Teleconference.2007.10.17/Minutes

Roll Call

Jeremy Carroll: not a member of the WG

Sandro Hawke: jjc is invited

Agenda amendments

Ian Horrocks: no amendments

Accept Minutes

Ian Horrocks: any corrections to minutes?

Action items status

Alan Ruttenberg: action1 (login alignment) still in progress

Vipul Kashyap: multiple wikis (W3C and ESW) mean multiple logins, can they be aligned?

Sandro Hawke: no

Ian Horrocks: action item 2 html is possible
... action item 3 comments on RIF BLD done

Charter Review

Ian Horrocks: Assumption is that everyone has read all the documents (including the charter).
... Quick run-through of charter followed by discussion.
... Scope of WG is extensions to OWL (logic, datatypes, expressive power),
... plus language fragment definition.
... OWL 1.1 submission is starting point.
... Starting issue list is OWL 1.1. issue list plus postponed issues from WebOnt.
... Backwards compatability is important.
... Feature addition is to be conservative.

Ian Horrocks: deliverables (not necessary documents) - overview, requirements, formal spec (3 docs), outreach (...), test suite, language fragments.
... XML exchange syntax also possible deliverable.
... Timeline is quite tight, first documents beginning of Feb.
... Last call august 2008, ..., done in 18 months.
... First F2F is December.
... Dependencies from other workings groups (on agenda [postposed to next week]).

Bijan Parsia: Backwards compability is good but not absolute.

Ian Horrocks: Let's not make a decision on overall status of backwards compatability, but make it a case by case basis.

Alan Ruttenberg: Questions on charter need resolution in the future, e.g., backwards compatability.

Deliverables

Sandro Hawke: W3C has software for tracking issues and action items (TRACKER).

Sandro Hawke: Trackbot-ng sits on the IRC and records things.
... The owl wg home page has a pointer to the information gathered.
... The web page allows management of actions and issues, changes result in email.
... Products (documents or tasks) are linked to issues and actions.

Sandro Hawke: Using the names of issues, (actions, etc) verbatim (ALLCAPS-#) in email links them in.
... Wiki integration is not yet available (but might be coming).

Ian Horrocks: Are we going to use this?

Alan Ruttenberg: PROPOSED: move all current issues to trackbot

Sandro Hawke: There was discussion of this offline.

Bijan Parsia: Let's discuss this on email.

Sandro Hawke: One issue is that it would be nice to have proposed issues and accepted issues.

Alan Ruttenberg: will there be an open-to-the-world issues list?

Sandro Hawke: Interest but no decision yet.

Ian Horrocks: For next week's agenda: discuss this with some email discussion in the meantime.

Publication Schedule

Sandro Hawke: Process requirements for WGs.

Jeremy Carroll: step 6 is not a vote, but something different involving the director

Sandro Hawke: No observable differences yet.
... There is internal consultation and delegation within the W3C staff on decisions, so director decisions are not make by the director alone.

PROPOSED: Our first working drafts are: Structural Specification, Semantics, RDF Mapping

Alan Ruttenberg: this means focussing on the core documents, not to say that the current versions are what the first working draft would be

Bijan Parsia: Working drafts are not commitments.
... We should publish working drafts before the F2F.
... This makes transition from webont.org to W3C space.
... PROPOSE making the three documents as WDs ASAP.

Alan Ruttenberg: Two steps in resolution: 1/ Are these docs OK for WDs? 2/ When to publish.

PROPOSED: Existing webont documents are first WDs (appropriately edited).

Jeremy Carroll: Deliverables have a requirements document, which logically should preceed the technical documents.

Bijan Parsia: There was requirements work going into owl 1.1, but no doc was made.
... Putting a requirements doc first would significantly delay technical work.

Alan Ruttenberg: Jeremy, would doing things with requirements later damage our process?

Vipul Kashyap: Shouldn't there be an internal review before the WDs are published?
... My votes on other issues depend on this issue.

Bijan Parsia: First WD is first *public* WD.

Ian Horrocks: Can we move the documents to editor's drafts to have the same transitioning effect?

Alan Ruttenberg: Q1/ Are the three documents the ones to target for first WDs?

Alan Ruttenberg: Q2/ When should we make the three documents be WDs?

Evan Wallace: Are we implying that SS fills the role of the descriptive spec?

Ian Horrocks: No -- we're implying that these three document form the technical spec.

PROPOSED: Our first working drafts, to be published before the 3-month heartbeat, will be one or more of: (1) Structural Specification, (2) Semantics, (3) RDF Mapping, based on the text for each of these at http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/

PROPOSED: Our first working drafts, to be published before the 3-month heartbeat, will be one: (1) Structural Specification, (2) Semantics. We may include (3) RDF Mapping in this list. These are based on the text for each of these at http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/

RESOLVED: Our first working drafts, to be published before the 3-month heartbeat, will be one: (1) Structural Specification, (2) Semantics. We may include (3) RDF Mapping in this list. These are based on the text for each of these at http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/

General Discussion

Alan Ruttenberg: Next topic was to be authors/editors role, task areas.... I propose we put these off until next week.

Bijan Parsia: When we postpone things, let's talk about it on the mailing list.

Alan Ruttenberg: I can create the draft of the next agenda early, and send that out, to help start discussion.

Bijan Parsia: It doesn't need to be the whole agenda, although that's fine.

Postponed to next meeting.

Relationships to other W3C Groups

Postponed to next meeting.

Additional other business