally people wanted to do things on a case by case basis.

Sandro Hawke: We can make decisions and if we find problems later then we can reopen the decision.

Issue 17

Ian Horrocks: This is a non-issue if we accept the boris proposal.

...Thus this issue is resolved by this proposal.

Jeremy Carroll: One use case from the "Full/RDF" domain is dc:creator, but I don't believe it is address by punning so I don't think we harm that use case *more*.

Peter Patel-Schneider: I'd like to mark that we don't agree with the lack of use cases.

Ian Horrocks: So we'll say that we technically don't know how to do it so we closed it.

Michael Smith: to alan, the dc use case is mentioned briefly at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Punning#Annotations_.28ObjectProperty_.E2.86.94_DatatypeProperty.29

Evan Wallace: about boris's proposal: The only place the proliferation of typed vocabulary occurs is in the struc spec?

Boris Motik: Yes.

Ian Horrocks: But only in non-terminals. Terminals are all type free.

Bijan Parsia: But that could impact the OMG UML mapping

Alan Ruttenberg: msmith, search for creator on that page finds nothing

boris's proposal: http://www.w3.org/mid/000001c89659$6d8508f0$2a12220a@wolf

PROPOSED: Close Issue 17 as resolved, saying we forbid any property punning, as per Boris' proposal (http://www.w3.org/mid/000001c89659$6d8508f0$2a12220a@wolf) with a note that the reason is that technically we don't know how to do it.

Sandro Hawke: +1

+1

Rinke Hoekstra: +1
Boris Motik: +1 (Oxford)
Markus Krötzsch: +1
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1
Achille Fokoue: +1
Jie Bao: +1
Uli Sattler: +1
Zhe Wu: +1
Michael Smith: +1
Ian Horrocks: +1 (Oxford)
Evan Wallace: +1 (NIST)
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 (Science Commons)
Jeremy Carroll: +1 (HP)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU)
Sandro Hawke: NOTE that Boris doesn't mention AnnotationProperties here, but they are understood as being parallel to DataProperties and ObjectProperties

RESOLVED: Close Issue 17 as resolved, saying we forbid any property punning, as per Boris' proposal (http://www.w3.org/mid/000001c89659$6d8508f0$2a12220a@wolf) with a note that the reason is that technically we don't know how to do it. NOTE that Boris doesn't mention AnnotationProperties here, but they are understood as being parallel to DataProperties and ObjectProperties

Michael Smith: alanr, search for dublin core

Issue 18

Jeremy Carroll: I'm not sure who did Issue 18 though my name is on it.

...So I withdraw it.

Sandro Hawke: Issue 18 is closed, JJC doesn't support it any more, no one else does either.

Issue 65

Ian Horrocks: The new proposal addresses this explicitly.

Bijan Parsia: let's just merge Issue 65 into that previous resolution. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Jeremy Carroll: I'm happy as long as after the edits the terms are actually fully reduced.

Jeremy Carroll: I expect that Issue 65 will be addressed by Boris' proposal [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Ian Horrocks: We can always revisit if things turn out unexpectedly.

Issue 68

Jeremy Carroll: I believe the proposal addresses this, but obviously I need to check.

Issue 89 and Issue 19

Ian Horrocks: Proposal fixes this.

Michael Schneider: There is an issue. It's not clear but in OWL 1 some type triples are entailments and now if they have no semantics we have a backward compatibility issue.

Boris Motik: it's not about entailment.

Matthew Horridge: Are declarations still regarded as Axioms? [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Boris Motik: Yes [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Jeremy Carroll: The entailment still holds.

Alan Ruttenberg: There was some old wording saying that declarations don't have semantics.

Boris Motik: and it *doesn't* have semantics.

Alan Ruttenberg: Simple proposal: let's remove the wording (about no semantics) but leave things as it is

Markus Krötzsch: You cannot ask that something a subclass of thing you have to priorly said that it's a class, so in some sense it changes the semantics but not in the ordinary sense we mean when dropping an axiom.

Peter Patel-Schneider: Where do we *say* in the document that declarations have no semantics.

...No where.

alan (strikes back): Finds some text that seems to be problematic.

pfps and jjc: that seems false

Ian Horrocks: Ok, that's a separate issue and seems largely editorial.

Evan Wallace: How do we handle this editorial/whatever issue.

PROPOSED: Close Issue 65, Issue 68, Issue 89, and Issue 19 as resolved, as per Boris' proposal (http://www.w3.org/mid/000001c89659$6d8508f0$2a12220a@wolf), amended to include AnnotationProperties in parallel to DataProperties and ObjectProperties.

Michael Schneider: What is the status of the semantics of declarations? I

...'m still confused.

Michael Schneider: about the mapping of c rdf:type owl:Class ... it seems like there is a semantic difference here [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Bijan Parsia: I think this is a change to the presentation of the semantics, but not to their meaning. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

PROPOSED: Close Issue 65, Issue 68, Issue 89, and Issue 19 as resolved, as per Boris' proposal (http://www.w3.org/mid/000001c89659$6d8508f0$2a12220a@wolf), amended to include AnnotationProperties in parallel to DataProperties and ObjectProperties.

Boris Motik: +1 (Oxford)
Achille Fokoue: +1
Jeremy Carroll: +1 (HP)
Markus Krötzsch: +1 (FZI)

+1 (Manchester)

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 ALU
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 (Amsterdam)
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 (Science Commons)
Ian Horrocks: +1 (Oxford)
Sandro Hawke: +1 (W3C)
Jie Bao: +1
Zhe Wu: +1 (Oracle)
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1
Evan Wallace: +1 (NIST)
Michael Smith: +1 (C&P)

RESOLVED: Close Issue 65, Issue 68, Issue 89, and Issue 19 as resolved, as per Boris' proposal (http://www.w3.org/mid/000001c89659$6d8508f0$2a12220a@wolf), amended to include AnnotationProperties in parallel to DataProperties and ObjectProperties.

Issue 66 & Issue 94

Elisa Kendall: I demand someone dial-in so that Mike and I didn't lug the conference phone up here for no reason; to this end, I shall dial-in if I have to! :>
Sandro Hawke: :-)
Sandro Hawke: Think of all the poor reserved Zakim ports, sighing miserably because they have no purpose in life.

Ian Horrocks: In the RDF Mapping boris added the following text: "More precisely, let O be any OWL 2 DL ontology in functional-style syntax, let RDF(O) the set of RDF triples obtained by transforming O into RDF triples as specified in Section 2, and let O' be the OWL 2 DL ontology in functional-style syntax obtained by applying the reverse-transformation from Section 3 to RDF(O); then, O and O' are logically equivalent (i.e., they have exactly the same set of models)."

Ian Horrocks: This resolves the issue.

Jeremy Carroll: I accept it resolves the issue, but it's editorially nasty.

Sandro Hawke: Let me understand: Roundtripping gives you the same models, but not necessarily the same syntactic mapping. It would be nice to mention this.

PROPOSED: Resolve Issue 66 by adding to the RDF Mapping the following text: "More precisely, let O be any OWL 2 DL ontology in functional-style syntax, let RDF(O) the set of RDF triples obtained by transforming O into RDF triples as specified in Section 2, and let O' be the OWL 2 DL ontology in functional-style syntax obtained by applying the reverse-transformation from Section 3 to RDF(O); then, O and O' are logically equivalent (i.e., they have exactly the same set of models)."

Achille Fokoue: We've asserted this, but what's the status of proving it? Do we require a formal proof?

Ian Horrocks: Formal proofs for mapping seem a bit different than formal proofs for semantics etc.

Jeremy Carroll: This resolution resolves things by making any falsity in the roundtripping a bug not a feature. How we detect and fix such bugs is a different issues.

Boris Motik: +1 (Oxford)

Ian Horrocks: The semantics equivalence claim in the profiles document has a different status

Achille Fokoue: +1 (IBM)
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 (Science Commons)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 ALU

+1 (Manchester)

Jeremy Carroll: +1 (HP)
Zhe Wu: +1 (Oracle)
Jie Bao: +1 (RPI)
Michael Smith: +1 (C&P)
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 (Amsterdam)
Evan Wallace: +1 (NIST)
Markus Krötzsch: +1 (FZI)
Ian Horrocks: +1 (Oxford)
Uli Sattler: +1
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1
Joanne Luciano: +1 (MITRE)
Sandro Hawke: +1 (W3C) understanding that various word-smithing may happen later, and it's really Issue 66.

Issue 86

Ian Horrocks: MikeS has a solution to mapping inverse property expressions: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Mar/0269.html>

Michael Smith: Instead of trying to use a bnode in property position, reverse the arguments.

Michael Schneider: I have a solution and it's a more general problem. Inverse expressions are a symptom.

Michael Smith: m_schnei email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Mar/0281.html

...The problem is more general...can we tackle the more general problem

Boris Motik: we should fix the concrete case.

Michael Schneider: This solution is a hack. Let's solve it properly, so that other s-p-o things are serialized in RDF consistently. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Boris Motik: yes, it's a hack, but that's fine. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Michael Schneider: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Mar/0281.html
Bijan Parsia: Also, RDF may change. Let's not go to much effort to work around this (perhaps temporary) shortcoming of RDF. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Peter Patel-Schneider: msmith's solution is to make sure that on the RDF side we have no b-node there. m_schnei's solution is if it's not a property name, then translate it to an object restriction. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Jeremy Carroll: One problem with hasValue restrictions is that it uses a very expressive construct for a less expressive bit.

Jeremy Carroll: introducting hasvalue restrictions is a problem, because as Uli pointed out yesterday, it confuses the expressivity of the ontology. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Ian Horrocks: And hits roundtripping hard.

Boris Motik: It's a simple simple solution that fits in with the rdf etc. etc.

Boris Motik: msmith's solution is so easy. it fits well with rdf. it doesn't introduce nominals. (Uli: and it keeps the graph beautiful) (Ian: It keeps the data part as data) [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Michael Schneider: Is it CERTAIN that this is the only case where this situation occurs? [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Ian Horrocks: YES. If you discover otherwise, we will revisit this issue. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Michael Schneider: My problem is that I dismissed it so, I didn't understand it.

Markus Krötzsch: If we encounter new problems, we'll have to revisit the hack anyway.

Markus Krötzsch: If some other occurance of this situation occurs, we'll have to come up with something. we'll have a new issue, and we can apply that solution back to this, if necessary. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Uli Sattler: This is not a hack. It's standard re-writing for conjunctive queries. There's nothing going wrong here, nothing weird here. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Uli Sattler: It's not a hack...it's a standard technique, used in rewriting of conjunctive query, etc.

Michael Smith: this was proposal #2 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Mar/0269.html

(No activity for 35 minutes)

(Scribe changed to Achille Fokoue)

PROPOSED: resolve Issue 86 as proposed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Mar/0269.html; it is believed that this is the only place that this problem arises.

PROPOSED: resolve Issue 86 as per proposal 2 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Mar/0269.html; it is believed that this is the only place that this problem arises.

Michael Smith: +1 (C&P)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 ALU
Bijan Parsia: +1 (Manchester)
Jeremy Carroll: +1 (HP)
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 (Amsterdam)
Markus Krötzsch: +1 (FZI)
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 (Science Commons)
Jie Bao: +1 (RPI)
Boris Motik: +1 (Oxford)

+1 (IBM)

Zhe Wu: +1 (Oracle)
Ian Horrocks: +1 (Oxford)
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1
Uli Sattler: +1
Evan Wallace: +1 (NIST)
Sandro Hawke: +0 swapped out
Joanne Luciano: +1 (MITRE)

RESOLVED: resolve Issue 86 as per proposal 2 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Mar/0269.html; it is believed that this is the only place that this problem arises.

Issue 94: Issues surrounding roundtripping

Sandro Hawke: Issue 94 rejected / withdrawn.

Alan Ruttenberg: let's reject it

Sandro Hawke: (as per boris and ian and alan)

Bijan Parsia: it might be nice to regularize it

Bijan Parsia: It would be nice to regularize this [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Peter Patel-Schneider: the only n-ary construct in OWL 1 was allDifferent [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Bijan Parsia: so now we've discovered that there are lots of these.... [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Alan Ruttenberg: do we want a resolution

Bijan Parsia: if we reject it I will hjave another one with disjoint

Sandro Hawke: ? PROPOSED: Resolve Issue 94, introducing disjointProperties
Jeremy Carroll: Disjoint properties is N^2 without the special class AllDisjointProperties, this is one item to avoid an N^2 rule, so it is probably worth it. [Scribe assist by Jeremy Carroll]

Michael Schneider: n-ary construct map to a lot of binary statement in rdf

... this is not very nice, It will address the problem of annotating n-ary constructs

Markus Krötzsch: s /m_scheni/m_schnei/

Jeremy Carroll: we are not solving the annotation issues in this metting

Jeremy Carroll: reification-annotations got parked for furthur reflection. I suggest we re-open something relative to annotations. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Ian Horrocks: close should say what we add, but not what we rule out. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Jeremy Carroll: we do not rule out them for now

Jeremy Carroll: yes, open world assumption  :-) [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Ian Horrocks: add it for disjointProperty and close this issue

PROPOSED: Resolve Issue 94, introducing disjointProperties (and note that disjointClasses is already in OWL2), handled like allDifferentFrom was in OWL 1

Michael Schneider: sandro, you can also have a look in my Full proposal <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/FullSemanticsNaryConstructs>
Peter Patel-Schneider: +0 ALU
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 (Science Commons)
Jeremy Carroll: +1 (HP)

+1 (IBM)

Sandro Hawke: +1 (W3C)
Bijan Parsia: +1 (Manchester)
Evan Wallace: +1 (NIST)
Ian Horrocks: +1 (Oxford)
Michael Smith: +1 (C&P)
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1 (oxford univ)
Joanne Luciano: +1 (MITRE)
Markus Krötzsch: +1 (FZI)
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 (Amsterdam)
Zhe Wu: +1 (Oracle)

Peter Patel-Schneider: we are adding more vocabulary

Sandro Hawke: m_schnei, I hope to look at it at some point, yeah.

RESOLVED: Resolve Issue 94, introducing disjointProperties (and note that disjointClasses is already in OWL2), handled like allDifferentFrom was in OWL 1

Issue 96 OWL-1.1 vocabulary naming in RDF mapping is not consistent

Ian Horrocks: inconsistency in the vocabulary naming

Michael Schneider: disjointObjectProperties instead of disjointObjectPropertyWith

Sandro Hawke: maybe "disjointWithProperty" ?

Alan Ruttenberg: disjointObjectPropertiesWith is not good english

Michael Schneider: the two-class case has a special serialization on RDF, so it should for property as well. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Alan Ruttenberg: let's change then all to make it better english

... all = (disjointClasses and disjointProperties)

Evren Sirin: disjointProperties as we have equivalentProperties

Bijan Parsia: the problem is that "disjointWith" was too grabby. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Evan Wallace: disjointProperty as we have equivalentProperty

Sandro Hawke: how about: p PropertyDisjointWith q

Michael Schneider: onely one case with singular

Jeremy Carroll: we could optionally (as per alan) just not have the binary special case. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
jjc: a note to signal a potential alternative design

Jeremy Carroll: get rid of the binary case

PROPOSED: we do not have special vocabulary for pair-of-disjoint properties, but we include an editor's note asking for feedback from OWL Full community about whether they want PropertyDisjointWith or whatever.

Michael Schneider: we have case where we have binary only, n-ary and binary, and n-ary only

Bijan Parsia: this is not a major issue (i.e. the lack of regularity in the language)

Michael Schneider: in this case I would like to reject the issue

Sandro Hawke: ? PROPOSED: resolve Issue 96, moving forward without a special vocabulary for pair-of-disjoint properties, but we include an editor's note asking for feedback from OWL Full community about whether they want PropertyDisjointWith or whatever.
Michael Schneider: i would rather have the vocabulary as is than the term gone. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Sandro Hawke: ? PROPOSED: resolve Issue 96, using owl:propertyDisjointWith for the binary case of disjoint properties
Joanne Luciano: +1 (MITRE)

PROPOSED: resolve Issue 96, using owl:propertyDisjointWith for the binary case of disjoint properties

Evan Wallace: 0 (NIST)
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 (Science Commons)
Markus Krötzsch: +1 (FZI)
Jie Bao: 0 (RPI)
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 (Amsterdam)
Joanne Luciano: +1 (MITRE)
Bijan Parsia: +0 (Manchester)

0 (IBM)

0 (IBM)

Sandro Hawke: +0 (W3C)
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: 0
Jeremy Carroll: +0.5 (HP)
Zhe Wu: 0 (Oracle)
Peter Patel-Schneider: 0 ALU
Ian Horrocks: +1 (Oxford)
Michael Smith: 0

RESOLVED: resolve Issue 96, using owl:propertyDisjointWith for the binary case of disjoint properties

Ian Horrocks: That's all the RDF Mapping issues! [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Bijan Parsia: Jeremy, do you think this will make HP happier with OWL 2? HP had concerns about the mapping in the OWL 1.1 submission. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Jeremy Carroll: i will report to hp that many of the key issues have been addressed

Other Issues

Issue 3 & Issue 46 anonymous individuals / Unnamed Individual Restrictions

Boris Motik: allow bnodes in the structural spec

Boris Motik: interpret them as anonymous individuals

Boris Motik: expand structural spec to add bnode-flag on individuals. also, DL will require that assertions are tree-like. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Boris Motik: mandate that the assertion are tree like to guarantee decidability

Bijan Parsia: this gets us back to the OWL 1 status quo. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Bijan Parsia: This relates to the skolemize-bnodes case. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Ian Horrocks: this is intended to close these issues. you're free to raise an issue re: skolem. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Jeremy Carroll: the experience is that owl implementaters have interpreted them as skolem

Bijan Parsia: skolem would allow non-tree-graphs. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Boris Motik: I've just implemented the resolution of two issues w.r.t. property mapping: I've renamed disjointObjectProperties into propertyDisjointWith and have added the n-ary variant for disjoint object properties

Bijan Parsia: by this change we will make all owl tools non-conformant

Bijan Parsia: This makes all implementations non-conformant. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Bijan Parsia: i do not see it as a good idea

Bijan Parsia: i would prefer not having them at all

Sandro Hawke: BijanL ... I would rather NOT HAVE BNodes, if they are going to have existential semantics.

Evren Sirin: + 1 for bijan

.. but I do not think it makes all tools non-conformant

... I am talking about OWL 1.0

Jeremy Carroll: I agree with evren. OWL 1.0 test cases are about consistency check

Jeremy Carroll: the OWL1 entailment tests did not *TECHNICALLY* affect conformance. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Sandro Hawke: JJC; (even though they were "Normative")

ACTION: bmotik2 to Modify entire spec according to the proposal from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Apr/0018.html

trackbot-ng: Created Action 131 - Modify entire spec according to the proposal from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Apr/0018.html [on Boris Motik - due 2008-04-11].
Alan Ruttenberg: this proposal differs from OWL 1 in that the tree-like requirement is no longer enforced by the semantics. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Bijan Parsia: I would liek to break the backward compatibility in the spec

Michael Schneider: Cyclic property assertion _:x p _:x [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Michael Schneider: cyclic property assertions ?

Jeremy Carroll: this is not treee shaped

Ian Horrocks: it would be illegal as not being tree shape

Ian Horrocks: This proposal would rule that out. But it's also ruled out in OWL 1 because it's not in the DL syntax. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Ian Horrocks: if we resolve this according to boris's proposal, it is up to bijan to introduce the skolem semantics

Jeremy Carroll: three possibilities: 1) no anonymous individuals, 2) individuals as skolem

3) as per boris's proposal

PROPOSED: (1) no anon individuals (2) anon indivs as per Boris (3) anon indiv with skolem semantics

Uli Sattler: option 4 -- something else? [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Jeremy Carroll: prefer (2), oppose (1) and (3)
Alan Ruttenberg: we could have ADDITIONAL skolem semantics. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Evan Wallace: prefer (3)
Bijan Parsia: that doesn't meet my requirements of having a good enterpretation of EXISTING graphs. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Ian Horrocks: separate issue. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

PROPOSED: OPTION-1

Jeremy Carroll: -1
Bijan Parsia: 0
Michael Schneider: -0.5 to option 1
Zhe Wu: 0
Peter Patel-Schneider: 0 or option 1
Sandro Hawke: 0
Markus Krötzsch: -0
Joanne Luciano: 0
Alan Ruttenberg: First vote on (1)
Evan Wallace: 0
Rinke Hoekstra: -0 for option 1

-0

Evren Sirin: 0
Alan Ruttenberg: -1 for (1)
Ian Horrocks: 0
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: 0
Uli Sattler: 0

PROPOSED: OPTION-2: (2) anon indivs as per Boris

Jeremy Carroll: +1
Bijan Parsia: -1
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1
Jie Bao: 0
Alan Ruttenberg: +1
Rinke Hoekstra: 0
Evan Wallace: 0
Evren Sirin: 0
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1
Ian Horrocks: +1
Sandro Hawke: 0 confused

0

Michael Schneider: -0.25 to 2
Zhe Wu: 0
Markus Krötzsch: +1
Uli Sattler: 0
Joanne Luciano: 0

PROPOSED: OPTION-3: (3) anon indiv with skolem semantics

Bijan Parsia: +1
Evren Sirin: +1
Alan Ruttenberg: 0
Markus Krötzsch: +1
Jeremy Carroll: -1
Sandro Hawke: +0.75
Peter Patel-Schneider: 0

+0.25

Rinke Hoekstra: 0
Evan Wallace: +1
Michael Schneider: +1 for 3 (skolems)
Joanne Luciano: 0
Zhe Wu: 0.5
Uli Sattler: +1
Ian Horrocks: 0
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: 0
Jeremy Carroll: I might be able to go back to HP and get a different answer. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Michael Schneider: i am interested in an example where the existential semantics is used

Bijan Parsia: it is never used

Bijan Parsia: The only place existential semantics are used is in separate operations. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Michael Schneider: the statement was for DL

Bijan Parsia: This is a request on Jeremy to present some evidence.... [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Michael Schneider: could jeremy provide some evidence of this use in DL ?

Sandro Hawke: we want to add in the draft that we understand that it is non consensual

Sandro Hawke: If we make this change, we defiitely want to highlight it, saying we're looking for evidence if it causes any real problem. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Sandro Hawke: ? PROPOSED: We go with Boris's proposal on the syntax of bnodes, and open a new issue on the semantics of bnodes.

Evren Sirin: how about give the skolem semantics for DL and existential for Full

Evren Sirin: maybe differeent semantics in DL and Full. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Ian Horrocks: let's not discuss evren's proposal now

Bijan Parsia: i will write a proposal so that we can use it as the starting point for further discussion

ACTION: Bijan to put consolidated list of OWL visible differences between bnode semantics as existential versus skolem

trackbot-ng: Created Action 132 - Put consolidated list of OWL visible differences between bnode semantics as existential versus skolem [on Bijan Parsia - due 2008-04-11].
Boris Motik: The e-mail with the proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Mar/0008.html

PROPOSED: Resolve Issue 46, accepting Boris's proposal (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Mar/0008.html) only in terms of the syntax of bnodes, and open a new issue on the semantics of bnodes, including editorial note in owl2-syntax about semantics being still open.

PROPOSED: Resolve Issue 3 and Issue 46, accepting Boris's proposal (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Mar/0008.html) only in terms of the syntax of bnodes, and open a new issue on the semantics of bnodes, including editorial note in owl2-syntax about semantics being still open.

+1 (IBM)

Boris Motik: +1 (Oxford)
Ian Horrocks: +1 (Oxford)
Zhe Wu: +1 (Oracle)
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1 (oxford)
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 (Science Commons)
Jie Bao: +1 (RPI)
Sandro Hawke: +1 (W3C)
Markus Krötzsch: +1 (FZI)
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 (Amsterdam)
Michael Smith: +1 (C&P)
Evan Wallace: +1 (NIST)

RESOLVED: Resolve Issue 3 and Issue 46, accepting Boris's proposal (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Mar/0008.html) only in terms of the syntax of bnodes, and open a new issue on the semantics of bnodes, including editorial note in owl2-syntax about semantics being still open.

Jeremy Carroll: +1 (HP)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 ALU
Bijan Parsia: +1 (Manchester)

ACTION: bmotik2 to Update the structural spec to add anonymous individuals; no mention about semantics so far

trackbot-ng: Created Action 133 - Update the structural spec to add anonymous individuals; no mention about semantics so far [on Boris Motik - due 2008-04-11].

Issue 16 entity annotations

Ian Horrocks: we have a proposal from boris

Alan Ruttenberg: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0397.html
Peter Patel-Schneider: Boris's proposal may be: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0397.html

Boris Motik: Only annotations . The target of annotation will be either entity or annotation

Bijan Parsia: i request it to be postponed because I need to think about it more in the context of my annotation proposal

Peter Patel-Schneider: another proposal (much simpler) from me

Peter Patel-Schneider: what is the status of entity annotation?

Peter Patel-Schneider: I would vote to reject the issue because there is nothing wrong


Sandro Hawke: Hold on, Elisa
Peter Patel-Schneider: my solution http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0106.html




Jeremy Carroll: the issue is about metaannotation

Jeremy Carroll: the ability to annotate the annotation

Peter Patel-Schneider: my proposal does that

Bijan Parsia: this is an important issue for debra

Elisa Kendall: We, also, in work for JPL and other DoD projects have a serious need for meta-annotations

Achille Fokoue: this is also an important issue for IBM

Ian Horrocks: we should carry that discussion on emails

Elisa Kendall: +1 to this, one of our users, NCI, really really really wants meta-annotations

ACTION: jjc to drive this issue forward to resolution


Issue 72 Annotation Semantics

Jeremy Carroll: http://www.w3.org/Submission/2007/09/

Ian Horrocks: the current spec gives no semantics to annotation

and it is not 100% compatible with OWL 1

Jeremy Carroll: jeremy asked about adding rdf:source as per member submission to allow named graphs to support annotations
Jeremy Carroll: peter replied
Peter Patel-Schneider: if you're proposing that the underlying transfer mechanism be something other than RDF triples (as you are), then you are opening the floodgates of clear water which will wash away a whole lot of mess. I will jump with glee. But you will still be opening flood gates.... [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Alan Ruttenberg: the case I am aware of is if you have 2 individuals that are same as

then annotations in one is also annotations on the other

Michael Schneider: I have also found a bug in the semantics

Michael Schneider: I will send an email to the WG because I do not remember

... the details

Alan Ruttenberg: by which mechanism the annotation remains with the annotated object

Jeremy Carroll: this example with sameAs. the annotation is about the syntax (i.e the uri)

Jeremy Carroll: annotations are always about the syntax not the semantics

Bijan Parsia: I agree with jjc for the most part

Bijan Parsia: tools can address this issue by presentating same individual together

for example

Bijan Parsia: it should be handled at the level of tools

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: are we talking about a backward compatibility issues or are we talking about annotations in general

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: we should focus on backward compatibility only

Alan Ruttenberg: cats are friendly, annotation "Alan believes this". cat's are friendly, annotation "Uli believes this". Alan believes same thing as ULI
Alan Ruttenberg: Bijan asks, does alan believe no cats are unfriendly (if that's what ULI says?). Answer: yes.

Evren Sirin: second jeremy's point: annotations are on the syntax

Markus Krötzsch: many use cases for AnnotationProperties could now be addressed by punning [Scribe assist by Markus Krötzsch]
Markus Krötzsch: (referring to Class-Individual, Property-Individual punning) [Scribe assist by Markus Krötzsch]

Bijan Parsia: I agree with Markus

MarkusK, thanks for your script assist

s/script/scribe

Michael Schneider: The discussion between Alan and me about 1.0-DL semantics for annotations: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Apr/0021.html>

Ian Horrocks: it seems to me that we should accept that the semantic is not backward compatible

Sandro Hawke: q?

Alan Ruttenberg: my concern is that the semantics of annoation are not understood

Jeremy Carroll: +1

alan; my experience tells me that tools do not have a standard way to deal with annotations

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +q

Ian Horrocks: I am saying that the resolution that they do not have a semantics leads to a backward compatibility issue

Bijan Parsia: two things:

.. 1) what are the semantics?

... 2) the documentation is not perfect

... we should do a better jobs on documentating annotations this time around

Alan Ruttenberg: we are not committed to backward compatibity on annotation

Alan Ruttenberg: we will clarify its semantics even with the risk of breaking backward compatibity

Sandro Hawke: owl 2 is a superset of owl1 with some bugs fixed

... maybe I should add that we may also break compatibility on annotations

Alan Ruttenberg: my concern is that by saying that it has no semantics, the typical tool may simply ignore them

Peter Patel-Schneider: what does protege do?

Alan Ruttenberg: I don't only author ontologies, I use them!  :-) [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Matthew Horridge: protege does not throw them away

Evren Sirin: 1) OWL 1 has semantics for annotation but tools still ignore them (for example reasoners)

Evren Sirin: it will be fixed soon in pellet

PROPOSED: we are not committed to backward compatibility with respect to annotations

Sandro Hawke: Possible wording: The OWL Working Group intends to make OWL 2 be a superset of OWL 1, except that some "bugs" may be fixed and annotation semantics may be different.
Evren Sirin: What I'll be curious about is how queries on syntax are made - looking forward to seeing what you guys come up with [Scribe assist by Alan Ruttenberg]
Jeremy Carroll: (note HP will abstain, personally I am in favour)

PROPOSED: we are not committed to backward compatibility with respect to annotation semantics

PROPOSED: Close Issue 72 saying we are not committed to backward compatibility with respect to annotation semantics, given that the WG will attempt to improve annotation support in OWL 2

Bijan Parsia: +1 (Manchester)

+1 (IBM)

Michael Smith: +1 (C&P)
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1 (Oxford)
Jeremy Carroll: 0 (HP)
Markus Krötzsch: +1 (FZI)
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 (Amsterdam)
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 (Science Commons)
Zhe Wu: +1 (Oracle)
Ian Horrocks: +1 (Oxford)
Jie Bao: +1 (RPI)
Evan Wallace: +1 (NIST)
Michael Schneider: The point is that we want OWL 1 documents with annotations to have the same annotations in OWL 2 [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Joanne Luciano: +1 (MITRE)
Sandro Hawke: 0 (W3C)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 ALU
Michael Schneider: I don't see anything here that would negatively impact that [Scribe assist by Alan Ruttenberg]

RESOLVED: Close Issue 72 saying we are not committed to backward compatibility with respect to annotation semantics, given that the WG will attempt to improve annotation support in OWL 2

Task Force Report: Imports and Versioning

Alan Ruttenberg: assumptions: 1) ontologies will be versioned

Alan Ruttenberg: 2) terms may not be versioned , 3) different versions will coexist at different locations

alan presentation will be sent to the WG mailing list

s/ alan presentation / alan's presentation

Alan Ruttenberg: after the import closure is done, all the version requirements are checked

Alan Ruttenberg: in case of violations, tools can request users intervention

Jeremy Carroll: this is a generic pb

Jeremy Carroll: it is not owl specific.

s/pb/problem

Alan Ruttenberg: there is an implication that OWL addresses this issue

Bijan Parsia: we should be sure to reference David Orchard's work on web versioning in the TAG, and be prepared to discuss differences. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Alan Ruttenberg: an external mapping file specifies the location of the OWLontologies

Alan Ruttenberg: this is not a report from the task force

Alan Ruttenberg: it is just a proposal from me

alan's proposal is at : http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Apr/0016.html


(No activity for 49 minutes)



(No activity for 10 minutes)

Elisa Kendall: my pleasure [Scribe assist by Elisa Kendall]
Alan Ruttenberg: explains his proposal for imports and versioning [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Alan Ruttenberg: ontology documents have a single ontology header [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Peter Patel-Schneider: this means that there are RDF graphs that are not OWL Full ontologies [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]




Evan Wallace: Elisa we are redialing
Sandro Hawke: Elisa, we're now on conf cod 26631
Sandro Hawke: Elisa, we're now on conf code 26631
Sandro Hawke: sandro has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F2 CONFERENCE CODE 26631


Alan Ruttenberg: requirement: imprt by name has to have a precise meaning [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Boris Motik: in RDF we can have multiple RDF triples per ontology. If there are many, then they cannot take part in an import [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Matthew Horridge: taking the xml base of the document would suffice [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Sandro Hawke: better not use xml:base [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Sandro Hawke: the RDF mapping should not have anything specific to the concrete serialization used [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Sandro Hawke: (early) and RDFy way to do this is: <> owl:sameAs <...the ontology uri...> [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Alan Ruttenberg: the purpose of the proposal is to specify how the tools should work [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Sandro Hawke: or owl:sameOntologyAs if you like. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Alan Ruttenberg: namely, to avoid situations where the tool would not know what to do [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Alan Ruttenberg: for this purpose, introduce a special kind of document [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Michael Schneider: some tools like TopBraid composer has such a mapping internally, similar to what the special document mentioned by alan would do [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Boris Motik: in short, when we import an ontology we should be able to check the version plus a redirection mechnism to go to the right version [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Alan Ruttenberg: the main purpose is to identify obvious problems, where before we were not able to detect such problems [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Alan Ruttenberg: this is just to detect more problems than before [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Matthew Horridge: is there a notion of a ``session? [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Alan Ruttenberg: it does not. It only refers to the simplest case [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Boris Motik: having one mapping file per session would be a reasonable thing to do in the OWL API [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Joanne Luciano: better leave those issues out of the spec [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Boris Motik: these kinds of issues should be decided by the tool builders [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Bijan Parsia: this is big [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]


Bijan Parsia: we are trying to solve quite a huge problem [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]



Bijan Parsia: the scope is probably too large for our schedule [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Sandro Hawke: +1 Bijan -- this is at least as big as easy keys, etc.
Michael Smith: please clarify what aspect of it is too big [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Bijan Parsia: all aspects of it [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Jeremy Carroll: probably it would be good to have a special vocabulary to deal with the redirections. May not be normative [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Jeremy Carroll: One use case is to standardize relation between tools. It could be informative/suggested. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Alan Ruttenberg: I want to know when there are errors. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Bijan Parsia: owl:imports gets used in RDF. If we propose something like this, ... [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Bijan Parsia: RDF does not have an inclusion mechanism. If we propose something like this we should try to reach some consensus even outside the group [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Ian Horrocks: we are not going to solve this today. We are just presenting proposals [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Sandro Hawke: there were a couple of formal objections in the old OWL WG concerning imports [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Sandro Hawke: some people didin't want to include it in the language [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Ian Horrocks: another proposal by Peter [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Ian Horrocks: time wise, could we continue later than 4:30 or 5:00? [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Sandro Hawke: no objection to going past 4:30
Sandro Hawke: no objection to going past 5:00
Ian Horrocks: we will try to finish around 5 [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Joanne Luciano: I'm probably going to leave around 3. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Peter Patel-Schneider: the projector is leaving around 5:30. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Peter Patel-Schneider: imports means import from location [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Peter Patel-Schneider: if you have versions, then use the same simple mechanism, but then you generate import-specific locations [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Peter Patel-Schneider: one could also have an annotation property to specify the version [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Peter Patel-Schneider: does not need to be a number [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Peter Patel-Schneider: if one imports different versions of a different ontology, one could detect that [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Peter Patel-Schneider: different versions have same names, but different version numbers [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Peter Patel-Schneider: it is exactly like the W3C versioning system works [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Boris Motik: is there a relationship beteen the URI of the version and the annotation? [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Peter Patel-Schneider: not necessarily [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Peter Patel-Schneider: one should not import multiple versions of an ontology [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Peter Patel-Schneider: the annotation is available for pragmatic purposes, but it is meant to be descriptive [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Zhe Wu: is there anything in the proposal that deals with version compatibility? [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Peter Patel-Schneider: no word about version compatibility. That is hard [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Boris Motik: great, but we need an explicit statement saying what an implementation can do concerning redirection [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Peter Patel-Schneider: this all is completely outside the semantics of OWL [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Michael Schneider: this is a best practice approach and I like it. Is there anything in alan's proposal that is not covered by peter's? [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Alan Ruttenberg: yes, the ability to repair [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Sandro Hawke: I import D1 and D2. D1 contains the fact that it's name is D2, version 1. D2 contains the fact that its name is D1, version 1. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Sandro Hawke: with Peter's approach, the provide can open different branches and label them as they want [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Peter Patel-Schneider: but all this is outside the semantics [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Peter Patel-Schneider: the annotations can only talk about the ontology it is in [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Peter Patel-Schneider: not about other ones [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Michael Schneider: clarification required from alan concerning repair [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Jeremy Carroll: request from alan writing what his solution provides compared to peter's [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Jeremy Carroll: so far, peter's approach looks much simpler [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Peter Patel-Schneider: Ontology-versioning is a good reason to violate the SHOULD about name=location. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Boris Motik: in the imports task force, the goal was for each ontology to specify waht particular version is under consideration [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Sandro Hawke: +1 Boris -- include in the ontology its "version-name", which is the location at which you can, in the future, get this version.
Boris Motik: tools should be able to rename the locations [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Boris Motik: What you import must have its name or version-name the same as its location. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Alan Ruttenberg: if an ontology is missing or has a bug, there is no way to fix the imports in such situation [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Boris Motik: you can [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Boris Motik: one can overwrite globally for all ontologies in the import closure [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Elisa Kendall: +1 to moving on, please
Elisa Kendall: +50, in fact
Alan Ruttenberg: in my approach the overwritting is portable whereas in peter's it depends on the tool [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Rinke Hoekstra: in peter's proposal import goes by location, whereas in alan's it goes by name [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Elisa Kendall: We had a several week task force, and this is an important part of our meeting. [Scribe assist by Alan Ruttenberg]
Rinke Hoekstra: in law applications one would want to do it by name. This is an issue [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Elisa Kendall: yes, where "our" includes me, and that's my preference, which I've a right to express here.
Elisa Kendall: this is very much in the weeds IMO
Jeremy Carroll: the overwriting mechanism already covers this [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Peter Patel-Schneider: in my proposal it is possible to say that an ontology must import a particular other one [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Sandro Hawke: q+ to say a URN is a location.
Boris Motik: now we are saying that import is by location, but location and name can be different providing we can overwrite [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Rinke Hoekstra: who overwrites the location? [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Boris Motik: the application [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Sandro Hawke: the notion of URN is flawed [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Sandro Hawke: URN refers to a name that refers to some content [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Sandro Hawke: q-
Sandro Hawke: So when we say "location" here, we really mean any URI which has associated content on the web. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Alan Ruttenberg: people perceive that my proposal allows the user to do too much [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Alan Ruttenberg: clarifying (I was asking this question - I don't think it does)
Boris Motik: we want the mapping to depend on the application [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Alan Ruttenberg: no way [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Alan Ruttenberg: that is not what we want [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Bijan Parsia: I am a real user, and I don't like writing mapping files [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Ian Horrocks: now people are kind of clear what the proposals are about [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Sandro Hawke: the proposals are the same at the core, but alan's adds a resolver on top of it [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Evren Sirin: two differences: alan's has the mapping files; [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: second- the mapping files can overwrite the imports of another ontology in your ontology
Boris Motik: both proposals are quite similar [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Boris Motik: the difference is that alan's is more expressive because one could detect version incompatibility [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Boris Motik: the extra component is whether we have a Portable Way To Specify Location-Overrides. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Boris Motik: there is another disagreement. Alan thinks that we should have a portable way of resolving locations across tools [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Boris Motik: this is a different issue that is independent of what proposal we take [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Boris Motik: we should split the issues [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Jeremy Carroll: the imports task force has disagreements [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Jeremy Carroll: lets give input to the TF, via strawpoll. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Bijan Parsia: we should go step by step. Agree with Boris [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Bijan Parsia: Chunk 1 : name -vs- location. Chunk 2 : Version Management in Imports. Chunk 3: Portable Location Overrides [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Alan Ruttenberg: there are problems with Peter' proposal that does not address my user needs [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Jeremy Carroll: I like Bijan's proposal better than mine. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Jeremy Carroll: Second proposal that peter's "Basic Idea" is an improvement over the past. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Alan Ruttenberg: Peter's proposal is part of mine but not enough [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Peter Patel-Schneider: is it an advance over the current situation? [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Alan Ruttenberg: marginal [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Peter Patel-Schneider: this means yes [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Ian Horrocks: let's have a straw poll [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Peter Patel-Schneider: Basic idea: Imports(U) means import from the location U.
Peter Patel-Schneider: + the usual overrides to allow caching and local storage
Peter Patel-Schneider: The ontology at U SHOULD have name U
Sandro Hawke: [that was the "basic idea" we have been talking about, from Peter]
Ian Horrocks: part 1 on the IRC [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Part2 is versioning
Jeremy Carroll: Peter's or alan's? [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Jeremy Carroll: Part 3: portable mechanism for overwriting [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Ian Horrocks: part2: should we do versioning? [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Jeremy Carroll: three options: no versioning, peter's versioning, or alan's versioning [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Michael Schneider: there is no versioning in Peter's [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Peter Patel-Schneider: this is actually an important part: only very minor support for it [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Ian Horrocks: wave hands [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Ian Horrocks: Part1 [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Ian Horrocks: Should the imports task force shoul do it? [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]

PROPOSED: We should incorportate peter's "basic idea"

Sandro Hawke: (pretty much unanmous.)
Ian Horrocks: clear yes [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Ian Horrocks: versioning [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Rinke Hoekstra: still not happy with the location part [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Michael Smith: let's close Issue 21 [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Sandro Hawke: cf Issue 21
Ian Horrocks: second part, versioning [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Ian Horrocks: option 1: do nothing; Option 2: minimal Option 3: rich version [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]

PROPOSED: (1) don't do anything about versioning, (2) minimal (Peter's) versioning, (3) substantial (Alan's) versioning

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Option 1: 2 people
Michael Schneider: we had versioning in OWL 1.0 [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Sandro Hawke: 1 - no change from OWL 1: 2 (bijan, baojie)
Elisa Kendall: +1 to Peter's
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Option 2: peter's
Sandro Hawke: 2 - Peter's proposal: 10 people
Ian Horrocks: 10 people [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Ian Horrocks: alan's [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Ian Horrocks: 3 people [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Sandro Hawke: 3 - Alan's: 3 people
Joanne Luciano: is peter's a subset of alan's? [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Ian Horrocks: let's not go there now [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Ian Horrocks: advice to TF would be to focus in very lightweight versioning [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Joanne Luciano: Peter's is a starting point; then we could build on top of it [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Bijan Parsia: peter's does not break alan's [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Uli Sattler: Peter's thing doesn't stop us from doing heavier versioning later. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Alan Ruttenberg: well, it might [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Ian Horrocks: Part 3 [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Boris Motik: it should not. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Jeremy Carroll: we could have an informative option [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Joanne Luciano: +1 (MITRE)

Should we specify a Portable Location Override format?

Sandro Hawke: Spec shouldn't say anything about it: 6
Sandro Hawke: Spec should say something non-normative: 9
Sandro Hawke: Spec should include normative mechanism: 1
Sandro Hawke: what does non-normative mean? [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Elisa Kendall: non-normative is an expensive trial balloon
Boris Motik: means that one recommends implementors what to do [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Michael Smith: it gives a kind of base [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Sandro Hawke: -1 to "informative"
Boris Motik: there is value in that [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Bijan Parsia: we shoul first engage people like TopBraid composers people [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Sandro Hawke: clarification: it could be normative but optional [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Elisa Kendall: there's nothing OWL-specific here; ergo, this is the wrong WG to do anything (or anything more than very minimal) about this general problem. [Scribe assist by Elisa Kendall]
Jeremy Carroll: in an informative version, we could get it wrong [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Jeremy Carroll: I want "informative" because we're likely to make mistakes. This way people can adopt it if it's right, or not if it's wrong. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Michael Schneider: an informative version could become a de facto standard [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Sandro Hawke: Okay -- from that angle, I'm okay with it.
Boris Motik: we have some chances of getting it right [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Boris Motik: to make it normative, we should be more precise about details [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Elisa Kendall: fyi, we do cache locally in our tool, which is particularly important for our government customers, but I'm happy to have an informative approach in the spec
Boris Motik: too many gaps [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Boris Motik: going with informative is safer [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Boris Motik: you can leave many things open [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Jeremy Carroll: I agree strongly with boris
Joanne Luciano: take care everyone! (Signing off now)
Sandro Hawke: It sounds a lot like a "Project" file contains the mapping file....
Elisa Kendall: +1 to Kendall
Elisa Kendall: this is a very general problem. Why are we doing anything there? this is not OWL-specific [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Elisa Kendall: not an OWL problem [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Ian Horrocks: let the task force go away and come up with a proposal given the feedback [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Bijan Parsia: we should get mopre support from other implementors [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Ian Horrocks: see if we can close Issue 21 on the basis that we believe we have agreement [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Scribecorrect (guest): I said that *if* we had explicit support from the implementors, then I would be more inclined to support doing something. [Scribe assist by Bijan Parsia]
Elisa Kendall: For example, http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/entity/spec-2001-08-06.html [Scribe assist by Elisa Kendall]
Boris Motik: Peter's proposal for resolution of Issue 21:
Boris Motik: Imports(U) means import from the location U.Imports(U) means import from the location U.
Boris Motik: + the usual overrides to allow caching and local storage
Boris Motik: The ontology at U SHOULD have name U

PROPOSED: Resolve Issue 21, to say we're importing by location and that, modulo overrides, modulo versioning, the ontology at U SHOULD have name U.

Boris Motik: I do not understand what we are voting for [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]

PROPOSED: Resolve Issue 21, to say we're importing by location and that, modulo overrides, modulo versioning, the ontology at U SHOULD have name U.

Evan Wallace: as long as URNs are considered location, as Sandro claims, then I'm fine with this. I don't want to outlaw URNs. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Alan Ruttenberg: I agree, this protects URNs. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Evan Wallace: what does location really mean? Are we talking specifically about URLs? [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Boris Motik: location might not match the name [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Boris Motik: but the ontology location should match the imports [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]

PROPOSED: Resolve Issue 21, to say we're importing by location and that, modulo versioning, the ontology imported from U SHOULD have name U. There may be some kind of override of location, but not the name.

Boris Motik: modulo versioning [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Boris Motik: the proposal implies import by location with a possibility to overwrite the location [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]

PROPOSED: Resolve Issue 21, to say that import is fundamentally by location, and that what you retreive from that location should give its name as that import-location. There may be overrides along the way to retreiving that content, but the import-text and the final-name text SHOULD be the same. All of this may be changed to accomodate versioning..

Elisa Kendall: next on the agenda: OWLWG solves the problems with SVG and XML Schema!! :>
Bijan Parsia: this is not really imports by location [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Ian Horrocks: let us move forward [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Ian Horrocks: let's postpone this to email discussion [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Michael Schneider: what does it mean import by name? [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Sandro Hawke: (Boris says he completely agrees with my phrasing in the PROPOSAL)
Boris Motik: you never say where the location is. What I propose is that the name and the location should match [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Sandro Hawke: let us make a straw poll [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]

PROPOSED: Resolve Issue 21, to say we're importing by location and that, modulo versioning, the ontology imported from U SHOULD have name U. There may be some kind of override of location, but not the name.

Alan Ruttenberg: -1
Jeremy Carroll: +1
Boris Motik: +1 (Oxford)
Sandro Hawke: +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 (FZI)
Zhe Wu: +0.8
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1
Rinke Hoekstra: -0
Alan Ruttenberg: don't understand
Michael Smith: +1
Elisa Kendall: +1
Bijan Parsia: -1
Jie Bao: -0.5
Uli Sattler: need to think more
Evan Wallace: -1
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 ALU
Ian Horrocks: Okay, moving along! [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Rinke Hoekstra: (need to think more as well... )
Ian Horrocks: no consensus. Let's take it offline [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Evan Wallace: I buy Bijan's argument that this ISN'T imports-by-location. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Rinke Hoekstra: I buy that argument as well
Rinke Hoekstra: ... I think...
Ian Horrocks: no user-facing documents discussion [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: break
Ian Horrocks: after break -- Syntax-As-Reference, or EasyKeys, RichAnnotations, NAry. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Ian Horrocks: straw poll [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Sandro Hawke: syntax-as-reference - 0
Ian Horrocks: who wants to do easy keys? [Scribe assist by Bernardo Cuenca Grau]
Sandro Hawke: easykeys - 10
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: 10
Elisa Kendall: +1 for easy keys
Sandro Hawke: rich annotation - 3
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: annotations?
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: 3
Sandro Hawke: nary - 3
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: nary datatypes?
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: 3
Ian Horrocks: Come back at 4pm for EasyKeys. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]



(No activity for 23 minutes)

(Scribe changed to Evren Sirin)

Ian Horrocks: admin material

Ian Horrocks: scribes should clean up the minutes they scribed as usual

Ian Horrocks: next f2f scheduled with iswc

Sandro Hawke: NOT "next" Rather, "A Future"

Ian Horrocks: we'll setup a poll about f2f date

Ian Horrocks: people should consider about hosting

Ian Horrocks: make a proposal if you want to host

Ian Horrocks: informal telecon next week for people who weren't in the f2f to chat with people who were in f2f

Evan Wallace: Note that a number of us will be at a meeting 23 - 27 June.
Evan Wallace: Elisa Can you hear us?

ACTION: sandro set up F2F calendar poll

trackbot-ng: Created Action 134 - Set up F2F calendar poll [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-04-11].

Sandro Hawke: put a note saying "before you comment look at the wiki to see if issue is addressed"

Jeremy Carroll: add a editorial note at the top of each document saying vocabulary is simplified

Sandro Hawke: Any problem with me linking to wiki, instead of including review comments, ? [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Alan Ruttenberg: this is reasonable, any objections?

Sandro Hawke: (general agreement -- no objection)

Boris Motik: I'll do it now

Ian Horrocks: continue with easy keys

Easy Keys

Bijan Parsia: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Easy_Keys

Uli Sattler: two goals: 1) do not prevent future extensions

...2) an easy extension

Bijan Parsia: this is n-ary datatypes

Bijan Parsia: I'll explain easy keys

Bijan Parsia: having inverse functional datatype properties in full generality is hard

Bijan Parsia: we have an idea how to implement but not efficiently

Bijan Parsia: datatype reasoner needs to consider all literals globally

... but keys are very useful

Elisa Kendall: "they" said that about QCR, too :)

Bijan Parsia: we can do explicit keys on explicit individuals

... if there are two individuals with same key

... infer they are owl:sameAs

... you can write this using DL-safe rules

... basic rule is if x and y are related to z by the key they are same

... people think this kind of functionality is good enough

... but writing these rules is not easy or intention-revealing

... they keys can be restricted to a certain class, too

... you can go further and consider compound keys

... e.g. having both same SSN and same age is a key

Jeremy Carroll: does this only for named individuals or include bnodes?

Bijan Parsia: no bnodes, it is hard to handle

Jeremy Carroll: what are other things I would miss with easy keys vs full keys?

Boris Motik: I've just added an editorial note to all the documents about the vocabulary.

Alan Ruttenberg: how does this interact with punning?

Bijan Parsia: if you are fine with sameAs between individuals it is ok

Bijan Parsia: regarding jeremy's question, missing keys is ok in easy keys

... these are not integrity constratins

... having more than one key should be forbidden

... you can add a cardinality restriction

Jie Bao: have to leave, wish a fruitful session on easy key :)

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: afaik, the difference between proper keys is easy keys only affect data (ABox)

... proper keys can affect TBox subsumption

Carsten Lutz: modulo nominals

Bijan Parsia: yes

Jeremy Carroll: this looks more like rules

Bijan Parsia: yes but we do not want to tell people to use rules

... have special syntax for keys

... the syntax lists one or more properties and the class for which the key is defined

... more than one property is for compound keys

... you are free to mix object and datatype properties here

Jeremy Carroll: can I use property chains here?

Uli Sattler: technically we can add them

Bijan Parsia: we didn't think of them but we can add

... you can write it in DL-safe rules so it is possible

... but for that complexity we might tell people to use rules

... but I'm flexible on this issue

Markus Krötzsch: property chains allow for non-safe (anonymous) middle parts [Scribe assist by Markus Krötzsch]

Bijan Parsia: you can also add property chains by a new property axiom giving the chain name

Boris Motik: the semantics refers to Hu which is not in anywhere else

Markus Krötzsch: so with property chains, one can declare a new property that is then used in an easykey [Scribe assist by Markus Krötzsch]
Markus Krötzsch: this works only for ObtjectProperties [Scribe assist by Markus Krötzsch]
Markus Krötzsch: s /ObtjectProperties/ObjectProperties/

Bijan Parsia: we introduce O predicate that is true for all individuals

Bijan Parsia: that is how you get safety

... Hu does the same for literals

Boris Motik: OWL is two-sorted so you would need two Hu's

Uli Sattler: O is the name of the ontology and use Hu for objects and literals

Uli Sattler: we can have Hu1 and Hu2 separately

Boris Motik: yes you have to have two

Bijan Parsia: lexical difference is an issue

Bijan Parsia: also you can have restriction >16 and <18 which means the value is exactly 17

Jeremy Carroll: how do you write that?

Bijan Parsia: using dataranges and restrictions on facets

Bijan Parsia: the difficulty is not lexical variants, .... it's cases where you infer the properties value with facets. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Boris Motik: we have unique interpretation and if we drop it it wouldn't be easier

Jeremy Carroll: if I have an inferred value for an easy key for a named individual does the key apply?

Bijan Parsia: yes

Alan Ruttenberg: but not if the subject is inferred

Bijan Parsia: boris, you can search for all literals and then lexically normalize them

Boris Motik: from every constant we need to uniquely interpret it

Bijan Parsia: counter example is addition of a new fact might merge two existing individuals that weren't merged before

Bijan Parsia: you can get literals with existential restrictions

Boris Motik: but it is not in Hu

Bijan Parsia: no, it would be in Hu

Uli Sattler: this might make implementations a little harder but otherwise there are other complications

Jeremy Carroll: are there other things that I should be worried about other than bnodes?

Bijan Parsia: not that I can think of

Ian Horrocks: what if the restriction specifies a range?

... the range can be a finite range then it is not that easy any more as Boris says

Uli Sattler: it is as easy as DL-safe rules

Bijan Parsia: you can always build a disjunction to denote that range

Boris Motik: in OWL I can say greater than 3 which is infinite

... so what do I put in Hu?

... I'm not sure if this is decidable

... also how about complements?

Bijan Parsia: there was another choice to make it more easier

... we discussed that possibility

... but then sometimes you get surprising results

... when you mention one literal explicitly you get new inferences

Alan Ruttenberg: I can make a class whose age is 17 is equal to nothing

... is this still easy with your proposal?

Uli Sattler: mention two surprising results

... saying john's age is 17 and saying john belongs to class of people whose age is 17 would give different results

Jeremy Carroll: is there rdf/xml syntax for this?

Bijan Parsia: we didn't do the work without knowing if wg would like the proposal

Boris Motik: as feedback, I like the general idea but I don't understand details

... without seeing more details I don't understand this is decidable

Bijan Parsia: fair enough

Michael Schneider: this is trivial but where is the datatype defined?

Bijan Parsia: could be with a range restriction

Markus Krötzsch: since this interacts with datarange facets there are no implementations

Ian Horrocks: I agree that I want to see a more formal presentation of semantics and proof for decidability

Boris Motik: the herbrand universe should be finite for decidability

Uli Sattler: not necessarily

Uli Sattler: before going with semantics I want to learn how people feel about oddities

Alan Ruttenberg: how about 1^^xsd:int and 1^^xsd:double as key value?

Michael Smith: int and double are disjoint

Alan Ruttenberg: so the first question is are we happy with easier one with oddities and how much work is needed for complicated version?

Boris Motik: I cannot say without more details

Peter Patel-Schneider: we are happy to see the proposal and would like to see more

Jeremy Carroll: I have an issue with simpler case

Michael Schneider: can you put something in the wiki about not-easy keys

Alan Ruttenberg: we are 5min to 5

Uli Sattler: I want three-fold indication for easy keys

Uli Sattler: you can introduce proper idfp if you don't use the key in restriction

Uli Sattler: option 1 - very easy keys with oddities

... option 2- as we presented

... options 3 - introduce proper idfp without using in restrictions or non-finite dataranges

Alan Ruttenberg: anybidy who doesn't want either?

Alan Ruttenberg: noone

Alan Ruttenberg: large part of wg want at least very easy keys

Alan Ruttenberg: who wants option 2 with uli and Bijan providing prrof?

Alan Ruttenberg: fairly good support

Alan Ruttenberg: who likes option 3?

Elisa Kendall: I would be interested at least 1 and 2

Markus Krötzsch: you can still have easy keys and proper ifdp

Bijan Parsia: yes

Alan Ruttenberg: thanks for coming

Carsten Lutz: thanks to chairs [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Sandro Hawke: ADJOURN



</div>