F2F2 Minutes

(No activity for 19 minutes)

(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

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)?

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.

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

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++

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

(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"

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

see Issue 107

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

The name of the document

Fragments-- peter, boris ...

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

Joanne Luciano: we should give justification for name in document

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

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

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

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

jeremy and ian: yes if in the context of logic

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

PROPOSED: doc title is "profiles"

carsten is against other people in favour

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"

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"

(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

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.

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.)

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.

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

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

Jeremy Carroll: yes - but let's decide tomorrow

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

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

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

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

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.

lots in favour

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

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

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

Joanne Luciano: I feel this is important

Jeremy Carroll: let's add a to-do

Ian Horrocks: let's put helloworld example in intro

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)

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

(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

(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"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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..."

alanr congratulates authors and wg

(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

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: 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)

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

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

Backward Compatibility

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

Alan Ruttenberg: noted

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)

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: 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

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.

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

+1

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

+9 (MITRE)

OOPS! +1 (MITRE)

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

seconded by Bijan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carsten Lutz: can we draw on history

Carsten Lutz: tends to think of this as 2.0

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

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: continues speculating

difference in opinion about speculation of user's response

8 people 1.1

votes for name 2.0 number is 6

Bijan Parsia: thinks 1.5 seems interesting

Elisa Kendall: suggests as compromise 1.55

who would object strongly as 1.1 --> 1

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

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

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

PROPOSED: The name is "OWL 2"

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