See also: IRC log
- Ratnesh Sahay, Rinke Hoekstra, Michael Smith, Bijan Parsia, Markus Krötzsch, Peter Patel-Schneider, Elisa Kendall, Zhe Wu, Achille Fokoue, Sandro Hawke, Martin Dzbor, Ivan Herman, Vipul Kashyap, Jeff Pan, Doug Lenat, Michael Schneider, Evan Wallace, Alan Ruttenberg, James Hendler, Ian Horrocks, Boris Motik, Jeremy Carroll, Bernardo Cuenca Grau
- Alan Ruttenberg
- Vipul Kashyap, Rinke Hoekstra
(Scribe changed to Vipul Kashyap)
Alan Ruttenberg: Rearrange agenda to get the fragments discussion earlier
Achille Fokoue: Start the discussion on fragments earlier
PROPOSED: approve previous minutes
RESOLVED: approved minutes http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.02.27/Minutes
Alan Ruttenberg: seek feedback on Action IItems
Alan Ruttenberg: Close pending action items
Alan Ruttenberg: Jeremy to respond?
Alan Ruttenberg: Transform OWL-XML into OWL-RDF
Alan Ruttenberg: Do we accept this issue?
Bijan Parsia: OK with accepting the issue
Ivan Herman: Each XML dialect has a namespace
Ivan Herman: Describes how GRDDL transformations are identified and invoked using the GRDDL standard
Alan Ruttenberg: Schedule a discussion on the issue
Alan Ruttenberg: remove nested restrictions on datatype range
Alan Ruttenberg: Resolve this issue as is and add a new issue to name and further restrict datatypes
Alan Ruttenberg: Start with Fragments Discussion
Alan Ruttenberg: Pragmatics of organizing work going forward
Alan Ruttenberg: 3 fragments
Alan Ruttenberg: Overlap between OWL Lite and OWL Prime
Alan Ruttenberg: Overlap between DL Lite and OWL Prime
Alan Ruttenberg: Task Force devoted to each Fragment
Peter Patel-Schneider: How much work needs to be done, given the work done by Bors and Bernardo?
James Hendler: Agree with Peter... Work of this document or have another task force?
James Hendler: Far enough ahead, so probably put it in as a document of the workgroup?
Alan Ruttenberg: Discuss document on the mailing list and work through issues that come up on the mailing list
Sandro Hawke: Is this a Rec track document?
Alan Ruttenberg: Replace the document on the wiki?
Ian Horrocks: Replace the existing fragments document with the new one on the premise rec track?
Ian Horrocks: What do you do with the existing one?
Jeremy Carroll: In favor rec tracking this document
Ivan Herman: Favor to rec track
Ivan Herman: Do not have to do this decision at the moment
Ivan Herman: Turning the submission 1 into a note might make sense, but do not need to decide on this right now
Bijan Parsia: Agree with Ivan, Nice Template to describe fragments
Bijan Parsia: Making this docuiment nice to read would be good
James Hendler: Current document should be somewhere accessible...
Alan Ruttenberg: Leave the document "tractable fragments" remain where it is and change the draft pointer to the new location
James Hendler: Need ability to look at both of them carefully
Ivan Herman: OWL 1.1 input submission links to Fragments document. 2 links away from wiki page... Don't need to do anything
ACTION: Alan to change sidebar Fragments link to new page
James Hendler: Entry recognized W3C format
James Hendler: built rules for the fragment in that
James Hendler: It is an executable format as engines can execute N3 descriptions
Bijan Parsia: Separate what format vs how to coordinate/reference other W3C work such as RIF
James Hendler: N3 representation of the rules is useful and also gives mapping to RDF
Sandro Hawke: Wait for the RIF last call
James Hendler: General discussion - What flavors of presentation of syntaxes etc are we going to use?
James Hendler: If we use different syntaxes - all syntaxes should be used in other documents
James Hendler: ... use of standard rule formats
Sandro Hawke: N3 Rules do not have stable documentation
James Hendler: some of it may be in the N3 document
Alan Ruttenberg: Separate issues related to syntax versus putting the rules on wiki
ACTION: Hendler to put n3 version of rules on wiki with pointer to documentation. All to review and discuss via email
Alan Ruttenberg: Publication schedule: 3 documents - 3rd document is fragments document
Michael Schneider: For what applications is the XML doc needed?
Michael Smith: Implementation experience with XML format within DIG client/server architecture for passing explanation in the context of an NCI project
Bijan Parsia: Matthew used it in MyGRid experiments
James Hendler: Useful, but confusion on status of various documents
James Hendler: If published as a draft , can decide whether to stop it as a note or go to a rec?
James Hendler: XML exchange syntax not to be published as rec
Ivan Herman: What are the arguments for the above and what has changed since then?
Scribe not: Lines -1, -2 by Ivan and not Jim
Jeremy, Peter: If we got to rec, we would have to look for implementations
Alan Ruttenberg: Things in XML you cannot do in RDF/XML - undue burden on RDF/XML clients
Alan Ruttenberg: Validate: GRDDL transformation can be written to correct the syntax errors
Boris Motik: DIG simple protocol for DL reasoners, committed to use XML syntax
Boris Motik: DIG is using XML syntax for updates ot KB, DIG is axiom based
Bijan Parsia: People in XML groups do not like RDF/XML
Bijan Parsia: We are thought as XML hostile
Bijan Parsia: Have a transformation to RDF (not document)
Bijan Parsia: Opens OWL to people who might be turned off by RDF/XML syntax
Peter Patel-Schneider: Task for XML to RDF is impossible
Peter Patel-Schneider: cannot transform everything
Ian Horrocks: GRDDL transformation to check if we can go from XML to RDF.
Ian Horrocks: Can map from structural syntax to RDF
Alan Ruttenberg: sandro, please chair the rest of the session
Jeremy Carroll: Agree with Peter
Alan Ruttenberg: If I get OWL-XML which my OWL tools can grok, then I will have to retool. XML document should remain in track with them
Alan Ruttenberg: GRDDL transformation to keep in track and promote interoperability
Ivan Herman: understand the argument, Many things? N3, RDF/XML, OWL/XML, Functional synta
Zhe Wu: Conditions of some triples not convertable into RDF
Peter Patel-Schneider: WG has list of issues related to transformations into RDF/XML
Alan Ruttenberg: Predicates => Qnames => Start with digit character.... URL...
Alan Ruttenberg: Minor restrictions and do not get in the way
(Scribe changed to Rinke Hoekstra)
Jeremy Carroll: In RDF core, we considered the predicate problem Zhe was alluding to. It's an RDF problem, not an OWL problem...
Jeremy Carroll: we decided not to fix it
Jeremy Carroll: I understand alan, but am against it. But that wasn't what RDF core decided
Alan Ruttenberg: we have to live with the fact that RDF/XML might not be able to live with OWL/XML syntax
Alan Ruttenberg: don't want anything in the OWL/XML syntax that would not be compatible with RDF/XML
Bijan Parsia: is it bad to ask for new features?
Bijan Parsia: it is perfectly possible to push out some RDF that cannot be serialised into rdf/xml, but is valid RDF (turtle)
Bijan Parsia: it wouldn't be so difficult to provide a schema that would be able to check for compatibility with RDF/XML
Bijan Parsia: people should be allowed to write these things, and people already do this
Sandro Hawke: chairs will have to think about this next week
Alan Ruttenberg: if we have more time
Alan Ruttenberg: boris added the ontology properties to the docs... but ontology properties have Ontologies as their range
Alan Ruttenberg: and domain
Alan Ruttenberg: that's where we are right now
Jeremy Carroll: I am still suffering HP overload. Domain and range can be specified in OWL full, but don't know how this works out in the FS
Jeremy Carroll: it's a finite list, so we could add them to the mapping rules (if necessary)
Jeremy Carroll: if someone could take this up, I'd be happy (busy until easter)
Michael Schneider: I assume here that the ontology properties will be in the RDF syntax, but in OWL DL they will be interpreted as annotations
Michael Schneider: but if they are in the RDF syntax they have automatically a domain and range in OWL Full
Michael Schneider: I wouldn't change anything in comparison to OWL-1.0-Full, where ontology properties have domain and range owl:Ontology
Peter Patel-Schneider: it's not really the case that they have a domain and range in OWL DL
Peter Patel-Schneider: (1.0) it was not something you could talk about in OWL DL
Peter Patel-Schneider: in a certain sense, historically this discussion is incorrect... don't think that anything extra needs to be done on these properties that is any different from annotation properties
Alan Ruttenberg: there have been various discussions on versioning issues. It would be desirable to have versions have more actual impact than be rather advisory
Alan Ruttenberg: have a proposal that I will bring up when we have our versioning discussion.... for the moment what I'm hearing is ok, but would like to at least discuss whether they could in some sense 'signal' something when something is 'bad'
Jeremy Carroll: answer to pfps, if I recall correctly, at least syntactically the range and domain have to be there, could be an issue with punning
Alan Ruttenberg: propose to leave it as is for OWL DL except to the extent that we have to say something about how it relates to Full.... for full we could followup on Michaels' issues
Alan Ruttenberg: suggest to close the issue with the note that the 'issue' (or similar) will re-arise in the future
Peter Patel-Schneider: to respond to jim in advance, the issue
Peter Patel-Schneider: under consideration says the spec lacks ontology properties. It doesn't anymore... that is different from the domain and range of said ontology properties
James Hendler: I disagree with you peter, but we're up to close to a 100 issues, just closing this to open up another one doesn't seem to help
James Hendler: we can put the issue off for a long time
Alan Ruttenberg: don't see any harm in doing as peter suggest, with the blabla to at least send an email about why and how
Alan Ruttenberg: strong objections?
Alan Ruttenberg: no reason not to keep it open, just send an email so that we know where we are
ACTION: Alan to summarize current state of issue 91
Alan Ruttenberg: entity annotations status
Alan Ruttenberg: raised by jeremy
Alan Ruttenberg: defer?
Peter Patel-Schneider: no change, specs have not changed...
Peter Patel-Schneider: proposed myself to deprecate deprecation
Alan Ruttenberg: heard some objections related to backwards compatibility
Peter Patel-Schneider: deprecation in the sense 'simply not say anything about it'
Alan Ruttenberg: wouldn't that lead to syntax errors?
Alan Ruttenberg: deprecation would mean 'we keep it here as a courtesy, but expect it to be gone in owl 2.0'
James Hendler: I sort of like to see a package on the whole issue of 'non-semantic' elements properties classes
James Hendler: have a confusion on the status of things we don't comment on
James Hendler: do these still apply or not?
Alan Ruttenberg: meta comment... the authoritative wording on any of this are the specifications. To the extent that you are concerned about this... read the specs and bring up the issues one at a time
Alan Ruttenberg: stop reading the emails (to this purpose)... only look at the spec
Bijan Parsia: I think I support the 'deprecation' in the sense that we say that they are deprecated (i.e. they were not sufficiently defined for the purpose of implementation in applications, we leave them in the notes and will probably come up with something that superseeds them)
James Hendler: object to any such resolution, see them as valuable in many applications.
James Hendler: leave them as is
Bijan Parsia: if I want to do deprecation, I cannot resort to the specs, because they don't specify it properly. We won't achieve compatibility across applications
James Hendler: there's a big difference between saying what this does, and specifying what it does. For humans2humans it works
Bijan Parsia: I'm not talking about formalization, only specification. would you expect it to affect the class tree?
James Hendler: no, don't expect it to, but in a future version
Alan Ruttenberg: you can simply read it as owlClass... the person reading it may take note that the class may be removed
Alan Ruttenberg: what would the harm be in leaving them in there, and provide better documentation
Peter Patel-Schneider: I would not see a problem if such declarations did not carry semantic weight in RDF. Unfortunately they do, and therefore I strongly believe that they need to specced much better than wishy washy human consumption only stuff
Peter Patel-Schneider: If one augmented the owl spec with that, then everything becomes hunky dory
Michael Schneider: they don't have specific semantics in OWL full apart from being classes
Alan Ruttenberg: might be a reasonable and not incompatible repair to add in the owl full semantics that owlDeprecatedClass sameAs Class
James Hendler: have a separate fix... would want them to be some kind of annotation
Alan Ruttenberg: could you work with michael on the owl full semantics to see how this would work out
Alan Ruttenberg: and see how this works out wrt peter's proposal
Alan Ruttenberg: meeting can be considered closed
ACTION: Hendler to work with Michael to clarify semantics of deprecatedclass so that peter becomes happy