Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
Teleconference.2008.04.16/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
Contents
- Present
- Bijan Parsia, Ian Horrocks, Uli Sattler, Rinke Hoekstra, Peter Patel-Schneider, Michael Smith, Michael Schneider, Sandro Hawke, Evan Wallace, Martin Dzbor, Ivan Herman, Jie Bao, Diego Calvanese, Ratnesh Sahay, Jeremy Carroll, Christine Golbreich, Markus Krötzsch, Achille Fokoue, Carsten Lutz, Alan Ruttenberg
- Regrets
- Jeff Pan
- Chair
- Ian Horrocks
- Scribe
- Uli Sattler
Agenda amendments
Ian Horrocks: public working draft from RIF on OWL compatibility is out
Ian Horrocks: we should look at section 3 of this and comment
Ian Horrocks: any volunteers?
ACTION: JeremyCarroll to review http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/
ACTION: Jeremy to review http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/
Ian Horrocks: Uli and Peter will look at this anyway, so the action on Jeremy might be enough
F2F3
Sandro is looking into Bristol and Boston and dates and will be able to do a poll soon
Jeremy Carroll: has heard back from Bristol coordinator
Sandro Hawke: will send out pointers to poll shortly
Minutes of Monday's UFDTF meeting
Alan Ruttenberg: they have been taken, and I am waiting for Evan to put it on the meeting page
F2F minutes
Ian Horrocks: any comments? I did some tidying
Alan Ruttenberg: they could use some more cleaning up
Ian Horrocks: suggest that we approve, but ask scribes to take 10min to fix up
PROPOSED: accept F2F minutes
PROPOSED: Accept F2F2 Minutes
RESOLVED: PROPOSED: Accept F2F2 Minutes
RESOLVED: Accept F2F2 Minutes
Jeremy Carroll: last week's minutes have only been cleaned up recently, so perhaps we shouldn't vote on them today
Ian Horrocks: I have tidyed them up already
PROPOSED: accept April 9 minutes
RESOLVED: accept April 9 minutes
Action item status
Action 76
Action 86
Jeremy Carroll: I haven't completed it yet, but 86 and 90 are now redundant
Action 100
Alan Ruttenberg: doesn't know what the status is since Jim has left the group
Peter Patel-Schneider: Jim has left and has never done anything regarding n3 rules
Ian Horrocks: I suggest to kill this one and see whether anybody will ever raise a similar one
Action 102
Michael Schneider: should be closed if Peter is happy
Peter Patel-Schneider: the issue has been appropriately put to death
Action 115
Ian Horrocks: Boris says he has done it
Peter Patel-Schneider: 115 is done, but not documented correctly
Peter Patel-Schneider: later/second changes of Boris needs to be documented
Ian Horrocks: can you do this, Boris?
Jeremy Carroll: I don't think that detailed changes to the mapping rules need to be documented at the level of detail that peter is asking for
Action 116
Ian Horrocks: this was uncontroversial?!
Action 117
Ian Horrocks: done by Jeremy
Action 125
Action 126
Action 130
Ian Horrocks: is done as well
Due and overdue Actions
Action 43
Sandro Hawke: will do this in a couple of weeks
Ian Horrocks: isn't top priority, but would like to see them in the not too far future
Bijan Parsia: it would help some of my actions if we had test cases
Ian Horrocks: asks Sandro to help us see test cases
Action 112
Evan Wallace: will re-schedule
Action 119
Ian Horrocks: believes that this occurred
Action 120
Action 124
Sandro Hawke: is done
Action 127
Action 133
Ian Horrocks: believes this is work in progress and working on it
Action 134
Ian Horrocks: will be done soon
Issues
Raised Issues
Ian Horrocks: for each, we will have a short initial discussion to see whether we will open them
Issue 110
Peter Patel-Schneider: it's not an issue, just a comment
Alan Ruttenberg: perhaps the issue is that somebody else trying to use CURIEs has some problems
Peter Patel-Schneider: this should be made clear
Ian Horrocks: agrees: we have many issues
Issue 111
Bijan Parsia: it would be nice if we could signal, for an rdf graph, under what semantics this document is intended to be used
Sandro Hawke: agrees that we should have something like this
Jeremy Carroll: remembers that this was already discussed in web-ont
ACTION: Jeremy to look up discussion of Issue 111 in previous webont
Issue 112
Markus Krötzsch: it's uncontroversial from a semantic point of view, but we should find a good name for this universal property
Ian Horrocks: top-role is not really syntactic sugar as top-thing
Markus Krötzsch: for SROIQ, it sort of is
Carsten Lutz: agrees that it can easily be reduced out, but it is not really syntactic sugar
Jeremy Carroll: warns cautiously against new vocabulary if it isn't really used
Bijan Parsia: finds top and bottom role really useful from a tool developers' perspective
Bijan Parsia: and it would be useful for interaction with users
Markus Krötzsch: universal role might really add expressivity to the profiles
Issue 113
Jeremy Carroll: is an OWL-R reasoner allowed to infer OWL-Full entailments that are not OWL-R entailments?
Peter Patel-Schneider: this was resolved at the F2F
Michael Schneider: if you allow a reasoner to make additional entailments, then you have non-sound reasoning, because they can produce conflicts
ACTION: document it
Jeremy Carroll: suggest to refer to next week to see what happened at the F2F regarding 113
Issue 114
Michael Schneider: which of the different punnings do we want/not want
Bijan Parsia: doesn't understand the issue there - it's not precise as it is
Ian Horrocks: agrees
Bijan Parsia: we have ruled out 1 form of punning because we had good reasons to do so -- all others are still there
Alan Ruttenberg: it seems sensible to me to look through remaining punning and see whether they are useful
Jeremy Carroll: MichaelSchneider and me could look into this in the FullTF
Issue 115
Alan Ruttenberg: 2 different questions: whether we want an icon always and in all browser
Sandro Hawke: not high priority, but fixable
Issue 116
Ivan Herman: OWL-R-Full is currently not having some axiomatic triples: we need to see whether we want them or not
Peter Patel-Schneider: this has been decided through the semantics
Peter Patel-Schneider: your first triple follows from the Full semantics, so it should be there
Ian Horrocks: so this means that there is a bug in the OWL-R-Full rule set
Michael Schneider: for the mentioned one, it should be there - but the question is whether there should be more..
Michael Schneider: all rules from the RDFS spec should also go into the OWL-R-FUll rules, for the other ones, this has to be decided
Jeremy Carroll: I accept that we need to take Ivan's question and work on the rules/document
Proposals to Resolve Issues
Issue 76 and Issue 77
Ian Horrocks: this is mute
PROPOSED: resolve Issue 76, 77, 80
PROPOSED: resolve Issue 76, 77
PROPOSED: resolve Issue 76, 77 as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Apr/0165.html
Ian Horrocks: because Issue 76 and 77 relate to no-longer existent fragments
RESOLVED: resolve Issue 76, 77 as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Apr/0165.html
Issue 80
Ian Horrocks: we had to decide which flavour of DL-lite to have as a profile
Alan Ruttenberg: likes to keep issue since it is an ongoing work
Bijan Parsia: would prefer to resolve it because this is the same as with all other works/documents in progress
PROPOSED: close Issue 80 as moot
RESOLVED: close Issue 80 as moot
Issue 67
Ian Horrocks: reification in axiom annotation
Bijan Parsia: I have an action related to this, so we cannot resolve it before I have done this action
Jeremy Carroll: at the F2F, alanr said that annotation and reification both are semantically difficult
Jeremy Carroll: is anxious regarding this issue, especially with negative property assertions
Peter Patel-Schneider: there is a proposal on the table
Ian Horrocks: let's move on to an issue we can resolve
Issue 81
Ian Horrocks: we had a proposal at the F2F
Alan Ruttenberg: we need to wait for Bijan for this as well
Issue 9
Ian Horrocks: this should be easy/resolvable
Ian Horrocks: the statement/worry this issue refers to is no longer in the document
RESOLVED: Issue 9
Issue 60
Ian Horrocks: this is no longer an issue since no more wine in primer
PROPOSED: close issues 9 and 60 as moot
RESOLVED: : close issues 9 and 60 as moot
Other Issue Discussions
Ian Horrocks: these issues have been with us for a while
Jeremy Carroll: the language tag issue arose from some prior work. When dealing with natural language literals in OWL, we cannot talk about these things
Jeremy Carroll: I would like to add some primitives: language tags and language range
Jeremy Carroll: it would be similar as the literal handling for XSD derived types
Michael Schneider: dislikes this because it is domain-specific knowledge
Alan Ruttenberg: the use case is to distinguish bar-codes from comments
Jeremy Carroll: it's not domain specific knowledge - it is to relate a language-specific tag to its language
Bijan Parsia: agrees that this is not domain knowledge
Bijan Parsia: it's a xsd datatype, and this is a sensible proposal to use it
Ian Horrocks: could somebody to come up with a proposal
Jeremy Carroll: I can go back to my previous work and come up with one
ACTION: JeremyCarroll to come up with a proposal to Issue 71
Issue 71
ACTION: Jeremy to come up with a proposal to Issue 71
ACTION: jjc to drive this issue forward to resolutio
Ian Horrocks: there was an action generated at the F2F2 on Jeremy, but this was clearly to short a time for this
Ian Horrocks: end of agenda
Michael Schneider: we have missed F2F3 meeting on this agenda
Ian Horrocks: disagrees - we have agreed that Sandro will put a poll out
Ian Horrocks: would people be willing to discuss easykeys?
Alan Ruttenberg: Peter and Bernardo wanted the more careful semantics
Peter Patel-Schneider: will we have an imports TF on monday?
Alan Ruttenberg: we discussed having an imports TF on monday
Alan Ruttenberg: has spent some time looking at XML catalogue
Alan Ruttenberg: we could meet and discuss Peter's proposal
Alan Ruttenberg: would think that it would be more productive to not have a meeting next week
Alan Ruttenberg: we can put in Peter's proposal and discuss it in the WG
Peter Patel-Schneider: I cannot put in my proposal because Boris has a lock currently
Alan Ruttenberg: why don't we meet for 10min and see where we are at
Ian Horrocks: suggests to have Boris there as well
Ian Horrocks: anything else?