Teleconference.2007.10.17/Minutes

From OWL
Revision as of 13:17, 24 October 2007 by SandroHawke (Talk | contribs)

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

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


Jeremy Carroll: Note: I have not completed paperwork to join WG yet, technically I guess I am observer or something.
Bijan Parsia: Scribe information is at http://dev.w3.org/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm

Roll Call

Zakim (Teleconferencing System): jjc, you wanted to note I am here before joining WG

Jeremy Carroll: not a member of the WG

Sandro Hawke: jjc is invited

Sandro Hawke: jjc is Jeremy Carroll of HP

Agenda amendments

Ian Horrocks: no amendments

Accept Minutes

Ian Horrocks: any corrections to minutes?

Sandro Hawke: PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2007.10.10/Minutes
Sandro Hawke: RESOLVED: Accept Previous Minutes: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2007.10.10/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

Sandro Hawke: Peter's comments <http://www.w3.org/mid/20071016.102615.212787570.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

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]).

Alan Ruttenberg: Questions, or discussion points?

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.

Alan Ruttenberg: It's [backward compatability] in the charter already.
Alan Ruttenberg: no need to put it on the queue
Bijan Parsia: +1 to ianh saying "wait until backwards compt comes up to discuss it"
Achille Fokoue: +1 to ianh
Sandro Hawke: Ian: Let's not talk about Backward Compatibility until we come up with a specific instance of a question about it? Any objections? No.....
Bijan Parsia: I just wanted to make sure it was *open* so that we *will* have that discussion rather

Deliverables

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

Sandro Hawke: trackbot-ng, help
Tracker (Meeting Support System): See http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/ for help (use the IRC bot link)
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/OWL_Working_Group
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/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.

Bijan Parsia: I got an email [about an issue change]
Bijan Parsia: With: Subject: ISSUE-1 (test): Test Issue
Bijan Parsia: I see the webpage too

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

Alan Ruttenberg: PROPOSED Move current issues to tracker

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: ok. wait one week. withdraw proposed

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

Bijan Parsia: Isn't that what I'm sending email about?
Alan Ruttenberg: yes
Alan Ruttenberg: +1

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.

Sandro Hawke: Very roughly, our job, as a W3C Working Group, is to create specifications which everyone in the world regards as "good enough". ("Good enough", perhaps to by not worthwhile to produce a competing spec.)
Sandro Hawke: The W3C process has evolved over the past ~13 years to help us achieve this goal.
Sandro Hawke: Step 1 - we come up with a design that's a starting point; ask the world for input. (First Public Working Draft - WD1)
Tracker (Meeting Support System): Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/
Sandro Hawke: Step 2 - we iterate the design until we think it's good enough (more Working Drafts, Last Call Working Draft - LC)
Sandro Hawke: Step 3 - we incorporate any LC feedback to produce an even better spec, and ask for people to implement it. (Candidate Recommendation - CR)
Sandro Hawke: Step 5 - once there is proof of interoperability, we incorporate feedback into another draft (Proposed Recommendation - PR)
Sandro Hawke: Step 6 - the PR is evaluated by W3C members; if they approve, it becomes a Recommendation (REC).
Sandro Hawke: If a problem comes up in the later stages, we may have to go back to step 2, iterating the design some more.
Zakim (Teleconferencing System): jjc, you wanted to comment on step 6

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

Jeremy Carroll: Comment: it would be more usual to publish requirements before the answers ...
Zakim (Teleconferencing System): bijan, you wanted to say we should publish earlier than F2F

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).

Ian Horrocks: PROPOSED: Our first working drafts are: Structural Specification, Semantics, RDF Mapping
Sandro Hawke: this is as-per http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/ ?
Sandro Hawke: ie http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/owl_specification.html http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/semantics.html and http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/rdf_mapping.html

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

Jeremy Carroll: Requirements:
Jeremy Carroll: A description of the goals and requirements that have motivated the design of OWL 1.1.

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?

Ian Horrocks: Note: charter says that requirements are "A description of the goals and requirements that have motivated the design of OWL 1.1"
Jeff Pan: +1 IanH

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: -1 to internal review

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?

Sandro Hawke: PROPOSED-1 :Our first working drafts, to be published before the 3-month heartbeat, will be: Structural Specification, Semantics, RDF Mapping, based closely on http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/
Sandro Hawke: PROPOSED: Our first working drafts, to be published before the 3-month heartbeat, will be: Structural Specification, Semantics, RDF Mapping, based on the text for each of these at http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/
Sandro Hawke: PROPOSED: Our first working drafts, to be published before the 3-month heartbeat, will be: (1) Structural Specification, (2) Semantics, (3) RDF Mapping, based on the text for each of these at http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/
Bijan Parsia: No

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

Bijan Parsia: I do think we might evolve the structural specification toward a descriptive as well a formal specification, but that's a distinct decision.

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

Zakim (Teleconferencing System): jjc, you wanted to suggest s/will be:/will be one or more of:/

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/

Sandro Hawke: jjc: HP may object to (3), so let's make it optional.

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/

Bijan Parsia: The current documents are already hugely public. Publishing as WD does not endorse the current design. We know it will changed. We know all three will be changed. Many times.

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/

Bijan Parsia: Which discussion?

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: +1 to [postponing] discussion of document roles and task forces to next week
Ian Horrocks: +1
Elisa Kendall: +1

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

Evan Wallace: +1 on Bijan's suggestion for email discussion of postponed items

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.

Boris Motik: E-mail discussions can be tedious, though.
Ian Horrocks: +1
Jeff Pan: +1 bye
Markus Krötzsch: bye
Sandro Hawke: decision to adjourn, as per Alan's proposal.
Sandro Hawke: ADJOURN

Postponed to next meeting.

Relationships to other W3C Groups

Postponed to next meeting.

Additional other business

Bijan Parsia: There's a second proposal
Bijan Parsia: So we postpone the second decision as well?
Sandro Hawke: I guess so, Bijan! Oops.