F2F1 Minutes Session 2

From OWL
Revision as of 14:42, 16 January 2008 by BijanParsia (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

This is part of F2F1 Minutes

OWL Working Group Meeting Minutes, 06 December 2007

DRAFT. Currently Under Review

See also: IRC log


Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax design review

(see issues Issue 4, Issue 16, Issue 65 and Issue 82

Slides for this session: Media:motik-f2f1.pdf

(Scribe changed to Jeremy Carroll)

Uli Sattler: Peihong Ke has joined as a guest/observer

Boris presents slides - OWL 1.1 Design Decisions

General Design Principles (slide 3)

  1. extend expressivity
  2. Bring spec closer to tools. Some features of OWL 1.0 have not been implemented correctly.
  3. make spec cleaner and clearer

Structural Specification: slides 4 and 5

Every OWL API wants to provide "what are the classes in this ontology", but what does that mean for OWL?

Discussion of mention; use; definition? It is very difficult to decide between these.

Jeremy Carroll: why does this matter?

Boris Motik: The tool builders need answers. EG protege gives a list of classes. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Peter Patel-Schneider: If protege and swoop list different classes, who cares...??? [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Bijan Parsia: if we can improve interop on this, we should ...

Bijan Parsia: let's only have UI variance if it's useful. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Alan Ruttenberg: if these are design criteria they should be exposed

Boris Motik: there are some explicit answers in the new spec

Boris Motik: W3C should care, because these things are implicit

Peter Patel-Schneider: I still haven't heard a useful answer for tool designers

Alan Ruttenberg: two people are looking at some ontology in two different lists - "please look at class FooBar ..."

Joanne Luciano: to alan. what do you mean "in two different lists?"

Peter Patel-Schneider: but there's lots of example where two different UIs are difficult to interop

Jeremy Carroll: let's have tests

Joanne Luciano: to Jeremy..tests would be good, but what kind of tests do you mean?

Bijan Parsia: serialization tests would be good -


Bijan Parsia: users care abotu serialization

Bijan Parsia: OWL API


Ratnesh Sahay: a java program on two different dev environments, my program should behave similarly

Ratnesh Sahay: we care more about behaviour of program, than behaviour of tool

Ian Horrocks: the set of classes in an ontology should be well-defined

Michael Smith: for explanation and debugging it is useful to have a mapping from entity or axiom to ontology

Jeremy Carroll: isn't OWL 1.0 clear?

Jeremy Carroll: requires xx rdf:type owl:Class

Boris Motik: e.g. imports or inferred triples

Alan Ruttenberg: what is the underlying design model?

Alan Ruttenberg: If the question is "What classes are mentioned in this ontology?" then we're fine. It's not clear to me that any other question is relevant/important. What motivates other questions?

Boris Motik: we want to design OWL 1.1 as an object model

Matthew Horridge: imports was too vague

Sebastian Brandt: many industrial users like object models; descriptions of triples are much less accessible


someone (maybe Alan): Object oriented modeling of OWL, cuts both ways: A lot of teaching OWL is unteaching object oriented thinking.

slide 6

expressivity enhancements uncontroversial

Metamodelling (slide 7)

metamodelling needed also in OWL DL

e.g. an OWL-S type example

punning is a possible solution,

applications want syntactic level, and don't want consequences

Peter Patel-Schneider: which reasoners could support Hilog semantics, after minor changes

bijan/boris (guest): easy to modify pellet

B. Motik. On the Properties of Metamodeling in OWL

Bijan Parsia: easy cases would be easy ...

slide 8

B-nodes

slide 9

Jeremy Carroll: huge exlamation on first bullet

Bijan Parsia: OWL Semantics 1.0 is clear, OWL DL name, OWL Full location

Alan Ruttenberg: caching is a tool's issue

Alan Ruttenberg: caching does not break the spec

Bijan Parsia: some implementations change name when ontologies move

Alan Ruttenberg: if I moved ontology from http:... to file:... then I can't import it, and then spec is broken

Michael Smith: session on imports at 1400?

Alan Ruttenberg: disagrees with first bullet

we agree that we don't agree, but we're not clear what we don't agree on

Joanne Luciano: alan, is the spec broken or the ontology broken?

slide 10

Alan Ruttenberg: I agree with everyone who disagrees with themselves
Joanne Luciano: Then we are in agreement.

Bijan Parsia: we have session on annotations

Sebastian (guest): annotations on axioms are useful

slide 11

slide 12

Peter Patel-Schneider: all OWL DL reasoners are based on nonnormative docs

(sorry scribe missed a bit)

Bijan Parsia: it would be better if the implementors were working more closely from normative docs

Ian Horrocks: there is no claim that sean's nonnormative doc and normative spec say same thing

discussion on pellet and bnodes --

Alan Ruttenberg: pellet departs from spec

Bijan Parsia: we (pellet team) made choices

Alan Ruttenberg: No reasoner completely implements spec. Didn't mean to pick on Pellet - it's just the one I know best [Scribe assist by Alan Ruttenberg]

slide 13

Alan Ruttenberg: Pellet is most complete, in my experience


slide 15

(Scribe changed to Pascal Hitzler)

Alan Ruttenberg: interaction of typing with RDF really a problem?

Alan Ruttenberg: is the problem in the language or in the documentation of it?

Bijan Parsia: pellet does some repairs silently. spec could go in a similar direction

Jeremy Carroll: questions on slide 15 answered on OWL 1.0 spec

Boris Motik: some may be, but spec might need fixing or made more explicit

Ian Horrocks: more clear spec desirable

Bijan Parsia: agrees about unclear parts in the spec

Alan Ruttenberg: Alan agrees too. Took me a year, I reckon, to understand OWL

review of and resolution to publish Syntax, Semantics, and Mapping-to-RDF documents as First Public Working Drafts

next session: discussion and decisions on publication schedule and first public working draft

chaired by Ian Horrocks


collecting issues: (1) shortname, (2) document titles, (3) SOTD, (4) WIKI extraction, (5) attribution etc.


Ivan Herman: (1) should include namespace

Ian Horrocks: need to decide if namespace is an issue

Bijan Parsia: need to do editorial cleanup (part of (4))

Bijan Parsia: deadlines need to be watched

(1) short name (+ namespace)

suggestions: owlwot, alan: owltoo

Alan Ruttenberg: calling it OWL may overload and thus be difficult

... something neutral to version name?

Sandro Hawke: no problem with same names

Alan Ruttenberg: might be confusing

Ian Horrocks: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/
Ian Horrocks: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/
Ivan Herman: current names: owl-features, owl-guide, owl-ref, owl-semantics, owl-test, webont-req
Ian Horrocks: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/
Ian Horrocks: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/

Sandro Hawke: using same name is only a problem if exactly the same document name is used

Ian Horrocks: http://www.w3.org/TR/webont-req/
Ian Horrocks: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-xmlsyntax/

Evan Wallace: so why not call it OWL1.1?

Bijan Parsia: OWL1.1 is one possibility

Sandro Hawke: you want a URL which is the link to the latest version of the spec

Evan Wallace: you need a name which redirects to the short name?

Peter Patel-Schneider: eventually pointers to owl1.1 docs might go away ...

... but that's independent of the document names

Sandro Hawke: I see .... in going from 1.1 to 1.2 we're going to have the same problem, so yes, the short-name needs the version. because the WD shadows the REC.
Joanne Luciano: call it OWL-DL?  :-)

Ian Horrocks: we can't use "owl-semantics" right now.

Ivan Herman: because that's the working draft

Bijan Parsia: OWLWOT, OWLTOO looks strange

... proposes OWL1.1 or OWL11 or OWL-11

Ian Horrocks: what about OWLTOO

Sandro Hawke: different names suggest different levels of compatibility

Deborah McGuinness: yes - current proposals are owl1.1 and owl1-1

Bijan Parsia: OWL1.1 (with any kind of minor changes)

Joanne Luciano: I like OWL 1.1 - don't fix what aint broke :-) (thanks!)

sugestions OWL 1-1, OWL11, OWL-1-1

Ivan Herman: decision has to be formally recorded according to charter

Ian Horrocks: should discuss point (2) at the same time

... what is going to be named in document title?

Alan Ruttenberg: procedural question: can we resolve this here? what about absent people?

Bijan Parsia: explains: may not resolve things which have not been on the agenda

Peter Patel-Schneider: may be arguable

Ivan Herman: was the issue of document titles on the agenda?

some discussion about which things that can be resolved in the F2F

Alan Ruttenberg: supports bijan that we should decide things, and people can appeal to chairs to reopen the issue

Sandro Hawke: in this case: does it need to be decided right now?

Deborah McGuinness: against owl2/owltoo

ian makes straw poll 1.1 against 2 (clear positive outcome for 1.1)

Ian Horrocks: let's decide for 1.1

proposed and resolved: it's going to be 1.1 (in some form)

PROPOSED: Our publications will refer to this work as "OWL 1.1" (not OWL 2.0, etc)

Ian Horrocks: asks for objections, abstantions on that. none recorded

Alan Ruttenberg: any objections?

RESOLVED: Our publications will refer to this work as "OWL 1.1" (not OWL 2.0, etc)

Sandro Hawke: (no abstentions, no objections)

Ivan Herman: other specs seem to use similars to OWL11

Sandro Hawke: would like to postpone this and find out some background

Ian Horrocks: straw poll: do we want "owl11" ?

PROPOSED: To ask for shortname "owl11-[whatever]"

Sandro Hawke: some interest in OWL-1-1
namespace

Ian Horrocks: what about namespace?

Ivan Herman: tough one

Peter Patel-Schneider: proposes brief discussion about it

Peter Patel-Schneider: should reuse the namespace

several people second reusing the namespace

Alan Ruttenberg: I know now that I don't know whrether to resuse ns

straw poll on this: tendency for reusing namespace, but not uncontroversial

Alan Ruttenberg: if owl constructs change semantics then it may be difficult to reuse name space

Ulrike Sattler: wasn't the idea not to change any of the constructs already present?

Ivan Herman: are we sure this won't happen?

Ian Horrocks: we don't have to decide on this right now

Bijan Parsia: new constructs should have new names

... we will add new things into to the namespace

... expanding vocabulary is considered difficult by some people

Ian Horrocks: summary: tendency for reusing, but issue can be postponed

Peter Patel-Schneider: need to be careful on first working draft that it doesn't cause confusion in terms of namespace

Alan Ruttenberg: Just to put it on the record, I also lean to reusing the namespace. Just worried about the unknown unknowns

bijan takes action to take care of this

ACTION: Bijan to put alert box in all the documents about the status of the namespace


Alan Ruttenberg: say it "owl" subject to change, not "owl11" subject to change.

Boris Motik: old names are still in old namespace (current document)

Joanne Luciano: We need to be careful not to make "OWL" "OUCH"

Bijan Parsia: suggests to leave the two namespaces as they are right now

Bijan Parsia: let's not make owl 1.1 implementors change anything right now.

Joanne Luciano: I agree with Bijan ... not make owl 1.1 implementors change anything right now

Bijan Parsia: there are owl 1.1 ontologies on the web right now.

Alan Ruttenberg: straw poll: leave as is with warnings (agreed)

boris has action to do the changes (add warnings) in the docs

Joanne Luciano: warnings are good

ivan about doc titles: suggests owl11 DL

Ivan Herman: functional syntax doc is DL-only, so that should be in the title?

Ian Horrocks: functional syntax is not entirely irrelevant outside DL

Alan Ruttenberg: needs to be decided later

Ian Horrocks: see 1.0 docs on abstract syntax

Bijan Parsia: in some way structural syntax specifies OWL Full

Ivan Herman: but there are statements which cannot be expressed in it

... should not forget that this is an issue

Ian Horrocks: action on this?

Ivan Herman: need a list of editors first?

moving on to point (5): attribution etc.

Alan Ruttenberg: proposes for current draft that attributions should be as they are

... next draft if substantive changes, attributions should be reevaluated

Bijan Parsia: question is if chairs want to assign editors. bijan suggests chairs do that

Alan Ruttenberg: would like to not do that right now

Peter Patel-Schneider: somebody needs to put more work into it soon ... credit should be given

Ivan Herman: seconds alan: currently mentioned people stay editors for the current version

some more discussion on editors for current version

Bijan Parsia: wants editors assigned now

alan proposes current authors are editors for the current version

Joanne Luciano: I believe I have funding now that could support my ability to contribute as an editor

Ian Horrocks: should now decide whose job it will be

Ian Horrocks: proposal that boris, peter and bijan work on syntax (they would agree)

Ian Horrocks: bernardo, boris for semantics document? would agree as well

... bernardo, boris would also do the mapping document

... are we happy if they do it?

... straw poll on this: no objections

was agreed that attributions will stay the same in current version of the documents as they are stated right now

Joanne Luciano: so is there no room for me to contribute and be attributed?

Ivan Herman: doesn't it need to be called editor?

Sandro Hawke: I doubt it

Ian Horrocks: If it has to change from author to editor, then that can be chairs decision

cgi-irc (guest): Joanne, we're only talking about FPWD
cgi-irc (guest): We've not mentioned acknowledgements (for examle)
cgi-irc (guest): And this is explicitly temporary
Joanne Luciano: what's FPWD?
Sandro Hawke: First Public Working Draft

moving to point (4): editorial cleanup in the wiki plus wiki extraction

issues from working drafts will stay

Alan Ruttenberg: useful comments should be left but scripted away

moving to point (2): resolution to publish Syntax, Semantics, and Mapping-to-RDF documents as First Public Working Drafts

PROPOSED: Publish Syntax, Semantics, and Mapping-to-RDF documents as First Public Working Drafts

Ian Horrocks: straw poll - no objections

PROPOSED: Publish Syntax, Semantics, and Mapping-to-RDF documents (as on the wiki right now) as First Public Working Drafts

Sandro Hawke: using http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=41712&public=1&order=org

Ian Horrocks: formal vote on this (reminder: only one vote per member): W3C abstains, no objections

Sandro Hawke: In favor: all member orgs present in room.
Alan Ruttenberg: joanne?
Alan Ruttenberg: if you are there, could you please vote on proposal?
Joanne Luciano: i'm here
Joanne Luciano: in favor
Ian Horrocks: Anyone else out there who would like to vote?

RESOLVED: Publish Syntax, Semantics, and Mapping-to-RDF documents (as on the wiki right now) as First Public Working Drafts

moving to (3): SOTD

brief agreement that this shall not be discussed now

Ian Horrocks: lunch break now

Sandro Hawke: Lunch.

Bijan Parsia: thanks to sean for taking care of organisation ...

Sandro Hawke: scribe after lunch to be markus