See also: IRC log
- Jeremy Carroll, Achille Fokoue, Boris Motik, Michael Smith, Alan Ruttenberg, Jeff Pan, Ivan Herman, Peter Patel-Schneider, Bijan Parsia, Uli Sattler, Martin Dzbor, Ratnesh Sahay, Evan Wallace, Ian Horrocks, Conrad Bock, Sandro Hawke, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Deborah McGuinness, Zhe Wu, Giorgos Stoilos, Vipul Kashyap, Conrad Bock, Carsten Lutz
- Jeff Pan
comments on the minutes?
Alan Ruttenberg: action items ...
Action 4 continued
Action 27 is close
Action 29 is close
Alan Ruttenberg: any further suggestions of the f2f agenda?
Alan Ruttenberg: we might need to move the import and rich annotation to first day
... since alan won't be in day 2
Ian Horrocks: we could discuss it offline, there are other constraints
Alan Ruttenberg: we should move the user facing part to later part of the day
Teleconference 2007.12.05 ?
Alan Ruttenberg: I cannot [make it]
RESOLVED: no telecon on Dec 5th
Discussions (35 min)
Publication Schedule and First Working Drafts
Jeremy Carroll: editors might want to relate part of the documents with issues in the issue list
Ian Horrocks: we need to see whether it is practical
Alan Ruttenberg: should issues be written in the beginning part of the sections?
Boris Motik: some issues are more meta issues
Alan Ruttenberg: we meant the specific ones
Boris Motik: I meant more issues are meta ones
Boris Motik: and who should do this?
Alan Ruttenberg: we could assign them to some people, including me
Ian Horrocks: which document?
Alan Ruttenberg: does not matter
Sandro Hawke: you still need to be familiar with the documents enough to do the job properly
Ian Horrocks: do we need to have such fine-grain issule list mechanism
Deborah McGuinness: it is also hard to follow
Sandro Hawke: do we want a hierarchical issue list?
Sandro Hawke: we should take a simplified approach
Ian Horrocks: we just started but we have 81 issues already
Alan Ruttenberg: a quick poll to see if the solution is acceptable by everyone
Alan Ruttenberg: three documents: syntax, semantics and mapping to RDF
PROPOSED: Annotate the Syntax, Semantics, and Mapping-to-RDF documents with links to all issues, as they might affect the text....
PROPOSED: Annotate the Syntax, Semantics, and Mapping-to-RDF documents with links to all issues, as they might affect the text, and then (give or take editorial changes) we will publish.
Sandro Hawke: I don't think we should have a resolution here
... but it seems that it is good enough to proceed?
Sandro Hawke: I think people need to review how it is done
Alan Ruttenberg: no resolution but general agreement to the direction
Ian Horrocks: chairs may delegate the tasks
Mapping to/from RDF
Boris Motik: owl dl is not 100% sub-language of owl full
Bijan Parsia: it seems that part of the issue what counts as compatibility
Bijan Parsia: your idea is a stronger version of compatibility
Ian Horrocks: we had similar discussion in WebOnt
Alan Ruttenberg: I want more compatibility than what is between RDF and OWL
Deborah McGuinness: it is a good idea to clarify compatibility
Boris Motik: one design principle of OWL 1.1 is that ...
Boris Motik: annotations have no semantics
Boris Motik: comments are simply comments
Ian Horrocks: in the charter we say to refine and extend OWL
Ian Horrocks: an OWL document should be one that could be translated from the one written in abstract syntax
... according to the spec
Jeremy Carroll: the semantics document is hard to get interpretation
Ian Horrocks: this is completely different order
... the semantics document is technical
... and understood by many people
Issues (35 min)
PROPOSAL: Base abbreviated URIs in Functional-style Syntax on CURIES not QNAMES (see Issue 14)
PROPOSED: Base abbreviated URIs in Functional-style Syntax on CURIES not QNAMES (see Issue 14)
Ivan Herman: it seems that we could do that without too much problems
RESOLVED: Base abbreviated URIs in Functional-style Syntax on CURIES not QNAMES (see Issue 14)
PROPOSED: Structural specification, XML Schema, and RDF mapping be extended to allow for multiple facet--value pairs in data ranges (see Issue 28)
RESOLVED: PROPOSAL: Structural specification, XML Schema, and RDF mapping be extended to allow for multiple facet--value pairs in data ranges (see Issue 28)
PROPOSED: Issue 64 be resolved as per this email
object property chains in triples: confusion of list with property
RESOLVED: Issue 64 be resolved as per [this http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Nov/0391.html] email
Peter Patel-Schneider: I am not conviced that it would solve the round-tripping problem
Boris Motik: the spec should be more implementable
Bijan Parsia: need to make things easier
Alan Ruttenberg: if so, then an OWL DL ontology could become something not a proper OWL DlL ontology after some parsing
is this n-ary thing done by Protete using the well known design pattern for n-ary relations?
Alan Ruttenberg: annotation properties would be changed too
Ian: I think this is a tool issue rather than a language issue
... tools supporting OWL 1.1 will produce OWL1.1 files by default
rool call on Issue 2?
Issue 2 revisited: RDF syntax for other "n-ary constructs"? (See  and thread.)
Ian, I would like to see some alignment between the two syntax
Bijan Parsia: there is a draft on compatibility between RIF and OWL
... people suggested RIF should talk to us on it
... proposed a joint TF
... between the two WGs
Alan Ruttenberg: do we need nominate someone?
Sandro Hawke: we didn't remember the exact number