IRC log of owl on 2008-04-03
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 12:48:28 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #owl
- 12:48:28 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-owl-irc
- 12:48:30 [trackbot-ng]
- RRSAgent, make logs public
- 12:48:30 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #owl
- 12:48:32 [trackbot-ng]
- Zakim, this will be OWLWG
- 12:48:32 [Zakim]
- I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot-ng
- 12:48:33 [trackbot-ng]
- Meeting: OWL Working Group Teleconference
- 12:48:33 [trackbot-ng]
- Date: 03 April 2008
- 12:49:28 [sandro]
- zakim, room for 5?
- 12:49:29 [Zakim]
- ok, sandro; conference Team_(owl)12:49Z scheduled with code 26631 (CONF1) for 60 minutes until 1349Z
- 12:58:08 [IanH]
- IanH has joined #owl
- 13:01:46 [pfps]
- pfps has joined #owl
- 13:02:39 [IanH_]
- IanH_ has joined #owl
- 13:06:05 [jjc]
- jjc has joined #owl
- 13:06:54 [msmith]
- msmith has joined #owl
- 13:08:52 [Zakim]
- Team_(owl)12:49Z has now started
- 13:09:00 [Zakim]
- +Sandro
- 13:09:03 [Zakim]
- -Sandro
- 13:09:04 [Zakim]
- Team_(owl)12:49Z has ended
- 13:09:04 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Sandro
- 13:09:05 [bmotik]
- bmotik has joined #owl
- 13:09:54 [sandro]
- zakim, room for 5 for 480 minutes?
- 13:09:55 [Zakim]
- ok, sandro; conference Team_(owl)13:09Z scheduled with code 26632 (CONF2) for 480 minutes until 2109Z
- 13:10:20 [sandro]
- sandro has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F2 CONFERENCE CODE 26632
- 13:11:22 [sandro]
- scribenick: jjc
- 13:11:23 [ewallace]
- ewallace has joined #owl
- 13:11:37 [Rinke]
- Rinke has joined #owl
- 13:11:39 [evrensirin]
- evrensirin has joined #owl
- 13:11:49 [dlm]
- dlm has joined #owl
- 13:12:04 [bcuencagrau]
- bcuencagrau has joined #owl
- 13:12:05 [alanr]
- alanr has joined #owl
- 13:12:14 [MarkusK]
- MarkusK has joined #owl
- 13:12:15 [uli_]
- uli_ has joined #owl
- 13:15:06 [ekw]
- ekw has joined #owl
- 13:20:43 [jjc]
- jjc has joined #owl
- 13:20:50 [dlm]
- dlm has joined #owl
- 13:20:50 [JLUCIANO]
- JLUCIANO has joined #owl
- 13:20:53 [ekw]
- ekw has joined #owl
- 13:20:53 [uli_]
- uli_ has joined #owl
- 13:20:59 [MarkusK]
- MarkusK has joined #owl
- 13:21:04 [Rinke]
- Rinke has joined #owl
- 13:21:21 [alanr]
- alanr has joined #owl
- 13:21:31 [msmith]
- msmith has joined #owl
- 13:21:40 [IanH]
- IanH has joined #owl
- 13:21:42 [jjc2]
- jjc2 has joined #owl
- 13:21:50 [thomassch]
- thomassch has joined #owl
- 13:21:52 [jjc2]
- scribenick jjc2
- 13:21:53 [evrensirin]
- evrensirin has joined #owl
- 13:21:58 [bijan]
- bijan has joined #owl
- 13:22:07 [sandro]
- sandro has joined #owl
- 13:22:08 [jjc2]
- RollCall:
- 13:22:18 [jjc2]
- Boris, Peter, Bernardo, Rinke
- 13:22:45 [jjc2]
- Marcus, Deb, Michael Schneider,
- 13:22:49 [cgi-irc]
- cgi-irc has joined #owl
- 13:22:51 [jjc2]
- Carston, Achille
- 13:22:55 [pfps]
- pfps has joined #owl
- 13:22:58 [jjc2]
- JaoBao
- 13:23:02 [jjc2]
- Evren, MikeSmith
- 13:23:10 [jjc2]
- Bijan, Uli,
- 13:23:25 [bmotik]
- bmotik has joined #owl
- 13:23:48 [jjc2]
- Thomas Schneider, Jeremy, Evan, Sandro, Joanna, Ian, Alan
- 13:23:50 [jjc2]
- ===
- 13:23:59 [jjc2]
- Hanson Graves, Lockheed Martin
- 13:24:05 [jjc2]
- Alex Tucker
- 13:24:17 [msmith]
- petr kremen
- 13:24:30 [bcuencag]
- bcuencag has joined #owl
- 13:24:31 [jjc2]
- Frances Jwa
- 13:24:42 [jjc2]
- Francis Gasse
- 13:24:48 [ivan]
- ivan has joined #owl
- 13:24:51 [jjc2]
- delete - 2
- 13:25:13 [msmith]
- mike grove
- 13:25:13 [thomassch]
- Petr Kremen
- 13:25:20 [jjc2]
- Michael Grove,
- 13:25:36 [jjc2]
- Dimitri Univ of Manchester
- 13:25:48 [jjc2]
- (from === are observers)
- 13:25:59 [jjc2]
- + thomas schneider as observer
- 13:26:39 [jjc2]
- Peter arranges dinner, sponsered by Clark&Parsia
- 13:26:49 [jjc2]
- 22 for dinner
- 13:27:04 [jjc2]
- Proposed: Vote of thanks to Clark and Parsia
- 13:27:12 [jjc2]
- Resolved: thanks to Clark and Parsia
- 13:28:14 [sandro]
- show up at 7. 800 W Diamond Ave.
- 13:28:51 [jjc2]
- some people have not paid ... (scribe decides not to minute who!)
- 13:30:22 [jjc2]
- Agenda review: Ian
- 13:30:37 [jjc2]
- Thurs am - discussion candidate FPWD docs
- 13:31:13 [jjc2]
- Thurs pm - roadmap
- 13:31:17 [jjc2]
- and timeline
- 13:31:30 [jjc2]
- Thurs pm - 2nd session - OWL 1.1 Full
- 13:32:09 [jjc2]
- Fri am 1 - RDF mapping
- 13:32:21 [alanr]
- alanr has left #owl
- 13:32:30 [jjc2]
- some of these issues have been roadblocks
- 13:32:36 [jjc2]
- Fri am 2 other issues
- 13:32:46 [jjc2]
- Fri pm TF reports
- 13:33:02 [alanr]
- alanr has joined #owl
- 13:33:22 [jjc2]
- Jeremy: 18.00 is a late end time
- 13:33:29 [jjc2]
- Ian: who needs to leave before
- 13:33:32 [jjc2]
- JimBao 4pm
- 13:33:35 [jjc2]
- Peter 5.45
- 13:33:42 [jjc2]
- Joanne 5
- 13:34:30 [jjc2]
- Ian: will try to adjust agenda to finish by 4.30
- 13:34:57 [jjc2]
- First session begins
- 13:35:06 [jjc2]
- Agendum: Publication Schedule
- 13:35:23 [jjc2]
- Ian - straw poll on each doc - are we ready to publish?
- 13:35:39 [jjc2]
- Alan: expectations for publication
- 13:35:48 [jjc2]
- goal is to get current work out for review
- 13:35:52 [jjc2]
- do not have to be complete
- 13:36:01 [jjc2]
- it is common to have a mark - this is incomplete
- 13:36:18 [jjc2]
- judgement is: is it harmful to publish this - it is good to get things out as quick as possible
- 13:36:44 [jjc2]
- poll is with the sort of editorial changes we migth expect over the next couple of days can we publish tuesday?
- 13:37:43 [jjc2]
- deb: what changes should we be expecting before we vote in straw poll
- 13:37:56 [jjc2]
- sandro: vote expecting your small reasonable changes to have been made
- 13:38:36 [sandro]
- STRAWPOLL: Given some editorial changes that we might determine in this meeting, to be made in the next couple of days, would you agree to publish Primer on Apr 8?
- 13:38:37 [jjc2]
- Prime, given some editorial changes to be decided made in the next coupleo f days are we ready to publish as a FPWD on April 8th
- 13:38:48 [sandro]
- +1
- 13:38:50 [bmotik]
- +1
- 13:38:50 [uli_]
- +1
- 13:38:52 [evrensirin]
- +1
- 13:38:53 [pfps]
- +1 to publish primer
- 13:38:53 [bijan]
- +1
- 13:39:06 [jjc2]
- lots of hands in favour
- 13:39:27 [jjc2]
- deborah no
- 13:39:27 [bercuencagrau]
- bercuencagrau has joined #owl
- 13:39:38 [sandro]
- STRAWPOLL: Given some editorial changes that we might determine in this meeting, to be made in the next couple of days, would you agree to publish Fragments on Apr 8?
- 13:39:40 [jjc2]
- several abstentions
- 13:39:56 [jjc2]
- more lots in favour
- 13:40:13 [jjc2]
- none against
- 13:40:16 [sandro]
- STRAWPOLL: Given some editorial changes that we might determine in this meeting, to be made in the next couple of days, would you agree to publish XML Serialization on Apr 8?
- 13:40:59 [jjc2]
- lots in favour
- 13:41:29 [jjc2]
- none against
- 13:41:42 [jjc2]
- side comment about relax ng ... ignored
- 13:42:12 [jjc2]
- Ian: we will go in reverse order of contention, start with fragments
- 13:42:22 [jjc2]
- Sandro: are we going to publish other docs?
- 13:42:33 [jjc2]
- Ian: no - we discussed at telecon and decided against.
- 13:44:01 [sandro]
- JJC: I had few MUST fix editorial changes, and the one has been fixed, but there are weaknesses I would like fixed. 1: the name. 2: abstract and intro are quite poor (an obstacle to decent review by the public). 3: I would really like a comment that we haven't discussion, on OWL-R, ... it's currently phrased that...
- 13:44:30 [sandro]
- JJC: It should be: OWL-R implementations CAN provide OWL-Full entailments. The document doesn't say that.
- 13:45:58 [m_schnei]
- m_schnei has joined #owl
- 13:46:17 [sandro]
- ACTION: Jeremy to RAISE issue on relationship between OWL-R non-entailments and OWL-Full entailments, and link to it from Fragments as EDITORIAL NOTE.
- 13:46:17 [trackbot-ng]
- Created ACTION-117 - RAISE issue on relationship between OWL-R non-entailments and OWL-Full entailments, and link to it from Fragments as EDITORIAL NOTE. [on Jeremy Carroll - due 2008-04-10].
- 13:48:24 [sandro]
- ACTION: Carston to draft intro text for Fragments given high-level motivation, and add it into draft, as per his OWLED presentation
- 13:48:24 [trackbot-ng]
- Sorry, couldn't find user - Carston
- 13:48:30 [sandro]
- ACTION: Carsten to draft intro text for Fragments given high-level motivation, and add it into draft, as per his OWLED presentation
- 13:48:30 [trackbot-ng]
- Sorry, couldn't find user - Carsten
- 13:48:49 [sandro]
- ACTION: carsten to draft intro text for Fragments given high-level motivation, and add it into draft, as per his OWLED presentation
- 13:48:49 [trackbot-ng]
- Sorry, couldn't find user - carsten
- 13:49:14 [jjc2]
- Achille: range has been added to ?? fragment
- 13:49:28 [jjc2]
- Achile: as a result we don't have the right restrictions
- 13:49:50 [jjc2]
- Carsten: regarding EL we have a few glitches that lead to intractibility
- 13:50:11 [jjc2]
- Carsten: these are simple errors (editorial)
- 13:50:26 [jjc2]
- Boris: there is a note in doc that these will change
- 13:51:01 [jjc2]
- Carsten: I could make these changes quickly
- 13:51:11 [jjc2]
- Achile: we could also update references
- 13:51:14 [pfps]
- +1 to having carsten making change
- 13:51:20 [jjc2]
- Ian: are we happy to carsten to make these changes
- 13:51:31 [jjc2]
- Sandro: I would like someone else to review Carsten's changes
- 13:51:38 [jjc2]
- Ian: there are others who can
- 13:51:51 [sandro]
- ACTION: Carsten remove features that cause intractable in EL++
- 13:51:51 [trackbot-ng]
- Sorry, couldn't find user - Carsten
- 13:52:01 [sandro]
- ACTION: Bijan to review Carsten's change
- 13:52:01 [trackbot-ng]
- Created ACTION-118 - Review Carsten's change [on Bijan Parsia - due 2008-04-10].
- 13:52:15 [sandro]
- ACTION: Bernardo to review Carsten's charge
- 13:52:15 [trackbot-ng]
- Created ACTION-119 - Review Carsten's charge [on Bernardo Cuenca Grau - due 2008-04-10].
- 13:52:22 [jjc2]
- (abpve discussion was regarding EL++ fragment)
- 13:52:43 [jjc2]
- Deb: we should mention OWL Lite
- 13:53:13 [jjc2]
- Jeremy: I would like to say "OWL Lite is deprecated", pfps agrees
- 13:53:33 [sandro]
- "HJow we are going to document OWL Lite is not yet determined by the WG"
- 13:53:38 [jjc2]
- Alan: we could add editorial comment: "We haven;t decided what to say about OWL Lite"
- 13:53:40 [sandro]
- from Alan.
- 13:54:11 [sandro]
- Deb: I don't want the people using OWL Lite to think they made a mistake
- 13:54:35 [sandro]
- Alan: Although we don't specifically document OWL lite in this document, it is the intention of the WG that all OWL Lite ontologiies witll be OWL 1.1 DL ontologies
- 13:54:47 [jjc2]
- We all agreed on a sentence ...
- 13:54:51 [jjc2]
- that sentence
- 13:55:05 [sandro]
- ACTION: Alan to add sentence "Although we don't specifically document OWL lite in this document, it is the intention of the WG that all OWL Lite ontologiies witll be OWL 1.1 DL ontologies" to Fragments
- 13:55:05 [trackbot-ng]
- Created ACTION-120 - Add sentence \"Although we don't specifically document OWL lite in this document, it is the intention of the WG that all OWL Lite ontologiies witll be OWL 1.1 DL ontologies\" to Fragments [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-04-10].
- 13:55:41 [sandro]
- m_schnei: let's make a WG note which snapshots OWL Lite as in 2004.
- 13:56:06 [sandro]
- Alan: let's postpone this; eg we may deprecate it.
- 13:57:12 [jjc2]
- see ISSUE-107
- 13:57:15 [sandro]
- ACTION: m_schnei to RAISE issue about how to refer to OWL Lite as a stable standard
- 13:57:15 [trackbot-ng]
- Sorry, couldn't find user - m_schnei
- 13:57:40 [Zhe]
- Zhe has joined #owl
- 13:57:49 [sandro]
- related to ISSUE-107
- 13:58:25 [jjc2]
- the name of the document.....
- 13:59:01 [jjc2]
- Fragments: peter, boris ...
- 13:59:29 [jjc2]
- Alan: Ivan requested "profile" as W3C practice as recommended by QA group
- 13:59:58 [sandro]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Apr/0002.html
- 14:00:12 [jjc2]
- joanne: we should give justification for name in document
- 14:00:18 [sandro]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-spec-variability-20050831/#subdivision-profile
- 14:00:33 [jjc2]
- joanne: I personally found the name 'fragments' confusing
- 14:00:39 [m_schnei]
- sandro, is there any precedence of a w3c rec for which "profiles" exist
- 14:00:55 [jjc2]
- proposal for profiles; seconded jjc
- 14:01:12 [jjc2]
- Ian: will nayone speak against? Pfps holds nose.
- 14:01:44 [jjc2]
- Bijan: is OWL Full a profile?
- 14:01:58 [jjc2]
- Bijan: are we only using 'profile' for fragment
- 14:02:10 [jjc2]
- Bernardo: reads wikipedia defn
- 14:02:28 [ivan]
- zakim, dial ivan-voip
- 14:02:28 [Zakim]
- ok, ivan; the call is being made
- 14:02:29 [Zakim]
- Team_(owl)13:09Z has now started
- 14:02:30 [Zakim]
- +Ivan
- 14:02:31 [m_schnei]
- thanks ivan for example "SVG"
- 14:03:00 [ivan]
- to m_schnei : yes, SVG
- 14:03:09 [sandro]
- ivan, the room is not dailed in yet ... I'll wait until we have a little pause in the argument.
- 14:03:45 [m_schnei]
- i am very indifferent about name, but people use word "fragments" for quite a while now
- 14:03:58 [jjc2]
- discussion of whether to raise this is an issue ....
- 14:04:17 [sandro]
- Ian: "In logic, these are often called 'fragments'"
- 14:04:31 [jjc2]
- bernardo: can the word fragments be used in the intro
- 14:04:45 [jjc2]
- jeremy and ian: yes if in the context of logic
- 14:04:47 [sandro]
- to define "profile" link to http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-spec-variability-20050831/#subdivision-profile
- 14:05:25 [jjc2]
- alan: the editorial change will be to leave one use of fragment in the intro
- 14:05:42 [jjc2]
- alan: and to use the word profile instead of fragment throughout
- 14:07:10 [sandro]
- PROPOSED: we use the word "profile" instead of "fragment" throughout what has been called Fragments, with a reference to logic fragments, and explanation of the term "profiles"; and the title is ....@@@
- 14:07:16 [jjc2]
- ian: all docs are called OWL 1.1 Web Ontology Language: ...
- 14:07:31 [sandro]
- PROPOSED: we use the word "profile" instead of "fragment" throughout what has been called Fragments, with a reference to logic fragments, and explanation of the term "profiles"; and the title for now is "[OWL 1.1 Web Ontology Language] Profiles"
- 14:07:32 [jjc2]
- ian: suggests just "Profiles" for the rest of the name
- 14:07:43 [jjc2]
- jeremy: there was a nice adjective from Sandro
- 14:08:10 [jjc2]
- sandro: but I've forgotten
- 14:08:10 [sandro]
- JLUCIANO: somehow have the title evocative of Fragments.
- 14:09:52 [sandro]
- "Subsetting Profiles"
- 14:10:18 [jjc2]
- strawpoll: doc title is "profiles"
- 14:10:20 [sandro]
- PROPOSED: we use the word "profile" instead of "fragment" throughout what has been called Fragments, with a reference to logic fragments, and explanation of the term "profiles"; and the title for now is "[OWL 1.1 Web Ontology Language] Profiles"
- 14:10:26 [jjc2]
- carsten is against other people in favour
- 14:10:37 [sandro]
- Carsten: really, "subset" is a much better word.
- 14:11:09 [alanr]
- I like "subset" too, but I like a happy W3C better
- 14:11:19 [sandro]
- +1
- 14:11:20 [bijan]
- +1
- 14:11:21 [pfps]
- +1 for profiles (but holding my nose)
- 14:11:21 [alanr]
- +1
- 14:11:24 [IanH]
- +1
- 14:11:25 [MarkusK]
- +1
- 14:11:26 [bmotik]
- +1
- 14:11:27 [evrensirin]
- +1
- 14:11:27 [Rinke]
- +!
- 14:11:27 [bercuencagrau]
- +1
- 14:11:35 [ekw]
- +1 for profiles
- 14:11:38 [Zhe]
- +1
- 14:11:40 [msmith]
- +1
- 14:11:42 [Rinke]
- obviously meant +1
- 14:11:44 [dlm]
- 0
- 14:11:50 [jjc2]
- +1
- 14:12:07 [alanr]
- carsten: 0
- 14:12:08 [JLUCIANO]
- "subset" is a better word
- 14:12:20 [sandro]
- RESOLVED: we use the word "profile" instead of "fragment" throughout what has been called Fragments, with a reference to logic fragments, and explanation of the term "profiles"; and the title for now is "[OWL 1.1 Web Ontology Language] Profiles"
- 14:12:37 [JLUCIANO]
- +1 profile in this context is correct
- 14:13:03 [m_schnei]
- why not first let people get accoustomed to this new name (forgotten ;-)) and then vote later officially
- 14:13:49 [jjc2]
- (Bijan notes that a formal vote should be by organization, but this is not an issue for unopposed resolution)
- 14:14:31 [sandro]
- ACTION: bercuencagrau implement change of fragments -> profiles
- 14:14:31 [trackbot-ng]
- Sorry, couldn't find user - bercuencagrau
- 14:14:36 [sandro]
- ACTION: bcuencagrau implement change of fragments -> profiles
- 14:14:36 [trackbot-ng]
- Sorry, couldn't find user - bcuencagrau
- 14:14:42 [sandro]
- ACTION: bernardo implement change of fragments -> profiles
- 14:14:43 [trackbot-ng]
- Created ACTION-121 - Implement change of fragments -> profiles [on Bernardo Cuenca Grau - due 2008-04-10].
- 14:15:42 [jjc2]
- zhe: would like to reorganize OWL-R section to get rules first
- 14:15:58 [jjc2]
- ian: do we need to do this for FPWD?
- 14:16:09 [jjc2]
- zhe: no, an editorial to do note is OK.
- 14:17:26 [jjc2]
- alan: a note should be added that the names of the profiles are not stable
- 14:17:31 [sandro]
- ACTION: Alan to RAISE issue on picking good Names for Profiles AND link to this issue from Profiles document.
- 14:17:31 [trackbot-ng]
- Created ACTION-122 - RAISE issue on picking good Names for Profiles AND link to this issue from Profiles document. [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-04-10].
- 14:18:36 [sandro]
- Zhe: I can just add a reviewers comment.
- 14:18:40 [m_schnei]
- zhe can create a branch version of the fragments (oops) document in the Wiki
- 14:18:55 [sandro]
- Uli: Flowers around document?
- 14:19:19 [sandro]
- Alan: Everyone is happy that the reviewer comments are on the wiki but NOT in publication.
- 14:20:53 [jjc2]
- Sandro: actually reviewers comments have been in, but invisible by CSS
- 14:21:07 [jjc2]
- we could have a switch
- 14:21:14 [sandro]
- PROPOSED: Let the TR actually keep the (yellow) wg-review-notes, with a switch to turn them on, default to off.
- 14:21:25 [sandro]
- PROPOSED: Let the TR actually keep the (yellow) wg-review-notes, with a switch to turn them on, default to off --- subject to W3C PubRules.
- 14:21:32 [sandro]
- RESOLVED: Let the TR actually keep the (yellow) wg-review-notes, with a switch to turn them on, default to off --- subject to W3C PubRules.
- 14:22:37 [pfps]
- +1 to publish Fragments (Alcatel-Lucent)
- 14:22:48 [bercuencagrau]
- +1 (Oxford)
- 14:23:00 [Rinke]
- +1 (Amsterdam)
- 14:23:03 [sandro]
- PROPOSED: Publish Profiles (formerly known as Fragments) on or soon after Apr 8, given the changed agreed to in the past hour.
- 14:23:03 [dlm]
- +1 publish fragments RPI
- 14:23:17 [bmotik]
- +1
- 14:23:18 [MarkusK]
- +1 (FZI)
- 14:23:18 [Zhe]
- +1
- 14:23:18 [jjc2]
- +1 (HP)
- 14:23:25 [msmith]
- +1 (Clark & Parsia)
- 14:23:27 [sandro]
- Achille: +1 (IBM)
- 14:23:30 [IanH]
- +1 (Oxford)
- 14:23:31 [alanr]
- +1 publish profiles (science commons)
- 14:23:33 [bijan]
- +1 to publish profiles (Manchester)
- 14:23:40 [ekw]
- +1 (NIST)
- 14:23:44 [sandro]
- +1 to publish Profiles (W3C)
- 14:23:55 [dlm]
- i meant profiles for the vote for rpi
- 14:24:21 [sandro]
- RESOLVED: Publish Profiles (formerly known as Fragments) on or soon after Apr 8, given the changed agreed to in the past hour.
- 14:24:58 [jjc2]
- Thanks and applause to authors
- 14:25:26 [sandro]
- yes m_schnei :-)
- 14:25:30 [jjc2]
- XML Serialization
- 14:26:10 [jjc2]
- Sandro: we need to have an issue about the namespace, an editorial note
- 14:27:21 [sandro]
- ACTION: Bijan to RAISE issue on namespaces (if necessary) and link to it from document.
- 14:27:21 [trackbot-ng]
- Created ACTION-123 - RAISE issue on namespaces (if necessary) and link to it from document. [on Bijan Parsia - due 2008-04-10].
- 14:27:39 [jjc2]
- chairs will accept issues raised as a result of actions in this meeting
- 14:28:36 [jjc2]
- Bijan and jeremy: there is a separate issue about the OWL 1.1 namespace, this is different from the syntax namespace
- 14:28:54 [jjc2]
- bernardo: there is a reference to 'fragments' in this doc
- 14:29:12 [sandro]
- Bijan to clean up word "fragments" in this document and others.
- 14:30:19 [jjc2]
- alan: won't the data-object property punning issue tomorrow impact these docs?
- 14:30:31 [jjc2]
- jeremy: yes - but let's decide tomorrow
- 14:30:57 [sandro]
- Bijan: If you see a typo, just fix it in the wiki ASAP.
- 14:31:01 [jjc2]
- bijan: fix typos when you see them
- 14:31:20 [jjc2]
- rinke: ??? section 2 is confusing
- 14:31:33 [jjc2]
- rinke: this should either be exhaustive or non-existent
- 14:32:11 [jjc2]
- evren: assuming functional syntax is normative are we expecting a mapping from XML syntax to functional syntax
- 14:32:25 [jjc2]
- bijan: there is a couple of sentences that describe
- 14:32:32 [thomassch_]
- thomassch_ has joined #owl
- 14:32:39 [jjc2]
- ian: two issues: a) examples b) mapping should be explicit
- 14:33:00 [jjc2]
- sandro: a complete example would be silly
- 14:33:00 [Zakim]
- -Ivan
- 14:33:02 [Zakim]
- Team_(owl)13:09Z has ended
- 14:33:02 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Ivan
- 14:33:10 [jjc2]
- sandro: but a small example is helpful
- 14:33:39 [jjc2]
- alan: the example should be a repeat of some other example
- 14:33:48 [m_schnei]
- +1 to sandro on small and useful examples instead of heaving a "complete" example
- 14:33:56 [jjc2]
- bijan: we could have pointer to the primer
- 14:34:02 [jjc2]
- sandro: I would be happy with this
- 14:34:09 [uli__]
- uli__ has joined #owl
- 14:34:16 [jjc2]
- bernardo: so the only doc with examples would be the primer
- 14:34:21 [jjc2]
- bijan: I like that
- 14:34:39 [jjc2]
- lots of positive noises about this idea to examples
- 14:34:45 [sandro]
- Sandro: Yes! Let's have the examples in XML_Serialization just be tabs in Primer and Syntax.
- 14:34:58 [jjc2]
- strawpoll: kill example section replaced with pointers to primer
- 14:35:52 [sandro]
- STRAWPOLL: We remove the examples section and just refer people to Primer, where they can use the XML tab to see examples.
- 14:36:03 [jjc2]
- michael: the examples are not the same, it doesn't make sense to copy it
- 14:36:15 [jjc2]
- ian: no the proposal is not to move the example but to delete it
- 14:36:29 [alanr]
- Sandro: Add query parameter to set default syntax for primer?
- 14:36:50 [jjc2]
- joanne: do the examples in the primer illustrate the right things?
- 14:37:14 [sandro]
- s/Sandro:/Sandro,/
- 14:37:43 [m_schnei]
- jj2, i did not say "copy" but "move", but ian said "kill" :-)
- 14:38:21 [sandro]
- bercuencagrau: Section 1 Overview -- ending with link to Primer; Section 2 Schema
- 14:38:24 [jjc2]
- Alan would like the link from serialization to primer to automagically come up in the right syntax
- 14:38:33 [jjc2]
- Alan claims this cna be done in javascript
- 14:39:18 [jjc2]
- Alan: the schema referred to in this doc needs to be accessible from this doc
- 14:39:37 [jjc2]
- Ian: points out that Alan is out of order
- 14:39:54 [sandro]
- STRAWPOLL: We remove the examples section and just refer people to Primer, where they can use the XML tab to see examples.
- 14:40:31 [bmotik]
- +1
- 14:40:31 [pfps]
- +1 to excise examples and put in pointer to Primer
- 14:40:33 [Rinke]
- +1
- 14:40:34 [sandro]
- +1
- 14:40:36 [bercuencagrau]
- +1
- 14:40:37 [msmith]
- +1
- 14:40:43 [Zhe]
- +1
- 14:40:48 [m_schnei]
- +1 to drop examples (provided that this is our general approach)
- 14:40:49 [jjc2]
- lots in favour
- 14:41:27 [sandro]
- Achille: 0 but we should make the mapping more explicit
- 14:41:28 [jjc2]
- Achille: I liked this example - relationship to mapping - hence I abstain
- 14:41:32 [alanr]
- +1
- 14:42:21 [sandro]
- +1 to having a small, complete example in XML_Serialization
- 14:42:37 [jjc2]
- Achille: also the namespace stuff, schemalocation etc, may be absent in primer
- 14:43:44 [jjc2]
- Bijan: but the primer may do these....
- 14:43:58 [sandro]
- +1 Hello World, in XML_Serialization
- 14:44:08 [baojie]
- agree with sandro, a small example in XML_Serialization, a longer example in Primer
- 14:44:20 [jjc2]
- Joanne: I feel this is important
- 14:45:14 [jjc2]
- Jeremy: let's add a to-do
- 14:45:23 [jjc2]
- Ian: let's put helloworld example in intro
- 14:46:08 [m_schnei]
- <Ontology name="HelloWorld"/> ;-)
- 14:46:43 [sandro]
- m_schnei :)
- 14:46:50 [jjc2]
- Boris and Ian talk about mapping
- 14:47:45 [jjc2]
- Achille: jeremy's proposal doesn't address mappings, but is otherwise OK
- 14:47:50 [jjc2]
- Ian: mappings is next
- 14:47:58 [sandro]
- PROPOSED: delete current example, add pointer to primer, and have Hello World in Intro
- 14:48:27 [sandro]
- PROPOSED: delete current example, add pointer to primer, and have Hello World in Intro (eg bicycle subclassof vehicle)
- 14:49:20 [sandro]
- (RESOLVED silently, Bijan making change, as we move on....)
- 14:50:09 [sandro]
- RESOLVED: delete current example, add pointer to primer, and have Hello World in Intro (eg bicycle subclassof vehicle)
- 14:50:26 [sandro]
- (by show of hands)
- 14:50:37 [sandro]
- come back to issue of mapping, after break.
- 15:02:37 [cgi-irc]
- cgi-irc has joined #owl
- 15:04:52 [thomassch_]
- thomassch_ has joined #owl
- 15:08:03 [ekw]
- ekw has joined #owl
- 15:08:10 [alanr]
- Action: Sandro make sure that namespaces work right in the hello world example, and that the "separate document" link goes to the schema rather than the wiki page
- 15:08:10 [trackbot-ng]
- Created ACTION-124 - Make sure that namespaces work right in the hello world example, and that the \"separate document\" link goes to the schema rather than the wiki page [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-04-10].
- 15:10:46 [Carsten]
- Carsten has joined #owl
- 15:15:11 [thomassch_]
- thomassch_ has joined #owl
- 15:18:16 [sandro]
- scribenick: m_schnei
- 15:18:55 [bmotik]
- bmotik has joined #owl
- 15:19:15 [m_schnei]
- Continuing on "Publication Schedule"
- 15:19:52 [m_schnei]
- alanr: next point is question about xml mapping
- 15:21:10 [jjc]
- jjc has joined #owl
- 15:22:33 [zwu2]
- zwu2 has joined #owl
- 15:22:33 [m_schnei]
- bijan: suggests to add not "mapping should be enhanced"
- 15:23:56 [sandro]
- PROPOSED: Publish "XML Serialization" on or soon after Apr 8, given the changes agreed to so far this meeting.
- 15:24:22 [Achille]
- Achille has joined #owl
- 15:24:25 [sandro]
- RESOLVED: Publish "XML Serialization" on or soon after Apr 8, given the changes agreed to so far this meeting.
- 15:24:50 [alanr]
- +1 (science commons)
- 15:24:53 [Achille]
- +1 (IBM)
- 15:24:54 [msmith]
- +1 (Clark & Parsia)
- 15:24:56 [pfps]
- +1 to publish XML Serialization
- 15:24:56 [sandro]
- +1 (W3C)
- 15:24:58 [bijan]
- +1 to publish XML syntax (Manchester)
- 15:24:59 [dlm]
- +1 (RPI)
- 15:24:59 [IanH]
- +1 (Oxford)
- 15:25:00 [bercuencagrau]
- +1 (Oxford Univ)
- 15:25:01 [ekw]
- +1 (NIST)
- 15:25:03 [m_schnei]
- +1 (FZI)
- 15:25:19 [zwu2]
- +1 (ORACLE)
- 15:25:32 [m_schnei]
- jeremy: asks about GRDDL
- 15:25:41 [Rinke]
- +1 (Amsterdam)
- 15:26:06 [sandro]
- Bijan is putting in the ed-note linke to ISSUE-97 now.
- 15:26:09 [m_schnei]
- jeremy: we have already an issue on this
- 15:26:10 [sandro]
- (for Jeremy)
- 15:26:17 [sandro]
- RESOLVED: Publish "XML Serialization" on or soon after Apr 8, given the changes agreed to so far this meeting.
- 15:26:21 [jjc]
- +1 (HP with GRDDL change)
- 15:26:32 [sandro]
- (GRDDL == ISSUE-97)
- 15:26:37 [sandro]
- Topic: Primer
- 15:26:38 [m_schnei]
- alanr: next point is primer
- 15:26:54 [m_schnei]
- alanr: what needs to be changed before vote to publish?
- 15:27:27 [m_schnei]
- deb: what plans exist for the primer to be still to be done
- 15:28:31 [m_schnei]
- bijan: explains list of things he wants to do (scribe did not get all the points)
- 15:30:18 [m_schnei]
- discussion about whether deb's issues should be only marked as editorial
- 15:33:18 [thomassch]
- thomassch has joined #owl
- 15:33:32 [sandro]
- alan: something vaguely like: "The WG is committed to making these domain-specific sections be accessible by professional in the industry. We particularly solicit comments on whether this is the case"
- 15:34:11 [IanH_]
- IanH_ has joined #owl
- 15:34:12 [sandro]
- jjc: Deb, I think you're asking Bijan to reach too-high a bar at this point.
- 15:37:05 [sandro]
- Zhe: I want diagrams, please. :-)
- 15:37:11 [m_schnei]
- zhe: likes this whole document, but has problems with the database section
- 15:37:28 [sandro]
- Zhe: I don't agree with the point about "concrete" in the database section.
- 15:37:48 [m_schnei]
- zhe: disagrees with that database stuff is the most distinguishing point
- 15:38:13 [bcuencagrau]
- bcuencagrau has joined #owl
- 15:38:25 [evrensirin]
- s/concrete/complete
- 15:39:06 [sandro]
- Sandro: I wonder about a particularly humble editor's note about how we can't possibly understand all the technical backgrounds people are coming from.
- 15:39:39 [sandro]
- Jae: (1) More concete examples
- 15:39:40 [m_schnei]
- jie: concern that primer is not ok for every one
- 15:39:50 [Rinke]
- I think Zhe rather said that 'completeness' is the most distinguishing point between database and owl -approaches
- 15:40:57 [m_schnei]
- alanr: asks for suggestion for concrete words to put as editorial note
- 15:40:58 [cgi-irc]
- point 1: more concrete examples
- 15:41:15 [m_schnei]
- bijan: hates database section because he things its wrong
- 15:41:16 [dlm]
- scribe assist from dlm - my goal is to bring more people in to the document and reduce alienation from communities. One section in particular, the db section, i believe may not capture why db researchers may come to owl and it may be likely to be confusing.
- 15:41:22 [sandro]
- cgi-irc is Jae
- 15:41:24 [cgi-irc]
- point 2: make clear the diff between OWL 1.0. and OWL 1.1
- 15:41:59 [sandro]
- s/Jae/Jie/
- 15:42:09 [m_schnei]
- bijan: still several months of work for the primer to do
- 15:43:58 [m_schnei]
- sandro: normally there is a sentence "please comment" in the beginning of a WD, perhaps there should be more of these in the documents
- 15:44:14 [sandro]
- ACTION: Bijan to draft the "humble" editor's note / SOTD request for comments for Primer
- 15:44:14 [trackbot-ng]
- Created ACTION-125 - Draft the \"humble\" editor's note / SOTD request for comments for Primer [on Bijan Parsia - due 2008-04-10].
- 15:45:30 [m_schnei]
- alanr: option: remove the offending sentence from the database section?
- 15:46:23 [m_schnei]
- alanr: option2: remove complete database section?
- 15:47:40 [m_schnei]
- straw poll on remove paragraph: 15 people
- 15:48:03 [m_schnei]
- straw poll on remove whole database section: much less votes
- 15:50:54 [m_schnei]
- alanr: jie should put his points into document as note
- 15:52:25 [sandro]
- ACTION: Bijan to add a from-community section for OWL 1.0 users, to Primer
- 15:52:25 [trackbot-ng]
- Created ACTION-126 - Add a from-community section for OWL 1.0 users, to Primer [on Bijan Parsia - due 2008-04-10].
- 15:52:34 [m_schnei]
- bijan: (to deb) primer is for non-DL people
- 15:53:07 [Elisa]
- Elisa has joined #owl
- 15:53:32 [jjc]
- It is this embracing of incompleteness that most distinguishes OWL from databases, driving the different capabilities of OWL and databases.
- 15:53:49 [sandro]
- PROPOSED: Removing the paragraph from Primer beginning "It is this embracing of incompleteness..."
- 15:53:57 [alanr]
- +1
- 15:53:58 [sandro]
- 0 no opinion
- 15:53:58 [Achille]
- 0
- 15:54:02 [Rinke]
- +1
- 15:54:03 [dlm]
- +1
- 15:54:06 [zwu2]
- +1 (ORACLE)
- 15:54:11 [jjc]
- 0 (I think the WG is micromanaging)
- 15:54:29 [pfps]
- 0
- 15:54:32 [IanH_]
- 0 (Oxford)
- 15:54:33 [bcuencagrau]
- 0
- 15:54:34 [bmotik]
- 0
- 15:54:35 [baojie]
- 0
- 15:54:35 [msmith]
- +1
- 15:54:37 [ekw]
- +1 (NIST)
- 15:54:37 [MarkusK]
- 0
- 15:54:42 [pfps]
- 0 (and agree with jeremy :-)
- 15:54:42 [m_schnei]
- peter: asks about why the whole paragraph should be removed instead of a single sentence
- 15:55:13 [sandro]
- RESOLVED: Removing the paragraph from Primer beginning "It is this embracing of incompleteness..."
- 15:55:18 [Zakim]
- Team_(owl)13:09Z has now started
- 15:55:23 [sandro]
- PROPOSED: Publish "Primer" on or soon after Apr 8, given the changes agreed to so far this meeting.
- 15:55:25 [Zakim]
- +Elisa_Kendall
- 15:55:34 [m_schnei]
- deb: does someone has a list of intended changes?
- 15:55:48 [sandro]
- Elisa, the room hasn't called in yet. Hold on and we'll do that in a minute.
- 15:56:00 [Elisa]
- thanks :)
- 15:56:01 [alanr]
- Action: Deb to review primer+editorial changes after Bijan is done making them
- 15:56:01 [trackbot-ng]
- Sorry, couldn't find user - Deb
- 15:56:07 [jjc]
- +1 (HP)
- 15:56:18 [msmith]
- +1 to publish (C&P)
- 15:56:20 [sandro]
- +1 (W3C)
- 15:56:21 [Rinke]
- +1 (Amsterdam)
- 15:56:22 [alanr]
- +1 (Science Commons)
- 15:56:23 [zwu2]
- +1 (ORACLE)
- 15:56:24 [dlm]
- dlm will review the primer+editorial changes after bijan does them
- 15:56:36 [MarkusK]
- +1 (FZI)
- 15:56:37 [pfps]
- +1 to publish Primer (Alcatel-Lucent)
- 15:56:41 [IanH_]
- Action: dlm to review primer+editorial changes after Bijan is done making them
- 15:56:41 [trackbot-ng]
- Sorry, couldn't find user - dlm
- 15:56:43 [uli__]
- +1 (Manchester)
- 15:56:44 [bmotik]
- +1 (Oxford)
- 15:56:59 [IanH_]
- Action: Deborah to review primer+editorial changes after Bijan is done making them
- 15:56:59 [trackbot-ng]
- Created ACTION-127 - Review primer+editorial changes after Bijan is done making them [on Deborah McGuinness - due 2008-04-10].
- 15:57:06 [ekw]
- +1 (NIST)
- 15:57:08 [Achille]
- +1 (iBM)
- 15:57:10 [dlm]
- +1 with updates RPI
- 15:57:40 [m_schnei]
- alanr congratulates authors and wg
- 15:58:22 [sandro]
- sandro: congrats to chairs for getting us done an hour early?
- 15:59:02 [msmith]
- scribenick: msmith
- 15:59:21 [msmith]
- topic: OWL 1.1 Full Semantics Issues
- 16:02:03 [msmith]
- topic: Roadmap and design principles
- 16:03:33 [sandro]
- Elisa, we've almost got it.
- 16:03:35 [sandro]
- I think.
- 16:03:46 [sandro]
- (we're on breaking trying to figure out the phone.)
- 16:04:04 [sandro]
- Zakim, what is the code?
- 16:04:04 [Zakim]
- the conference code is 26632 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), sandro
- 16:04:56 [sandro]
- [[ "5 minute break" to get phone working. ]]
- 16:05:21 [ekw]
- Elisa we finished with Publication Schedule
- 16:05:38 [Zakim]
- +??P14
- 16:05:55 [sandro]
- ??P14 is Meeting_Room
- 16:05:59 [sandro]
- Zakim, ??P14 is Meeting_Room
- 16:05:59 [Zakim]
- +Meeting_Room; got it
- 16:07:15 [sandro]
- Elisa, can you hear people chattering?
- 16:07:25 [sandro]
- Zakim, who is on the call?
- 16:07:25 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Elisa_Kendall, Meeting_Room
- 16:07:27 [cgi-irc]
- cgi-irc has joined #owl
- 16:07:45 [sandro]
- cgi-irc, please change your nick
- 16:08:00 [cgi-irc]
- nick jie
- 16:08:09 [sandro]
- you need the leading slash....
- 16:08:19 [sandro]
- we're actually still on break.
- 16:09:32 [sandro]
- Elisa? Could you hear anything there?
- 16:09:47 [jjc]
- the meeting is restarting.
- 16:09:47 [sandro]
- This is about as good as it's going to get, I think.
- 16:10:09 [msmith]
- alanr: we will start with review of timeline
- 16:10:35 [msmith]
- http://www.w3.org/2007/06/OWLCharter.html#deliverables
- 16:11:02 [msmith]
- topic: review of timeline
- 16:11:14 [bijan]
- BTW, XML Syntax is updated per my actions: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/XML_Serialization
- 16:11:28 [sandro]
- splendid, Bijan. :)
- 16:11:29 [msmith]
- alanr: in one view, there is much work to be done and that could prevent add'l items
- 16:11:31 [bijan]
- Pls review
- 16:11:56 [msmith]
- ...do we want to commit to this schedule and drop other things. lets open for discussion
- 16:12:40 [msmith]
- m_schnei: we're making a lot of progress and shouldn't be constrained by a schedule set up front
- 16:12:49 [msmith]
- alanr: example of something that might not be done?
- 16:13:06 [msmith]
- m_schnei: its too early to do so, that's my point
- 16:13:24 [msmith]
- ...our previous perception of timing has been incorrect
- 16:13:51 [msmith]
- jjc: 6 months ago, rdf mapping was better than it is now, that suggests several more months are needed
- 16:14:03 [msmith]
- bijan: not all docs must march together
- 16:15:47 [msmith]
- ...I care about all features and have been expanding all the add'l proposals. I/Manchester is not ready to compromise on them.
- 16:16:14 [msmith]
- ianh: I agree with Bijan. Do we need everything to go to last call at the same time?
- 16:16:48 [msmith]
- pfps: rdf mapping is not progressing b/c there are philosophical differences
- 16:17:24 [msmith]
- ... what are the philosophical differences? In 1.0 WG, once such issues were resolved, things could be very fast
- 16:17:43 [msmith]
- sandro: to bijan, owl 1.2 is possible, this wg could continue for 10 years
- 16:17:59 [msmith]
- ...no promises, etc.
- 16:18:34 [msmith]
- ...this supports sticking to the current timeline, moving other issues to 1.2
- 16:19:21 [msmith]
- jjc: in general, hp prefers longer gaps before versions. our target audience needs a perception of stability, and sandro's proposal undermines that
- 16:19:51 [msmith]
- ...suggest looking at charter to determine what must be at last call when
- 16:20:10 [msmith]
- ...I would personally vote against last call without rqmts doc
- 16:20:31 [msmith]
- ...it makes sense to do a cluster of docs together
- 16:21:26 [msmith]
- pfps: HPs desire, of slowness, seems antithetical to Web and W3. i.e., we often hear of web years being 3-4 months
- 16:21:46 [msmith]
- jjc: I think I would have difficulty selling sandro's proposal to colleagues
- 16:22:09 [msmith]
- ianh: to pfps on philosophical, I don't see such big philosophical differences
- 16:23:04 [msmith]
- ...on rqmts, yes we need such a doc, but note such rqmts have been gathered, just not pushed into a doc
- 16:23:28 [msmith]
- bijan: agree with ianh on rqmts being gathered
- 16:23:56 [msmith]
- alanr: on user facing docs, we're in good shape on what were the big issues
- 16:24:07 [pfps]
- pfps has joined #owl
- 16:24:34 [msmith]
- ...a 1-2 pg quick start guide is part of this
- 16:24:58 [msmith]
- ...(scribe missed first of two things)
- 16:25:15 [msmith]
- ...I haven't heard other major problems in this area
- 16:25:44 [msmith]
- ...(review of charter wording and deliverables and current status)
- 16:26:15 [msmith]
- ...we're in good shape, but new features are outside and not r'qed by charter
- 16:26:28 [msmith]
- ...we need to be ready to slip schedule or drop these features
- 16:26:45 [msmith]
- ...anyone disagree on this characterization?
- 16:27:04 [msmith]
- jjc: on test suite, we need something by last call
- 16:27:14 [msmith]
- alanr: I agree
- 16:27:27 [kendall]
- kendall has joined #owl
- 16:27:35 [msmith]
- jjc: you can't exit CR without test suite
- 16:28:31 [msmith]
- alanr: sandro noted slack in timeline, 3 months for dealing with feedback
- 16:29:02 [msmith]
- bijan: CR on timeline is generous b/c we have tracking implementations of the features
- 16:29:27 [msmith]
- jjc: paperwork types will take some time
- 16:29:46 [msmith]
- sandro: if implementations are tracking, we don't need CR at all
- 16:30:34 [msmith]
- alanr: more feedback on features vs. time
- 16:30:40 [msmith]
- ...?
- 16:31:08 [kendall]
- achille: stay on track, don't slip for non-charter features
- 16:31:10 [msmith]
- achille: keep on timeline, not add new features
- 16:31:45 [msmith]
- zhe: agree with achille, note that vendors have to set a timeline
- 16:32:29 [msmith]
- bijan: not all the "slip" features weren't on the charter
- 16:32:59 [msmith]
- ianh: jeremy voiced hp concern on version numbers, how about IBM and Oracle
- 16:33:49 [msmith]
- achille: I think the point is valid and think IBM might agree with HP
- 16:34:15 [msmith]
- zhe: I agree
- 16:34:45 [msmith]
- jluciano: provides example when sticking to timeline for sake of timeline has resulted in poor product
- 16:34:49 [kendall]
- kendall has joined #owl
- 16:35:20 [msmith]
- sandro: if 1.2 option is off the table, schedule takes priority over features
- 16:35:45 [msmith]
- achille: clarification, would 1.2 mean new charter, new WG
- 16:36:02 [msmith]
- sandro: no. this group would work in multiple phases
- 16:36:32 [msmith]
- achille: that would be an issue, an ongoing commitment like that
- 16:36:37 [msmith]
- jjc: its per feature
- 16:36:42 [msmith]
- ...nary i don't like
- 16:36:49 [msmith]
- ...easy keys sound good
- 16:37:38 [msmith]
- ...annotation spaces less clear, can be easily persuaded
- 16:38:02 [msmith]
- bijan: the new features are useful, this shouldn't be so absolute
- 16:38:21 [msmith]
- alanr: (scribe missed)
- 16:38:34 [msmith]
- m_schnei: examples of impact
- 16:38:48 [alanr]
- If we do a 1.2, then I want to start it immediately after we release last call of 1.1
- 16:39:29 [msmith]
- ... if only semantics is broken it can be fixed, but rdf mapping is broken in a way that impacts owl-full, it can never be fixed
- 16:40:33 [msmith]
- rinke: some features are more important than others, that's obvious. we shouldn't confuse these things
- 16:40:55 [msmith]
- ...on 3 features, annotation is most important
- 16:41:13 [msmith]
- jjc: hp is not expecting wg to meet timeline, I can't argue in favor of timeline
- 16:41:31 [msmith]
- achille: I agree with rinke, not everything is equally important.
- 16:42:11 [msmith]
- ...slipping for 2-3 months is ok, longer commitment (e.g., 1.2 or another year) is a bigger issue, particularly if for non-essential features
- 16:42:58 [msmith]
- ...on 3 features, nary > annotation > easy keys
- 16:43:24 [msmith]
- zhe: if 1.2 is on table, what's the timeline?
- 16:43:46 [msmith]
- alanr: charter schedule is last call at 10 months, 1.2 would be similar
- 16:44:02 [msmith]
- zhe: delay 2-3 mos ok, another year not ok
- 16:44:13 [msmith]
- bijan: year not ok for me either
- 16:44:26 [msmith]
- zhe: on 3 features, no preference
- 16:45:38 [msmith]
- markus: 2-3 mos ok, longer not, on 3 features annotation > easy >> nary
- 16:46:09 [dlm]
- i propose that we collect information about relative importance of proposed additional features in a straw poll probably on the web (to keep records for counting). I could really use annotations on annotations.
- 16:46:16 [sandro]
- alan: I hear priority 1 == what's in now, slippage of 3-4 months is okay for including nary, easykeys, annotations.
- 16:46:19 [msmith]
- alanr: first priority is what is on table now, willingness to extend up to ~4 months for new features
- 16:46:42 [sandro]
- Topic: Backward Compatibility
- 16:46:45 [m_schnei]
- well running projects do not need deadlines :)
- 16:47:00 [msmith]
- topic: backwards compatibility goals
- 16:47:37 [sandro]
- Alan: this may not be the way we want to ADVERTISE b.c.
- 16:48:28 [msmith]
- statement on table, "Take an OWL DL 1.0 ontology O, serialize it to RDF and reverse map to an OWL DL 1.1 ontology O' in functional style syntax. O and O' have the same models as defined by their respective semantics."
- 16:49:12 [msmith]
- jjc: observation - 1.0 is in terms of abstract syntax and semantics, 1.1 is not.
- 16:49:23 [msmith]
- ianh: the first order models are the same
- 16:49:34 [msmith]
- ekw: this is only for DL, not full
- 16:49:45 [msmith]
- alanr: we have no proposal w.r.t. owl full
- 16:50:03 [msmith]
- jjc: for full, everything true in 1.0 is true in 1.1
- 16:50:11 [msmith]
- m_schnei: wait for my presentation
- 16:50:24 [msmith]
- bijan: can m_schnei inlcude a proposal in his presentation
- 16:50:27 [MarkusK]
- MarkusK has joined #owl
- 16:50:52 [msmith]
- pfps: what about the annotation exception
- 16:51:05 [msmith]
- alanr: status of annotations is not resolved, we want to avoid that now
- 16:51:28 [msmith]
- alanr: strawpoll on this defn of backwards compat for OWL DL
- 16:51:46 [msmith]
- ...see virtual unanimity
- 16:51:55 [msmith]
- bijan: I object
- 16:52:47 [msmith]
- ...I'd prefer to allow some small tweaks that would break formal but not de facto backwards
- 16:52:48 [sandro]
- Bijan: my issue with this defn of backward compatibility is that we may want to change some things -- specifically skolemizing bnodes.
- 16:52:51 [msmith]
- alanr: noted
- 16:53:22 [sandro]
- JJC: my abstain is based on ... @@
- 16:53:34 [msmith]
- jjc: I abstained b/c I don't care, we know backwards compat when we see it. i.e., I agree with Bijan, we shouldn't prejudge some other issues
- 16:53:43 [msmith]
- topic: issue 100
- 16:54:21 [msmith]
- ianh: (summarizes issue 100) as should we be able to create OWL ontologies that we can't serialize as RDF
- 16:55:35 [msmith]
- ...we shouldn't have what alanr views as a bug in 1.0 (w.r.t. punning)
- 16:55:38 [sandro]
- ian: (clarifies) this is about rdf GRAPHS, not rdf xml.
- 16:55:51 [sandro]
- ISSUE-100
- 16:55:59 [msmith]
- bijan: objection, same as before, I don't see need to prejudge
- 16:56:20 [msmith]
- jjc: I agree with Bijan and think this slightly knocks the previous WG
- 16:56:29 [msmith]
- alanr: no knocking involved
- 16:56:47 [sandro]
- alan: I think this rises to a design principle
- 16:56:57 [msmith]
- ...I think it rises to a design principle b/c its relevant to users
- 16:57:53 [msmith]
- alanr: a proposal was made to me to handle punning for which I didn't have grounds to object to
- 16:58:10 [sandro]
- Peter: WebOnt had "Requirements" and "Objectives". This could be an Objective.
- 16:58:14 [msmith]
- pfps: previous wg had objectives, as different from, rqmts
- 16:58:26 [msmith]
- bijan: you can always object for the specific cases
- 16:58:59 [bcuencagrau]
- bcuencagrau has joined #owl
- 16:59:04 [msmith]
- alanr: object to personalization. I'm speaking for a community, not trying to "win"
- 16:59:25 [msmith]
- jjc: I agree with alan's design principle, agree with bijan on wg procedure
- 16:59:50 [msmith]
- sandro: perhaps we should record this as a use case
- 17:00:24 [msmith]
- ianh: there was a proposal this be a "design objective"
- 17:00:43 [msmith]
- alanr: what are our design principles, what are our rqmts
- 17:01:36 [msmith]
- uli: this design principle could conflict with some future case we don't know about and we should prohibit that case now
- 17:01:54 [msmith]
- jjc: this should be in a document, not an issue
- 17:02:08 [msmith]
- sandro: having rqmts that conflict is normal
- 17:02:23 [msmith]
- ...this rqmt conflicting with a future one is ok
- 17:02:50 [msmith]
- ...I agree with jeremy on procedure
- 17:03:05 [msmith]
- bijan: apology to alan if taken personally
- 17:03:30 [msmith]
- ...I object to future debates being resolved by appeal to a design principle
- 17:04:08 [msmith]
- ...I believe your previous perception was incorrect and that you can object to specific issues w/o such a principle
- 17:05:12 [msmith]
- ...I think there is some issue with re-opening in the future b/c alan is a chair and has more significant power w.r.t issues
- 17:05:43 [msmith]
- ianh: adjourn for lunch
- 17:06:28 [Zakim]
- -Elisa_Kendall
- 17:12:26 [Achille]
- Achille has joined #owl
- 17:56:34 [MarkusK]
- MarkusK has joined #owl
- 17:57:33 [thomassch]
- thomassch has joined #owl
- 17:59:06 [ekw]
- ekw has joined #owl
- 17:59:55 [Zakim]
- +Elisa_Kendall
- 18:00:11 [Rinke]
- Rinke has joined #owl
- 18:02:21 [m_schnei]
- m_schnei has joined #owl
- 18:06:58 [msmith]
- scribenick: JLUCIANO
- 18:07:07 [zhe]
- zhe has joined #owl
- 18:07:07 [bmotik]
- bmotik has joined #owl
- 18:07:11 [cgi-irc]
- cgi-irc has joined #owl
- 18:08:00 [Zakim]
- -Meeting_Room
- 18:08:07 [Zakim]
- -Elisa_Kendall
- 18:08:08 [Zakim]
- Team_(owl)13:09Z has ended
- 18:08:11 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Elisa_Kendall, Meeting_Room
- 18:08:30 [JLUCIANO]
- jjc: discussing tech issues seems a good approach,
- 18:08:59 [JLUCIANO]
- alan: round-tripping with RDF winds up with same set of modules
- 18:09:24 [JLUCIANO]
- jjc: add one or two sentences to current doc. if it turns out to be a bug then we fix it.
- 18:09:45 [Zakim]
- Team_(owl)13:09Z has now started
- 18:09:52 [Zakim]
- +Elisa_Kendall
- 18:09:56 [Achille]
- Achille has joined #owl
- 18:10:16 [JLUCIANO]
- PROPOSE to close issue 100 as resolved by adding round tripping text to the mapping document
- 18:10:21 [sandro]
- PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-100 as resolved by adding roundtripping text to the RDF Mapping document.
- 18:10:35 [dlm]
- dlm has joined #owl
- 18:10:35 [sandro]
- +1
- 18:10:36 [jjc]
- jeremy proposed
- 18:10:36 [Achille]
- +1
- 18:10:37 [bmotik]
- +1
- 18:10:38 [Rinke]
- +1
- 18:10:40 [baojie]
- +1
- 18:10:49 [IanH_]
- +1
- 18:10:49 [sandro]
- PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-100 as resolved by adding roundtripping text to the RDF Mapping document.
- 18:10:51 [pfps]
- +1
- 18:10:56 [bijan]
- +1
- 18:10:57 [MarkusK]
- +1
- 18:11:04 [JLUCIANO]
- +1
- 18:11:07 [sandro]
- Zakim, who is on the call?
- 18:11:07 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Elisa_Kendall
- 18:11:07 [bcuencagrau]
- bcuencagrau has joined #owl
- 18:11:11 [Elisa]
- +1
- 18:11:13 [alanr]
- alanr has joined #owl
- 18:11:18 [dlm]
- waiting for reposting of proposal
- 18:11:27 [uli__]
- ?
- 18:11:32 [sandro]
- PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-100 as resolved by adding roundtripping text to the RDF Mapping document.
- 18:11:39 [dlm]
- +1 dlm (RPI)
- 18:11:41 [bmotik]
- +1
- 18:11:42 [alanr]
- +1 (science commons)
- 18:11:44 [bcuencagrau]
- +1
- 18:11:46 [Zhe]
- Zhe has joined #owl
- 18:11:54 [JLUCIANO]
- +9 (MITRE)
- 18:12:01 [Zhe]
- +1
- 18:12:03 [JLUCIANO]
- OOPS! +1 (MITRE)
- 18:12:09 [IanH_]
- +1
- 18:12:13 [msmith]
- +1
- 18:12:21 [Zakim]
- +Sandro
- 18:12:30 [ekw]
- +1
- 18:12:32 [uli__]
- +1 (Manchester)
- 18:12:55 [pfps]
- RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-100 as resolved by adding roundtripping text to the RDF Mapping document.
- 18:12:56 [sandro]
- zakim, dial owlf2f
- 18:12:56 [Zakim]
- ok, sandro; the call is being made
- 18:12:58 [Zakim]
- +Owlf2f
- 18:13:21 [uli]
- uli has joined #owl
- 18:14:02 [JLUCIANO]
- Language Name
- 18:14:19 [JLUCIANO]
- PROPOSED: by Alan Call our product OWL 1.1
- 18:14:24 [kendall]
- and in press releases :)
- 18:14:32 [JLUCIANO]
- SECOND: Bijan
- 18:15:49 [Zakim]
- -Owlf2f
- 18:15:53 [kendall]
- there's some marketing appeal to "OWL 2.0", fwiw
- 18:16:02 [Zakim]
- -Sandro
- 18:16:10 [JLUCIANO]
- jjc: from some previous WWC doc, a point release should be minor shift, this seems more like a major shift and suggests OWL 2.0
- 18:16:17 [sandro]
- Elisa, I'm baffled. :-/
- 18:16:18 [dlm]
- bijan is stating your point elisa - do you want to speak?
- 18:16:56 [JLUCIANO]
- Bijan: Elisa suggests 2.0 because changes in structuarl syntax affects the UML form that perspective
- 18:17:00 [Elisa]
- I think we should seriously consider "2.0", given the change in functional syntax.
- 18:17:05 [JLUCIANO]
- Evan: agrees from tha tperspective
- 18:18:06 [JLUCIANO]
- Sandro: Concern about backwards compability that may not hold for 2.0
- 18:18:22 [bcuencag]
- bcuencag has joined #owl
- 18:19:04 [sandro]
- zakim, what is the code?
- 18:19:04 [Zakim]
- the conference code is 26632 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), sandro
- 18:19:22 [JLUCIANO]
- Michael: personal feeling - most docs start with OWL 1.1, few but useful features
- 18:20:31 [Elisa]
- Unless we simplify the functional/structural syntax/BNF to be closer to OWL 1.0, though, we at OMG would disagree with that position
- 18:20:38 [JLUCIANO]
- Achille: Not much opinion on Name, IBM doesn't care, but concerned that will adding more will delay and prolong the process
- 18:20:55 [JLUCIANO]
- Michael: no new stuff, what we have now is a big change
- 18:21:53 [JLUCIANO]
- Zhe: From Oracle, Oracle produces database, OWL 2.0 form marketing pt of view implies new features and supports it
- 18:22:37 [Zakim]
- +??P14
- 18:22:37 [JLUCIANO]
- Bijan: Keeping OMG in mind, regardless of naming issues, the fact that we're changing it from their perspective we need to listen and understand more
- 18:22:52 [sandro]
- Zakim, ??P14 is Meeting_Room
- 18:22:52 [Zakim]
- +Meeting_Room; got it
- 18:23:28 [JLUCIANO]
- Bijan: Stability vs change, refers back to previous discussion about small vs big changes, and perceptions
- 18:23:57 [JLUCIANO]
- Bijan: not a big change
- 18:24:35 [jie]
- jie has joined #owl
- 18:24:38 [JLUCIANO]
- Evran: from tool dev perspective, this doesn't feel like a big change. Pellet version change was just called 1.4 which included many other changes.
- 18:25:17 [JLUCIANO]
- Sandro: what would clinch this decision are there other major changes in mind for the future?
- 18:25:50 [JLUCIANO]
- Bijan: Had sorted by his thoughts about the size of change, suggests going back and looking at what he thought then
- 18:26:20 [sandro]
- Jeremy: owl1.1 changes api, so that's big
- 18:26:54 [JLUCIANO]
- Alan: Agrees that changes API is big, though he's not done that
- 18:26:58 [sandro]
- alan: owl api change means I have to change my code.
- 18:28:01 [bcuencag2]
- bcuencag2 has joined #owl
- 18:28:22 [bmotik]
- I've implemented the resolution of ISSUE-100 and have added a note about this to the issue. Here is the diff: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Mapping_to_RDF_Graphs&diff=5317&oldid=5315
- 18:28:42 [JLUCIANO]
- Matt Horridge: re: OWL API were needed anyway, i.e. for OWL 1.1 and could have put them in previous version
- 18:28:51 [sandro]
- sandro: How could we ever have industry consensus on "breaking OWL" ?
- 18:29:14 [alanr]
- An example of a non-backward compatible change to OWL that we might want to have is hilog semantics
- 18:29:17 [JLUCIANO]
- last coment from Horridge --correction, were needed for OWL 1.0 not 1.1
- 18:29:24 [sandro]
- Kendall: This is a marketing decision. Don't make it for technical reasons.
- 18:30:01 [JLUCIANO]
- Michael: Can we try to compare with other W3C standards?
- 18:30:06 [alanr]
- +1 to Kendall
- 18:30:24 [kendall]
- Kendall: well, don't make it primarily on technical grounds, anyway. :>
- 18:30:32 [JLUCIANO]
- Bijan: we have different opinions of what's huge
- 18:30:58 [JLUCIANO]
- jjc: owl 11 would call possible more typos than 12
- 18:31:17 [alanr]
- s
- 18:31:20 [JLUCIANO]
- Carsten: can we draw on history
- 18:31:23 [alanr]
- s/12/20/
- 18:31:31 [JLUCIANO]
- Carsten: tends to think of this as 2.0
- 18:31:43 [sandro]
- sandro: lot of 2.0 and 1.1 type of standards at W3C.
- 18:31:57 [kendall]
- +1 to jeremy's point about "1.1" and "2.0" and which is easier to type, scan, read
- 18:32:06 [kendall]
- that's actually the core of a marketing point, IMO
- 18:32:39 [JLUCIANO]
- Rinke: bulk of people are those who download protege - doesn't matter to them // 2.0 might be a big disappointment because they've been waiting for these features for years
- 18:32:43 [sandro]
- Rinke: people might be disappointed if they are expecting a big "2.0".
- 18:33:06 [m_schnei]
- what about 1.5 (firefox, thunderbird) ;-)
- 18:33:09 [ekw]
- ekw has joined #owl
- 18:33:09 [JLUCIANO]
- Bernardo: continues speculating
- 18:33:26 [kendall]
- bernardo: epic fail! :)
- 18:33:44 [JLUCIANO]
- difference in opinion about speculation of user's response
- 18:34:05 [JLUCIANO]
- 8 people 1.1
- 18:34:15 [Elisa]
- +1 for 2.0 (or at least 1.5)
- 18:34:49 [JLUCIANO]
- votes for name 2.0 number is 6
- 18:35:13 [JLUCIANO]
- bijan: thinks 1.5 seems interesting
- 18:35:42 [JLUCIANO]
- Kendall: suggests as compromise 1.55
- 18:35:51 [kendall]
- as a joke
- 18:35:52 [kendall]
- :)
- 18:35:58 [Elisa]
- I would object to 1.1 ...
- 18:36:24 [JLUCIANO]
- who would object strongly as 1.1 --> 1
- 18:37:01 [Elisa]
- I can live with 1.5
- 18:37:43 [JLUCIANO]
- Bijan: pitch for 1.5, Elisa stated, reduce typo, indicated smaller change than 2.0, but larger than 1.5
- 18:37:55 [JLUCIANO]
- Sandro: counter argumen - unprecedented - confusing
- 18:38:06 [JLUCIANO]
- Markus: owl 1l.1 has been around, would confuse?
- 18:38:11 [JLUCIANO]
- Ian: same goes for 2.0
- 18:38:23 [JLUCIANO]
- Uli: for user we called it 1.1
- 18:38:51 [JLUCIANO]
- jjc: would need to consult with colleagues
- 18:39:02 [m_schnei]
- I think ms dos started with 3.11 or something like this :)
- 18:39:12 [JLUCIANO]
- Peter: if Elisa is objecting on OMG, Peter is objecting to her objection
- 18:39:33 [JLUCIANO]
- votes for 1.5 approx 4
- 18:39:58 [JLUCIANO]
- against 1.5 approx same
- 18:41:03 [Elisa]
- no, the reason is that there is significant change in the functional syntax / api
- 18:41:38 [JLUCIANO]
- jjc would vote for with OMG reason
- 18:41:53 [JLUCIANO]
- Sandro: we are using 1.1 now, can postpone
- 18:42:08 [JLUCIANO]
- Ian, Alanr: don't want to put decision off
- 18:42:11 [m_schnei]
- 2-\epsilon with \epsilon \in [0,0.9]
- 18:42:41 [sandro]
- PROPOSED: The name is "OWL 2"
- 18:43:16 [Elisa]
- +1 for OWL 2
- 18:43:18 [sandro]
- PROPOSED: The name is "OWL 2" (ISSUE-51)
- 18:43:25 [bmotik]
- +1
- 18:43:27 [MarkusK]
- +1 for OWL 2
- 18:43:31 [jie]
- +1
- 18:44:02 [sandro]
- +1
- 18:44:33 [Elisa]
- I prefer 2
- 18:44:36 [JLUCIANO]
- 11 votes for 2, one vote for 2.0
- 18:45:03 [JLUCIANO]
- deborah: has to go, but doesn't care
- 18:45:08 [uli]
- +1
- 18:45:25 [bijan]
- +1
- 18:45:25 [alanr]
- +1 for OWL 2
- 18:45:25 [Elisa]
- +1 for OWL 2
- 18:45:25 [pfps]
- +0 to OWL 2
- 18:45:25 [m_schnei]
- +1
- 18:45:25 [jjc]
- +1
- 18:45:25 [alanr]
- = -1 for OWL 3
- 18:45:26 [sandro]
- PROPOSED: Resolve ISSUE-51 by saying the name is "OWL 2"
- 18:45:30 [sandro]
- +1
- 18:45:54 [ekw]
- +1 for OWL 2
- 18:45:54 [IanH_]
- 0 (Oxford)
- 18:45:54 [Zhe]
- +0.5 (Oracle)
- 18:45:54 [msmith]
- +1 for OWL 2 (C&P)
- 18:45:56 [JLUCIANO]
- 0 (MITRE)
- 18:46:17 [Rinke]
- +0.5 (Amsterdam)
- 18:46:17 [bcuencag2]
- 0
- 18:46:17 [Elisa]
- +1 to resolution
- 18:46:17 [bijan]
- +1 for OWL 2
- 18:46:17 [sandro]
- Boris: implement before next release?
- 18:46:17 [sandro]
- Sandro: I think we can do it.
- 18:47:00 [sandro]
- RESOLVED: Resolve ISSUE-51 by saying the name is "OWL 2"
- 18:47:21 [sandro]
- Bijan: call the old one, "OWL", "OWL 1", or "OWL 1.0"
- 18:47:37 [sandro]
- "OWL 2 DL"
- 18:47:41 [m_schnei]
- "ancient OWL", "classic OWL", choose your favourite
- 18:47:49 [sandro]
- "OWL 1"
- 18:47:52 [sandro]
- Agreed: "OWL 1" and "OWL 2 DL"
- 18:47:58 [kendall]
- OWL Classic :)
- 18:48:25 [JLUCIANO]
- Boris: change name now, will take 15 mins
- 18:48:43 [Zakim]
- +Deb_McGuinness
- 18:49:06 [JLUCIANO]
- No object to change doc name now
- 18:49:14 [JLUCIANO]
- Boris: changed his doc
- 18:49:23 [JLUCIANO]
- Question about "short name"
- 18:49:55 [JLUCIANO]
- Sandro: cross-references will be painful if we don't change name now
- 18:50:20 [JLUCIANO]
- Bijan: do it when we re-publish /
- 18:50:29 [JLUCIANO]
- Ian: disagrees .... the sooner the better
- 18:51:16 [JLUCIANO]
- alan: objects because we didn't publish that we would be making this change
- 18:51:28 [JLUCIANO]
- Ian: difference between publishing and updating
- 18:52:08 [JLUCIANO]
- Sandro: software desitgned to be published all at once (a software issue). also, looks cumberson to reference "correctly"
- 18:52:35 [JLUCIANO]
- jjc: these issues may justify breaking the normal process rules
- 18:53:00 [JLUCIANO]
- jjc: state that they are being republished in order to substantiate the name change
- 18:53:08 [msmith]
- msmith has joined #owl
- 18:53:34 [JLUCIANO]
- jjc: can say we're not taking comments on these versions
- 18:53:59 [JLUCIANO]
- alan: objects to publish doc that is about to be republished (alan correct if i got wrong)
- 18:54:51 [JLUCIANO]
- Bijan: proposes making explict that it's same doc, only the name change and that subsequent will be the one to be reviewed
- 18:55:48 [JLUCIANO]
- boris: syntax is already done
- 18:56:49 [JLUCIANO]
- PROPOSED: REVERT, CHANGE, PUBLISH, REVERT BACK to roll back to last snap shot, change all 1.1 to 2, take new snapshot, status of doc is only name change
- 18:57:29 [sandro]
- PROPOSAL: Publish new versions of Syntax, Semantics, and Mapping-to-RDF with the ONLY change being the "1.1" -> "2" name change.
- 18:57:43 [Achille]
- Achille has joined #owl
- 18:57:43 [uli]
- +1
- 18:57:45 [alanr]
- +1
- 18:57:46 [MarkusK]
- +1
- 18:57:47 [jie]
- +1
- 18:57:47 [Rinke]
- +1
- 18:57:47 [Zhe]
- +1
- 18:57:47 [Achille]
- +1
- 18:57:48 [sandro]
- +1
- 18:57:53 [msmith]
- +1
- 18:58:00 [ekw]
- +1
- 18:58:01 [Elisa]
- +1
- 18:58:02 [bcuencag2]
- +1
- 18:58:28 [pfps]
- +1
- 18:58:33 [sandro]
- RESOLVED: Publish new versions of Syntax, Semantics, and Mapping-to-RDF with the ONLY change being the "1.1" -> "2" name change.
- 18:59:33 [jjc]
- BTW +1 for that resolution
- 18:59:42 [IanH]
- IanH has joined #owl
- 18:59:54 [alanr]
- Action: Sandro to manage the previous documents 1.1->2 change
- 18:59:54 [trackbot-ng]
- Created ACTION-128 - Manage the previous documents 1.1->2 change [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-04-10].
- 19:00:43 [sandro]
- (and I'll just do it on copies, so it wont even change the wiki history.)
- 19:01:09 [JLUCIANO]
- finished naming discussion
- 19:01:35 [thomassch]
- thomassch has joined #owl
- 19:01:44 [sandro]
- Jeremy: "OWL 2 Full"
- 19:01:54 [m_schnei_]
- m_schnei_ has joined #owl
- 19:04:22 [ekw_]
- ekw_ has joined #owl
- 19:05:20 [Rinke]
- Boris, perhaps we should not change the reference to the OWL 1.1 member submission to OWL 2
- 19:05:45 [ekw]
- Topic: OWL 2 Full Semantics Issues
- 19:05:49 [alanr]
- the submission was 1.1, so that shouldn't change, I think.
- 19:05:55 [kendall]
- +1
- 19:06:00 [jjc]
- jjc has joined #owl
- 19:06:11 [kendall]
- that's another reason for owl 2 being a good change; the submission is now distinct, 1.1, from the new standard
- 19:06:26 [alanr]
- yes - makes us feel like we've accomplished something ;-)
- 19:06:30 [kendall]
- that's a nice clarification for people not paying a lot of attention
- 19:06:37 [Rinke]
- +1 to accomplishment :)
- 19:06:45 [kendall]
- alanr: s/something/something good/ ;>
- 19:06:52 [alanr]
- :)
- 19:06:58 [ekw]
- Michael Schneider is presenting slides
- 19:07:31 [ekw]
- OWL Full overview slide
- 19:07:53 [jjc2]
- jjc2 has joined #owl
- 19:08:20 [jjc2]
- http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/FullSemantics
- 19:09:11 [ekw]
- Ian: It is true that every RDF graph is syntactically valid input to OWL Full and every RDF graph is sematically interpreted
- 19:09:11 [sandro]
- scribenick: ekw
- 19:09:30 [ekw]
- But: That doesn't mean that the interpretation is sensible
- 19:09:43 [ekw]
- OWL Full and OWL DL slide
- 19:11:42 [ekw]
- MSch: a class itself is itself an individual in the domain
- 19:12:13 [ekw]
- State of OWL 1.1 Full Development
- 19:12:23 [uli]
- uli has joined #owl
- 19:13:13 [ekw]
- MSch: for 1.1 the semantics for Full should be conservative extension to OWL 1 Full semantics
- 19:13:42 [ekw]
- MSch: Every DL entailment should also be a Full entailment in 1.1
- 19:14:03 [Zakim]
- -Deb_McGuinness
- 19:14:35 [jbao]
- jbao has joined #owl
- 19:15:11 [ekw]
- Sandrow: is it also true everything that is not entailed in Full should be not entailed in DL
- 19:15:52 [Rinke]
- s/Sandrow/Sandro
- 19:16:56 [ekw]
- Msch: see http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Full for current state of OWL 1.1 semantics proposal
- 19:17:33 [ekw]
- MSch: about 1/2 the language features in this are ready for review
- 19:17:40 [jjc2]
- http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/FullIssues
- 19:17:52 [ekw]
- Slide: Issues with OWL DL Compatibility
- 19:18:51 [JLUCIANO]
- JLUCIANO has joined #owl
- 19:18:52 [ekw]
- MSch: OWL Full has infinite universe. This is simply shown
- 19:20:27 [ekw]
- MSch: OWL Full always has entailments not existing in OWL DL
- 19:21:05 [sandro]
- Peter: hope was: IF premise AND conclusion were BOTH in DL, THEN they would be equally strong.
- 19:21:59 [ekw]
- MSch: Have a feeling that OWL DL might have entailments not existing in OWL Full
- 19:23:27 [jjc2]
- http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2007/HPL-2007-146.pdf
- 19:24:52 [ekw]
- JJC: Dave Turner did a study of the semantics of OWL 1.0 which the ref'd doc discusses
- 19:25:23 [jjc2]
- verified the theorem from OWL 1.0 semantics doc
- 19:25:28 [jjc2]
- with minor errata
- 19:25:36 [ekw]
- Slide: Issues with OWL 1.0 Full
- 19:26:48 [ekw]
- MSch: Found bugs in semantics
- 19:27:19 [ekw]
- Bug in sem for boolean axioms lead to OWL Full inconsistency
- 19:27:25 [bmotik]
- I've just updated all the documents from 1.1 to 2. I've also changed owl11 -> owl2 owl11-xml -> owl2-xml. Finally, I've changed all references for OWL 1.0 to OWL 1.
- 19:28:08 [ekw]
- MSch: I will be writing this up in the Wiki page referenced earlier
- 19:28:55 [ekw]
- MSch: Fixing this bug will lead to incompatibility with 1.0
- 19:29:27 [ekw]
- MSch: RDFS has a collection of so called axiomatic conditions
- 19:31:05 [ekw]
- MSch: PD* assumes certain of these semantic conditions that were not actually imposed on OWL Full
- 19:31:58 [ekw]
- Slide: Issues with OWL 1.1 Full
- 19:32:32 [ekw]
- MSch: Mapping for QCRs have a problem (which Peter has noted)
- 19:32:53 [ekw]
- MSch: Every QCR will also be a normal CR in Full
- 19:33:26 [ekw]
- Relevance: Essentially QCRs unusable in Full because of this
- 19:33:43 [ekw]
- PFPS: All different is actually OK
- 19:35:21 [jjc]
- jjc has joined #owl
- 19:35:24 [ekw_]
- ekw_ has joined #owl
- 19:35:42 [ekw]
- test
- 19:36:08 [Carsten]
- Carsten has joined #owl
- 19:36:48 [msmith]
- msmith has joined #owl
- 19:37:00 [MarkusK]
- MarkusK has joined #owl
- 19:37:02 [pfps]
- pfps has joined #owl
- 19:37:36 [alanr]
- alanr has joined #owl
- 19:37:48 [jbao]
- jbao has joined #owl
- 19:37:58 [sandro]
- sandro has joined #owl
- 19:38:09 [bijan]
- bijan has joined #owl
- 19:38:20 [IanH]
- IanH has joined #owl
- 19:38:43 [Rinke]
- Rinke has joined #owl
- 19:39:06 [sandro]
- jjc: with owl 1 , the self-restriction on type (the PS paradox) is well known.... What is new in OWL 2 here?
- 19:39:24 [sandro]
- m_schnei: Comprehension Principals ... something
- 19:39:39 [sandro]
- Bijan: the comprension princpals entail a contradiction
- 19:40:09 [sandro]
- Boris: for all x r(x,x)
- 19:41:12 [sandro]
- Ian: We've never proven that OWL Full is consistent, so adding stuff isn't likely to help us prove that!
- 19:43:09 [ekw]
- ekw has joined #owl
- 19:46:35 [thomassch]
- thomassch has joined #owl
- 19:51:12 [evrensirin]
- evrensirin has joined #owl
- 20:04:30 [jjc]
- jjc has joined #owl
- 20:07:52 [jbao]
- jbao has joined #owl
- 20:08:24 [jbao]
- jbao has joined #owl
- 20:17:36 [uli]
- uli has joined #owl
- 20:20:02 [jjc]
- jjc has joined #owl
- 20:21:57 [Zhe]
- Zhe has joined #owl
- 20:21:58 [ekw]
- test
- 20:22:15 [alanr]
- h
- 20:22:36 [sandro]
- scribenick: bijan
- 20:23:00 [bmotik]
- bmotik has joined #owl
- 20:23:10 [bmotik]
- scribenick bmotik
- 20:23:17 [sandro]
- scribenick: bmotik
- 20:24:05 [bmotik]
- alanr: ISSUE-69: punning is incompatible with OWL Full
- 20:24:46 [Zakim]
- -Meeting_Room
- 20:24:54 [bmotik]
- alanr: The main problem is with equivalence: if A sameas B, then A equivalent B in OWL Full but not in OWL DL
- 20:25:32 [bmotik]
- alanr: What to do with these entailments?
- 20:25:54 [bmotik]
- bijan & alanr: We could say that this is not a ligal OWL DL entailment
- 20:26:12 [pfps]
- zakim, who is on the phone?
- 20:26:12 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Elisa_Kendall
- 20:26:21 [bmotik]
- alanr: When we talk about semantic subsets, we talked about the status of the missing entailments
- 20:26:36 [bmotik]
- alanr: There is a parallel with the fragments/profiles
- 20:26:48 [bmotik]
- alanr: We should decide in general what our position is on such situations
- 20:27:23 [bmotik]
- bijan: We should not have any additional entailments
- 20:27:34 [Zakim]
- +??P0
- 20:27:51 [pfps]
- zakim, ??p0 is meeting room
- 20:27:51 [Zakim]
- I don't understand '??p0 is meeting room', pfps
- 20:28:02 [sandro]
- Sandro: This sounds like a "loose" vs "strict" mode on a reasoner.
- 20:28:03 [pfps]
- zakim, ??p0 is meetingRoom
- 20:28:03 [Zakim]
- +meetingRoom; got it
- 20:28:09 [bmotik]
- jjc: We always think in terms of reasoner behavior
- 20:28:18 [bmotik]
- jjc: W3C talks about documents
- 20:28:32 [baojie]
- baojie has joined #owl
- 20:29:19 [bmotik]
- bijan: In OWL DL reasoning you care about the missing entailmens
- 20:29:41 [bmotik]
- bijan: In OWL DL you care about "no" answers -- for example, when classifying an ontology
- 20:30:32 [bmotik]
- alanr: Two points: (1) the analogy to DL-safe rules is not a good analogy because they require a new syntax, (2) Sandro brings up another option: we have always two modes
- 20:31:42 [sandro]
- Sandro: yes, Jeremy, but the meaning of an OWL document found on the web is NOT specified in the case where there is a difference between OWL DL and OWL Full.
- 20:32:33 [bmotik]
- sandro: This WG does not flag documents as being DL and Full; hence, we are not really specifying the meaning of documents
- 20:33:36 [bmotik]
- bijan: jjc does not like punning because from the syntax we don't know which type of reasoning to use for a given ontology
- 20:33:39 [sandro]
- modulo the differences between DL and Full.
- 20:36:26 [bmotik]
- bmotik: We might have an ontology property that would say which semantics it requires
- 20:37:05 [bmotik]
- alanr: We have OWL Full, OWL DL, OWL-R; we should make a parallel between all these situations
- 20:37:15 [bmotik]
- jjc: Agrees with alanr
- 20:38:25 [bmotik]
- ianh: Clarifies that there is a problem with nonentailments in all these (sub)languages
- 20:38:43 [bmotik]
- ianh: Is providing additional entailments optional or an error?
- 20:39:33 [bmotik]
- peter: Does not aregree with this analogy
- 20:39:41 [bmotik]
- sandro: Does agree with the analogy
- 20:40:35 [sandro]
- Sandro: It sounds like we should have unnamed languages, "DL+" and "OWL-R+", where the "+" can be turned off in "Strict" mode.
- 20:40:38 [bmotik]
- bijan: Some people might not implement nominals, but missing entailments for nominals is an error
- 20:41:53 [bmotik]
- peter: If you are not in OWL DL mode, you have to say you're not in the OWL DL mode
- 20:41:59 [sandro]
- JJC: if you make a DL reasoner or a OWL-R reasoner, you must have a "strict" mode.
- 20:42:06 [bmotik]
- peter: How far does the + go?
- 20:42:14 [bmotik]
- peter: Can you go above OWL Full?
- 20:42:25 [sandro]
- Peter: How far does the "+" go? All the way to Full, and beyond to collapse?
- 20:42:25 [bmotik]
- bijan: Yes, you should be able to go above OWL Full.
- 20:42:59 [bmotik]
- jjc: If I introduce additional vocabulary and give it semantics, I see nothing wrong with allowing my reasoner to provide additional entailments
- 20:43:22 [bmotik]
- bijan: We should not have a strict or nonstrict mode
- 20:43:37 [bmotik]
- bijan: If people want to extend their tools, they are free to do so.
- 20:43:48 [bmotik]
- bijan: Such extensions might fail the test suite, but who cares.
- 20:43:50 [sandro]
- Sandro: If you add "+" stuff, then you fail the test suite.
- 20:43:55 [sandro]
- Bijan: yeah, so what?
- 20:44:22 [bmotik]
- ianh: Of course we can't stop implementors from implementing extensions
- 20:44:58 [bmotik]
- ianh: In question is whether there should be a defined +
- 20:45:25 [bmotik]
- ianh: Such + would have OWL Full as its top
- 20:45:27 [sandro]
- alan: implicit is OWL-DL+ == OWL-Fill
- 20:45:32 [sandro]
- s/Fill/Full/
- 20:45:43 [bmotik]
- joanne: My first interpretation of + is any addition that someone might want to put on
- 20:45:58 [bmotik]
- joanne: We should specify what we specify and not overlegislate
- 20:46:15 [bmotik]
- alanr: Legislation means that we specify exactly what entailments we should specify
- 20:46:25 [bmotik]
- analr: This is a minimum
- 20:47:17 [bmotik]
- alanr: Question to Zhe: are you comfortable about specifying OWL-R Full as "this is precisely the set of entailments that your reasoner should make"?
- 20:47:42 [bmotik]
- Zhe: A strict mode is a good thing (it enhances compatibility)
- 20:47:49 [bmotik]
- Zhe: Oracle has user-defined rule support
- 20:47:58 [bmotik]
- Zhe: People might want to define uncles
- 20:48:30 [bmotik]
- Zhe: Oracle wants to support the OWL-R subset in a strict mode, but it also wants to have the ability to extend this
- 20:48:44 [bmotik]
- alanr: So a strict mode seems like a good idea
- 20:49:09 [bmotik]
- ianh: I don't even thing it is necessary to say "you can do more"?
- 20:49:31 [bmotik]
- ianh: If people want to do more, there is no way for us to prevent them from doing this
- 20:49:43 [bcuencag2]
- bcuencag2 has joined #owl
- 20:50:04 [bmotik]
- sanrdo: But there is the test suite that says to the people what they can't do
- 20:51:54 [bmotik]
- boris: We might split the test suite into the positive and the negative part
- 20:52:09 [bmotik]
- boris: If people do additional stuff, they can then say what negative part they violated
- 20:52:58 [bmotik]
- bijan: Vendors might distinguish the strict and "sensible" entailments
- 20:54:46 [bmotik]
- jjc: Whatever we decide, the DL tools will do what they want to do
- 20:55:06 [bmotik]
- jjc: Punning between classes and individuals is a "lost cause"
- 20:55:37 [bmotik]
- jjc: OWL-Full vendors will say whatever they wanted to do (sameAs implies equivalence)
- 20:55:55 [bmotik]
- jjc: This issue seems not worth discussing, because it will not make the difference to the world
- 20:56:34 [bmotik]
- achille: The reailty is that people will implement more and they will go beyond the strict mode
- 20:57:04 [bmotik]
- ianh: I agree with Jeremy, but isn't that the argument to white the spec in exactly the way that the users want to do?
- 20:57:14 [bmotik]
- s/white/write
- 20:57:48 [bmotik]
- STRAWPOLL: We define our languages with an exact set of entailments
- 20:58:09 [sandro]
- PROPOSED: We define our languages as some set of entailments. DL does not have certain entailments. OWL-R does not have certain entailments. Vendors can implemented other/related languages if they want.
- 20:58:32 [bmotik]
- most people in favor, jjc has a problem with what the document means
- 20:59:29 [bmotik]
- peter: I would prefer the situation where we had different document types of all entailments
- 20:59:51 [bmotik]
- peter: The 10 working group did not allow us to have this
- 20:59:55 [bmotik]
- s/10/1.0
- 21:00:44 [bmotik]
- alanr: There is an uncertainty about what would happen in DL if sameAs should imply equivalence
- 21:01:07 [bmotik]
- alanr: We should defer such questions to future WGs
- 21:01:48 [bmotik]
- PROPOSED: Resolve ISSUE-69 by specifying OWL DL and OWL Full by an exact set of entailments
- 21:02:02 [sandro]
- PROPOSED: We define our languages as some set of entailments. DL does not have certain OWL Full entailments. OWL-R does not have certain OWL Full entailments. Vendors can implemented other/related languages if they want.
- 21:02:20 [zBijan]
- +1
- 21:02:29 [sandro]
- PROPOSED: Resolve ISSUE-69 saying that define our languages as some set of entailments. DL does not have certain OWL Full entailments. OWL-R does not have certain OWL Full entailments. Vendors can implemented other/related languages if they want.
- 21:02:46 [jjc]
- -epsilon (HP)
- 21:02:48 [msmith]
- +1 (C&P)
- 21:02:50 [Achille]
- Achille has joined #owl
- 21:02:59 [pfps]
- +1 to resolve issue 69
- 21:03:01 [bmotik]
- +1 (Oxford)
- 21:03:09 [zBijan]
- +1 (Manchester)
- 21:03:17 [sandro]
- -0
- 21:03:40 [Achille]
- +1 (IBM)
- 21:03:53 [IanH]
- PROPOSED: DL does not have certain OWL Full entailments. OWL-R does not have certain OWL Full entailments. Vendors can implement other/related languages if they want.
- 21:04:17 [bmotik]
- +1 (Oxford)
- 21:04:20 [zBijan]
- +1 (Manchester)
- 21:04:24 [Achille]
- +1 (IBM)
- 21:04:25 [alanr]
- +1 (Science Commons)
- 21:04:25 [ekw]
- +1 (NIST)
- 21:04:26 [Zhe]
- +1 (Oracle)
- 21:04:27 [baojie]
- 0
- 21:04:29 [pfps]
- +1 to the resolution
- 21:04:30 [jjc]
- -epsilon (HP)
- 21:04:31 [sandro]
- -0
- 21:04:31 [Rinke]
- +1 (Amsterdam)
- 21:04:40 [msmith]
- +1 (C&P)
- 21:04:40 [Elisa]
- +1
- 21:04:45 [MarkusK]
- +1 (FZI)
- 21:05:07 [bcuencag]
- bcuencag has joined #owl
- 21:05:19 [sandro]
- jjc states -epsilon as non-blocking
- 21:05:22 [bmotik]
- RESOLVED: DL does not have certain OWL Full entailments. OWL-R does not have certain OWL Full entailments. Vendors can implement other/related languages if they want.
- 21:05:53 [JLUCIANO]
- JLUCIANO has joined #owl
- 21:06:01 [bmotik]
- bijan: There is no way to indicate the semantic intent. We could introduce MIME types
- 21:06:35 [bmotik]
- alanr: Not on the agenta, bijan should raise an issue
- 21:06:49 [bmotik]
- alanr: ISSUE-12 is closed
- 21:07:22 [m_schnei]
- m_schnei has joined #owl
- 21:07:24 [bmotik]
- alanr: ISSUE-67, ISSUE-81: Reification issues
- 21:07:52 [bmotik]
- alanr: Jeremy split this into two cases: (1) the use of reification for annotations, and (2) the use of reification for negative property assertions
- 21:08:00 [bmotik]
- alanr: I'd like to split these two issues
- 21:08:54 [bmotik]
- alanr: ISSUE-81 is different from ISSUE-67 in the sente that annotations might not have semantics at all, so they would not affect the formal meaning of an ontology
- 21:09:12 [ekw_]
- ekw_ has joined #owl
- 21:09:29 [bmotik]
- alanr: Question to jeremy and m_schneider: could we say that ISSUE-67 is not a problem and focus on ISSUE-81
- 21:09:35 [ekw__]
- ekw__ has joined #owl
- 21:09:46 [bmotik]
- m_shneider: The use of reification is opposed by the community, so this is why I would not use it
- 21:10:22 [bmotik]
- m_schneider: Do we want to use RDF reification.
- 21:10:36 [thomassch]
- thomassch has joined #owl
- 21:10:37 [bmotik]
- m_schneider: It is not a technical or a semantic problem; this is a nicety issue
- 21:10:45 [bmotik]
- m_schneider: People just don't like reification
- 21:10:55 [sandro]
- +1 m_schnei it's a social problem to use RDF Reification here, even if not a technical problem.
- 21:11:36 [bmotik]
- bijan: There are lots of alternative encodings
- 21:11:52 [bmotik]
- bijan: Boris was in favor of reification because reification was designed for this purpose
- 21:13:39 [bmotik]
- boris: We need to encode more than binary predicates, so we'll need to reify them
- 21:13:56 [bmotik]
- boris: Reification is necessary and people are doing it already in general
- 21:14:46 [bmotik]
- m_schneider: I don't see some other opporunity for encoding negative assertions
- 21:15:14 [bmotik]
- alanr: Achille and Zhe, do you care about this?
- 21:15:18 [bmotik]
- Achille: I don't care
- 21:15:30 [bmotik]
- Zhe: People hate reification
- 21:15:45 [bmotik]
- Zhe: Reification requires joins so I'd like to avoid it
- 21:16:34 [bmotik]
- alanr: We could reolve this issue by saying "we can try something else"
- 21:16:54 [bmotik]
- jjc: We are then not resolving, but just postponing the issue
- 21:18:32 [bmotik]
- jjc: What is the problem with a complemented hasValue assertion?
- 21:18:55 [bmotik]
- bijan: This is bad because you can use negative assertions without nominals
- 21:19:12 [sandro]
- Bijan: I don't lilke the Compliment-Of approach to ISSUE-81. Using a nominal in that way hides the fact that you don't support nominals. I mean, ... I can encode a lot of things into more expressive logics!
- 21:19:16 [bmotik]
- bijan: Using a nominal for just a property assertion makes it difficult to say what it allowed in which fragment
- 21:19:20 [sandro]
- Uli: Yes, it would be difficult in the fragments.
- 21:19:39 [bmotik]
- s/it allowed/is allowed
- 21:20:55 [bmotik]
- m_schneider: Likes shadow vocabulary
- 21:21:06 [bmotik]
- jjc: Dislikes shadow vocabulary
- 21:22:31 [bmotik]
- alanr: Solving this technical problem in this room is likely not to work
- 21:22:53 [bmotik]
- alanr: I propose that we record that we don't like this issue and that we postpone the resolution until later
- 21:23:08 [m_schnei]
- bijan, we have simply *luck* that we have this totally different kind of encoding (actually a semantical circumscription) of neg prop assertions; but what about annotations?
- 21:23:33 [sandro]
- jjc: I would vote -0 on the reification vocabulary.
- 21:23:34 [bmotik]
- bijan: Have we learnt that people really dislike reification?
- 21:23:57 [bmotik]
- jjc and sandro: Would vote -0 on using reification
- 21:24:37 [sandro]
- ACTION: Bijan to come up with proposals for ISSUE-67 and ISSUE-81.
- 21:24:37 [trackbot-ng]
- Created ACTION-129 - Come up with proposals for ISSUE-67 and ISSUE-81. [on Bijan Parsia - due 2008-04-10].
- 21:25:08 [bmotik]
- jjc: HP has discovered that special support for reification is costly and we'll drop it in future
- 21:25:10 [sandro]
- SCRIBE CORRECTION -- I said I might have to vote "-1" on this -- I need to check.
- 21:25:37 [bmotik]
- alanr: ISSUE-90, ISSUE-91: Related to backwards compatibility
- 21:25:43 [sandro]
- (where "this" == use of RDF Reification in OWL)
- 21:26:12 [sandro]
- (no problem, bmotik, it happens! :-)
- 21:27:02 [bmotik]
- m_schneider: I have a proposal for addressing this
- 21:27:16 [bmotik]
- m_schneider: I propose to have deprecations as semantic-free annotations
- 21:27:28 [bmotik]
- m_schneider: I propose to keep OWL-Full as is
- 21:27:39 [bmotik]
- m_schneider: Do not deprecate Deprecation
- 21:27:59 [bmotik]
- peter: Let me say what Michael's proposal should me
- 21:28:25 [bmotik]
- peter: There should not be deprecated classes and properties in OWL 2 DL
- 21:28:58 [bmotik]
- peter: owl:DeprecatedClass and owl:DeprecatedProperty should be the same as owl:Class and owl:Property
- 21:29:47 [bmotik]
- m_schneider: In OWL 1 DL, the following was the case:
- 21:30:18 [bmotik]
- m_schneider: There were OWL 1 DL deprecated classes and properties
- 21:30:40 [bmotik]
- m_schneider: There was a special "deprecated" flag in the abstract syntax
- 21:30:57 [bmotik]
- m_schneider: There was a special trick for handing the "deprecated" flag in the AS
- 21:31:15 [bmotik]
- m_schneider: This flag was handled in the semantics using an artificial rdf:type property
- 21:31:21 [bmotik]
- m_schneider: This was confusing
- 21:32:00 [bmotik]
- m_schneider: From the semantic point of view: there no mapping of an rdf:type property from OWL/RDF into AS
- 21:32:23 [jjc]
- SCRIBE CORRECTION: I said "we'll probably drop it"
- 21:32:24 [bmotik]
- m_schneider: In OWL 1, annotations do have a semantics, so all this mattered
- 21:33:54 [bmotik]
- peter: This was done in order to turn a one-place thing into a two-place thing
- 21:36:05 [bmotik]
- m_schneider: My proposal is to map owl:DeprecatedClass and owl:DeprecatedProperty into annotations in the structural spec
- 21:36:34 [bmotik]
- ianh: Do you care about round-tripping RDF -> FS -> RDF?
- 21:39:11 [sandro]
- STRAWPOLL: Is it okay to read in an OWL 1 ontology (with deprecated classes) into an OWL 2 system -- then you write it out again, is it still OWL 1
- 21:39:16 [bmotik]
- ianh: You take an OWL 1 ontology with deprecated classes, you read it into an OWL 2 system, you write it out. Do we care about whether the deprecated triples are the same?
- 21:40:32 [bmotik]
- m_schneider objects to this
- 21:40:39 [sandro]
- JJC: It only costs two mapping rules to preserve this. If this is the only time we violate the round tripping (1->2->1) goal, then I'm for including the ugly hack mapping rules.
- 21:40:52 [bmotik]
- m_schneider: If we have an RDF graph with some deprecation statements.
- 21:41:05 [bmotik]
- m_schneider: I put such an ontology into an OWL Full reasoner
- 21:41:09 [JLUCIANO_]
- JLUCIANO_ has joined #owl
- 21:41:21 [bmotik]
- m_schneider: I put it into an OWL DL system, and serialize it again
- 21:41:34 [bmotik]
- m_schneider: What ia get in the end is something that is quite different from what I started with
- 21:41:44 [bmotik]
- s/ia/I
- 21:41:56 [sandro]
- JJC: it's reasonable to do a sparql query for deprecated classes and assume if you don't get any that you don't have any deprecated classes.
- 21:42:43 [sandro]
- JJC: Because DeprecatedClass has only informal semantics, using sparql query is plausible.
- 21:42:43 [bmotik]
- bijan: What is the general cost of existing ontologies?
- 21:43:05 [bmotik]
- bijan: If this is a corner case in practice, this might not be worth investigating
- 21:43:30 [bmotik]
- achille: I agree with m_schneider that this might be a problem, but we might put the compatibility bar too high
- 21:43:59 [bmotik]
- achille: You can have the ability in your tool to preserve depecations
- 21:44:13 [bmotik]
- achille: I don't see the absolute need with perfect round-tripping
- 21:44:18 [sandro]
- achille: it could be a value-added feature that your OWL 2 tool can maintain OWL 1 ontologies, but we shouldn't mandate it.
- 21:44:41 [sandro]
- bmotik: I see the question as more: do we want to have deprecation?
- 21:45:08 [bmotik]
- rinke: The functional-syntax is suited for OWL DL
- 21:45:25 [bmotik]
- rinke: I cannot really imagine anyone loading an OWL Full ontology in an OWL DL tool
- 21:45:31 [bmotik]
- rinke: Deprecation is a tool issue
- 21:45:53 [bmotik]
- m_schneider: I create an OWL DL ontology with Protege
- 21:46:12 [bmotik]
- m_schneider: I want to use an OWL Full reasoner to get additional entailments
- 21:46:18 [bmotik]
- m_schneider: To me this is a valid use case
- 21:46:53 [bmotik]
- jjc: The issue is whether we want to have deprecation
- 21:47:04 [bmotik]
- alanr: I'm taking it as given that we are not getting rid of it
- 21:47:09 [bmotik]
- jjc: My point, alanr
- 21:47:31 [bmotik]
- jjc: There clearly is a use for deprecation
- 21:47:57 [bmotik]
- peter: I do not believe that the WG has made any decision about deprecating Deprecation
- 21:48:23 [bmotik]
- alanr: I don't think it would be a good decision to deprecate deprecations because this might give us problems
- 21:48:46 [bmotik]
- jjc: If we are not going to deprecate deprecations, then let's just do a bit of hackery to make it work
- 21:49:55 [bmotik]
- ACTION: bmotik2 to Propose a way to reintroduce annotations into the structural specification and to provide RDF mappings
- 21:49:55 [trackbot-ng]
- Created ACTION-130 - Propose a way to reintroduce annotations into the structural specification and to provide RDF mappings [on Boris Motik - due 2008-04-10].
- 21:50:07 [sandro]
- PROPOSED: Hack the RDF mapping and functional syntax as necessary to allow DeprecatedClass and DeprecatedProperty to work as in OWL 1
- 21:50:32 [m_schnei]
- ian, i don't understand what you mean by "roundtripping through OWL2 DL"?
- 21:50:48 [sandro]
- PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-90, resolved. We will hack the RDF mapping and functional syntax as necessary to allow DeprecatedClass and DeprecatedProperty to work as in OWL 1
- 21:51:04 [sandro]
- RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-90, resolved. We will hack the RDF mapping and functional syntax as necessary to allow DeprecatedClass and DeprecatedProperty to work as in OWL 1
- 21:51:11 [bmotik]
- No objectors, resolved unanimously
- 21:51:30 [bmotik]
- alanr: ISSUE-91: Spec lacks ontology properties
- 21:53:48 [sandro]
- JJC: I would be happy with a NOTE saying These are only intended to be used on ontologies.
- 21:53:55 [bmotik]
- jjc: Add a note that these ontology properties should be used only on ontologies
- 21:56:26 [sandro]
- NOT-PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-91, with text saying not to do this (ontology properties should only be used to relate ontologies -- if you go against our advice, you're on your own.
- 21:57:49 [JLUCIANO_]
- JLUCIANO_ has joined #owl
- 21:57:51 [m_schnei]
- why not introducing OntologyAnnotationProperties? ;-)
- 21:57:51 [sandro]
- PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-91, with text saying not to do this (ontology properties should only be used to relate ontologies -- if you go against our advice, you're on your own.
- 21:57:55 [bmotik]
- PROPOSED: Reolsve ISSUE-91 by adding a note in the structural spec by saying that ontology properties should not be used elsewhere as annotations
- 21:58:17 [sandro]
- Ian: there are no entailments in DL. In Full, you may get weird entailments if you violate these rules.
- 21:58:30 [sandro]
- RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-91, with text saying not to do this (ontology properties should only be used to relate ontologies -- if you go against our advice, you're on your own.
- 21:58:48 [sandro]
- ADJOURN
- 21:59:12 [baojie]
- baojie has left #owl
- 21:59:26 [m_schnei]
- exit
- 22:00:13 [Zakim]
- -Elisa_Kendall
- 22:00:13 [sandro]
- Zakim, drop Meeting_Room
- 22:00:15 [Zakim]
- sorry, sandro, I do not see a party named 'Meeting_Room'
- 22:02:04 [bmotik]
- Resolution of ISSUE-91: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Syntax&diff=5375&oldid=5331
- 22:02:28 [Zakim]
- -meetingRoom
- 22:02:30 [Zakim]
- Team_(owl)13:09Z has ended
- 22:02:31 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Elisa_Kendall, Sandro, Owlf2f, Meeting_Room, Deb_McGuinness, meetingRoom
- 22:05:52 [uli]
- uli has joined #owl
- 22:09:58 [Carsten]
- Carsten has joined #owl
- 22:13:22 [jjc2]
- jjc2 has joined #owl
- 22:30:14 [thomassch]
- thomassch has left #owl
- 22:32:19 [uli]
- uli has joined #owl
- 22:33:26 [uli]
- uli has joined #owl
- 22:38:32 [alanr]
- alanr has joined #owl
- 22:42:19 [zBijan]
- zBijan has joined #owl
- 22:43:46 [alanr_]
- alanr_ has joined #owl
- 22:45:04 [alanr]
- alanr has joined #owl
- 22:48:50 [msmith]
- msmith has left #owl
- 23:32:23 [alanr]
- alanr has joined #owl