Teleconference.2007.10.31/Minutes

These minutes have been approved by the Working Group and are now protected from editing. (See IRC log of approval discussion.)

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Issues List: Migrated all issues from OWLED to Tracker

Issues List: Evan couldn't find an Issue on the Issue List

Issues List: Evan asking about the completeness of the Issues List

Issues List:: Complete wrt google-code and OWL

Issues List: Alan suggests adding issues that were not transferred should be added

Issues List: Jeremy wants to migrate issues from the OWL comments list

Jeremy Carroll: Less Technical Documents (LTDs): Would like to find User Facing Documents Task Force

User-Facing Documents

Jeremy Carroll: Documents such as OWL 1.0 Overview, Reference, User Guide

Jeremy Carroll: Reuse OWL 1.0 Overview to create OWL 1.1 Overview in time for the Manchester F2F

Jeremy Carroll: Work on the relating to features to requirements - Traceability Matrix
... Form a task force and report back to the main group

Bijan Parsia: Objection: WG will consider these as publication tracks

Alan Ruttenberg: Bijan's points - WG documents should not be the only outlet for the UFDs
... What put to on XML page for OWL for instance
... Appropriate use of WG time .. making sure that this would not interfere with WG Tasks
... Parallel track
... Off WG meetings
... Further approval of documents

Jeremy Carroll: Don't want to be not responsive to you

Jeremy Carroll: Hence called "Less Technical Documents"
... Charter Section 2 specifically taks about documents which all 5 of us want to produce

Bijan Parsia: Variety of users
... Not objecting to producing variety of documents

Bijan Parsia: That is the only or the best way to meeting the requirements of the WG charter
... Would like a discussion on this
... Need to sanction whether these are WG documents

Deborah McGuinness: Something like OWL 1.1 Overivew document out

Deborah McGuinness: If disagreement about that ... we need a discussion before we put energy in it

Deborah.: OWL 1.1 Overview similar to OWL 1.0 Overview document?

Alan Ruttenberg: OWL Overview is simple presentation of features
... Goal is to produce something of that nature

Alan Ruttenberg: Goal of the traceability document is to have features related to a set of use cases in different domains
... Demonstrate the value of OWL 1.1 over OWL 1.0

Alan Ruttenberg: Issues with some features

Bijan Parsia: Overview document will be helpful
... Traceability committed to producing
... Not convinced that it is useful use of your time
... Longevity problems

Alan Ruttenberg: Have examples where documents didn't age gracefully?

Bijan Parsia: Implementation Reports
... Document like requirements document kept live would not be good

Jeremy Carroll: Traceability is a short term document

Bijan Parsia: Communicating to people now
... WD may not be the best way to do that
... Feature matrices are very useful for adoption, etc.
... That gets stale over time
... Have some commitment that they could be updated

Deborah McGuinness: Is OWL 1.0 Overview is a big risk for becoming outdated

Alan Ruttenberg: Agreement requirement on the definition of backward compatibility
... Task Force for Test Cases

Jeremy Carroll: Its still a bit early to have the test cases

Alan Ruttenberg: OWL 1.0 test cases should run and produce same results as a criteria for backward compatibility

Sandro Hawke: Good starting point

Bijan Parsia: Could be bugs in test suite

Bijan Parsia: Could be a good starting point

Jeremy Carroll: Poilicies around test cases

Jeremy Carroll: Requirement that WG only approve tests that it regarded as correct

Alan Ruttenberg: Test case per wiki page

Alan Ruttenberg: Bias to write as many test cases as possible in the functional syntax
... Cannot do a test case to check RDF mapping example

Jeremy Carroll: In OWL 1.0, tests in some database

Jeremy Carroll: Can generate all possible syntaxes for the test

Alan Ruttenberg: Wiki is programmable

Jeremy Carroll: Flexibility => Tool has a bug => Bug in your test suite

Alan Ruttenberg: Explicit tests that tool translation matches the correct answer

Alan Ruttenberg: Dependency on another group on our charter - what are expectations and why does W3C do that?

Sandro Hawke: some interaction between the specs
... Implementor needs to understand both spects

Sandro Hawke: Bad thing for two specs to contradict each other

Alan Ruttenberg: Have people to be liasions
... communicate any changes

Alan Ruttenberg: Any volunteers for liastions

I could do HCLS

Alan Ruttenberg: Liasons with other groups - Bijan with RIF, Ivan with SWEO, Elisa with SWD, Vipul with HCLS

Alan Ruttenberg: Liasons with XML Schema and Uncertainty XG to be decided

Bijan Parsia: XML Schema group did not give OWL WG defined datatypes by name

Alan Ruttenberg: Connections to the OMG

Elisa Kendall: Evan and Elisa could do the coordination... Both of them co-chair the Ontology WG there

Alan Ruttenberg: Future meeting - Elisa and Evan could speak on similarities nd dependencies

RIF Review

Sandro Hawke: Need some people to review...
... If it comes down to more substantive issues then it may make more sense to review them

Sandro Hawke: Disagrees with the Peter Re: consideration from RIF

Jeremy Carroll: If specific endorsement of Peter's technical comments is required, then communication should be sent to OWLWG

Alan Ruttenberg: Gotta go...

Can someone take over scribing?

Thanks

</div>

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Jeremy to convene the next UFD task force [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/31-owl-minutes.html#action01]

[End of minutes]