Teleconference.2007.10.31/Minutes

From OWL
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

Attendees


Alan Ruttenberg: All: 41# puts you on the queue
Alan Ruttenberg: 40# takes you off
Alan Ruttenberg: 61# mutes
Alan Ruttenberg: 60# unmutes
Alan Ruttenberg: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2007.10.31/Agenda
Bijan Parsia: Uhm, a lot of the Eu people mimght be confused on this point
Bijan Parsia: uli was too
Sandro Hawke: Adding topics after the fact is easy enough.
Alan Ruttenberg: q
Bijan Parsia: am I muted?
Alan Ruttenberg: PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes
Alan Ruttenberg: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2007.10.24/Minutes
Alan Ruttenberg: RESOLVED: Accept Previous Minutes
Sandro Hawke: Who just joined?
Sandro Hawke: And who is here from DERI Galway -- Ratnesh?

Issues List: Migrated all issues from OWLED to Tracker

Alan Ruttenberg: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/HowIssuesAreProcessed
Ratnesh Sahay: yes ratnesh
Alan Ruttenberg: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/HowIssuesAreProcessed
Alan Ruttenberg: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Issues
Ratnesh Sahay: Ratnesh from DERI Galway
Deborah McGuinness: is there a link to where we are being pointed to look?
Sandro Hawke: Attendees: DeborahMcGuiness, Alan, Vipul_Kashyap, Evan_Wallace, Rinke, Ivan, bmotik, Jeremy, MartinD, Sandro, Fabien, Achille, Zhe_Wu, Ratnesh, bijan, pfps, uli, MikeSmith

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

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

Alan Ruttenberg: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/open

Issues List:: Complete wrt google-code and OWL

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

Fabian Neuhaus: Why I am not on the attendees list?
Sandro Hawke: Sorry, do we have Fabien here today, or only Fabian?

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

Sandro Hawke: Attendees: DeborahMcGuiness, Alan, Vipul_Kashyap, Evan_Wallace, Rinke, Ivan, bmotik, Jeremy, MartinD, Sandro, Fabian, Achille, Zhe_Wu, Ratnesh, bijan, pfps, uli, MikeSmith
Sandro Hawke: corrected, Fabian.
Fabian Neuhaus: Thanks!

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

Sandro Hawke: Jeremy: The proposal is to form a Task Force

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

Sandro Hawke: (Who is +1.408.774.aabb ? )
Zakim (Teleconferencing System): Jeremy, you wanted to mention charter

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

Alan Ruttenberg: deb next
Alan Ruttenberg: then ew, bijan

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

Sandro Hawke: bijan: "Outreach 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

Sandro Hawke: Bijan: People working on these documents should understand that they might not become WG documents. They might not be how we meet the charter requirement.

Deborah McGuinness: Something like OWL 1.1 Overivew document out

Jeremy Carroll: No: Deb said OWL 1.0 Overview doc

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

Sandro Hawke: Deb: If there is disagreement about whether we'll publish something like this, I'd want to hear that disagreement NOW.

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

Bijan Parsia: I'll note that I have an interest in working on an Overview document

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

Peter Patel-Schneider: I am also interested working in an Overview document.

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

Fabian Neuhaus: I am afraid zakim mistakes me for Fabien. How do I change that?

Jeremy Carroll: Traceability is a short term document

Evan Wallbace: +1 to Jeremy's comment
Zakim (Teleconferencing System): Jeremy, you wanted to address longevity
Jeremy Carroll: Vipul: we can decide whetehr traceability has long-term value, in the future - we don't need to decide now

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: whop yes i did
Deborah McGuinness: +q

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

Peter Patel-Schneider: I'm not keen on an OWL 1.0 style document - it is rather long
Bijan Parsia: I would have attended the TF but it came up too quickly forme
Zakim (Teleconferencing System): Jeremy, you wanted to ask for action to convene next 'user facing' tf meeting
Scribe Error: ACTION: Jeremy to convene the next UFD task force [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/31-owl-minutes.html#action01]
Tracker (Meeting Support System): Sorry, couldn't find user - Jeremy
Alan Ruttenberg: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Backward_compatibility_audit
Sandro Hawke: Alas, Jeremy, you're not officially in the WG yet, so the tracker can't track actions on you.....
Bijan Parsia: You can put it in my name

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

Bijan Parsia: And I'll delegate to my good friend jeremy :)
Bijan Parsia: I can't hear jeremy very well

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

Bijan Parsia: I missed soemthing

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

Bijan Parsia: alanr could you restate it?
Elisa Kendall: +1
Achille Fokoue: +1

Sandro Hawke: Good starting point

Peter Patel-Schneider: actually some of the test cases *could* change as a result of the extended expressive power of OWL 1.1
Sandro Hawke: Jeremy: Still too early to make new test cases, but not too early to think about how we want to handle them.
Rinke Hoekstra: Cannot oversee the consequences of such a resolution

Bijan Parsia: Could be bugs in test suite

Jeremy Carroll: +1 to bijan

Bijan Parsia: Could be a good starting point

Sandro Hawke: Bijan: It's a good starting point, but I wouldn't want to RESOLVE it, since we may want to break it in small ways.

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

Sandro Hawke: scribe note -- Jeremy said there is NOT a requirement that the WG only apporove "correct" test cases.

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

Bijan Parsia: +1 to all syntaxes

Jeremy Carroll: Can generate all possible syntaxes for the test

Bijan Parsia: This is very easy with the OWL API
Bijan Parsia: vipul, tha'ts jeremy, not me
Sandro Hawke: EVERYTHING is totally programmable. :-)

Alan Ruttenberg: Wiki is programmable

Rinke Hoekstra: +1 to all syntaxes as well, seems weird to focus on the FS if we are still tinkering with it
Boris Motik: I aplologize, but I need to take a 3 minute break to attend to something.
Michael Smith: +1 to multiple syntaxes
Zakim (Teleconferencing System): Jeremy, you wanted to mention problem with alternative syntaxes

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

Sandro Hawke: Alan: Trust But Verify

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

Bijan Parsia: You have a core set of tests about the translation (Alan suggested this
Alan Ruttenberg: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2007.10.31/TestCasesRequirements
Boris Motik: I'm back and I have bernardo on the speakerphone
Bijan Parsia: Btw, for the interested, i started work on an OWL 1.1 tutoiral a long time ago, and I found a swoop like tabbed interface that I adapted: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~bparsia/2007/owltutorial/
Jeremy Carroll: (what about the RIF report???)
Bijan Parsia: Might be fun for test cases
Bijan Parsia: Or for examples

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

Rinke Hoekstra: I like the tabbed interface!

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

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

Bijan Parsia: We have different groups,s ome are producing specs (like RIF) and others which don't (e.g., HCLS, at least not specs that affect us)
Bijan Parsia: I'm on RIF and HCLS

Alan Ruttenberg: Any volunteers for liastions

Ivan Herman: I am on SWEO
Bijan Parsia: I could do RIF
Ivan Herman: sure
Elisa Kendall: I'm active in SWD
Ivan Herman: I am also on SWCG:-)
Bijan Parsia: What's SWD?
Bijan Parsia: Ah! Good

I could do HCLS

Bijan Parsia: Also, several of us are OWLED steering committee members
Ivan Herman: note: both HCLS and SWEO will be rechartered early 2008
Bijan Parsia: Are they really relevant?
Ivan Herman: URW is an incubator group
Rinke Hoekstra: I think Anne Cregan is in the uncertainty thing
Ivan Herman: Rinke: yes, she is

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

Uli Sattler: ...and I think Jeff is as well in the uncertainty one
Evan Wallbace: Jeff Pan and others are members of Uncertainty XG

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

Evan Wallbace: +1 on user defined datatypes by any name
Uli Sattler: +1 to Bijan

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

Sandro Hawke: XML Schema Participants: * BEA Systems, Inc. (1 representative) * Boeing Company (1 representative) * Bologna, University of (3 representatives) * Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) (5 representatives) * Ecole Mohammadia d'Ingenieurs Rabat (EMI) (1 representative) * Edinburgh (HCRC Language Technology Group) (1 representative) * IBM Corporation (2 representatives) * Mark Logic Corporation (1 representative) * National Association of Convenience Stores (NA
Sandro Hawke: CS) (1 representative) * National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (1 representative) * Oracle Corporation (2 representatives) * Sun Microsystems, Inc. (1 representative)

Alan Ruttenberg: Connections to the OMG

Ivan Herman: note: mapping by Vipul refers to a possible XG on mapping between relational data in an RDB and RDF

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

Sandro Hawke: Elisa: Evan and I co-chair the ontology PSIG at OMG.

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

Alan Ruttenberg: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/bld/draft-2007-10-19.html

RIF Review

Alan Ruttenberg: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Oct/0066.html
Ivan Herman: :-)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1
Ivan Herman: +1
Sandro Hawke: Sandro: say +1 if you have read Peter's response....
Jeremy Carroll: (some hp eyeballs looked at some version, but I haven't)
Uli Sattler: +1

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

Bijan Parsia: Sorry I've been out of contact
Alan Ruttenberg: qck pfps
Bijan Parsia: And want to chime in
Alan Ruttenberg: qck vipul
Uli Sattler: which symbols do you mean, Vipul?
Alan Ruttenberg: ^^
Alan Ruttenberg: ##
Uli Sattler: +1

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

Sandro Hawke: s/Disagreed/doesn't really disagree/
Uli Sattler: I was only slow in verifying that we were talking about the same email...
Alan Ruttenberg: k
Zakim (Teleconferencing System): Jeremy, you wanted to suggest a procedural approach ....

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

Sandro Hawke: +1 Jeremy --- endorsing Peter in broad terms and put the onus on RIF to come back on specific points as necessary.

Alan Ruttenberg: Gotta go...

Alan Ruttenberg: by vipul

Can someone take over scribing?

Alan Ruttenberg: I will

Thanks

Alan Ruttenberg: Bijan: Bijan, as rep will review, then have phone call soon. RIF/OWL compat doc has been removed
Alan Ruttenberg: sandro: moved to other document
Bijan Parsia: +1
Sandro Hawke: Alan: Based on Ivan and Uli having vetted Peter's review, I think we can make this officially from OWL WG.
Uli Sattler: indeed, peter's document is a nice, understandable overview of RIF with a few polite questions
Uli Sattler: oups - I meant "overview of BLD"
Bijan Parsia: Noting that my modifications may be None
Zakim (Teleconferencing System): Jeremy, you wanted to mention XML Schema comment
Sandro Hawke: PROPOSED: Bijan check over Peter's review, and if he doesn't have any problem with it, he conveys it to RIF as a review from OWL WG
Jeremy Carroll: (with minor mods_
Peter Patel-Schneider: i like jeremy's addendum
Sandro Hawke: PROPOSED: Bijan and Peter come to consensus on the 0066 review; if they suceed, they convey it to RIF as a review from the OWL WG
Jeremy Carroll: process tricks ....
Evan Wallbace: +1
Jeremy Carroll: +1
Bijan Parsia: +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1
Ivan Herman: +1
Martin Dzbor: +1
Michael Smith: +1
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1, of course
Zhe Wu: +1
Fabian Neuhaus: +1
Achille Fokoue: +1
Boris Motik: +1
Uli Sattler: +1
Sandro Hawke: RESOLVED: Bijan check over Peter's review, and if he doesn't have any problem with it, he conveys it to RIF as a review from OWL WG
Alan Ruttenberg: :)
Sandro Hawke: RESOLVED: Bijan and Peter come to consensus on the 0066 review; if they suceed, they convey it to RIF as a review from the OWL WG
Uli Sattler: bye
Rinke Hoekstra: bye
Sandro Hawke: (first version of resolution was in error!)

</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]