W3C WebOnt Working Group IRC logs for 2003-01-10

These are automatically generated logs from the W3C WebOnt Working Group IRC chat

thanks, Dave Beckett

You are here: Logs Home / 2003-01-10

Latest logs

[09:03:12] GuusS

GuusS has joined #webont

[09:04:52] mdean

mdean has joined #webont

[09:18:14] seanb

seanb has joined #webont

[09:18:24] pfps

pfps has joined #webont

[09:20:33] pfps

0900: Plenary: Discussion led by Connolly on details of

[09:20:43] pfps

1. Needs for LC (and how long to keep it open)

[09:20:54] pfps

2. Needs to move from LC to PR (skipping CR)

[09:21:03] pfps

expected outcome - Resolutions to move to LC by <date> for

[09:21:12] pfps

<period> for each document

[09:23:10] pfps

Art of Consensus Guide is main document for WG

[09:23:39] pfps

danc - What is Last Call?

[09:24:19] pfps

danc - During Last Call all comments (sent to comments) need to be handled

[09:25:07] pfps

danc - Actually only substantive comments

[09:26:04] pfps

danc - XML did a very good job - they built an HTML table (.../XML/2002/12/LC-xml-names11-doc)

[09:26:09] JosD

JosD has joined #webont

[09:27:32] pfps

danc - every comment should result in a message back indicating what will/has been done

[09:29:20] pfps

jim - we will try to put in a line for each message

[09:30:33] pfps

danc - failure modes - 1/ too many comments - 2/ too few comments -

[09:30:46] pfps

danc- handle failure 2 by getting previous reviewers to say OK

[09:31:34] pfps

danc - discharging dependencies - need comments from groups listed in charter - we have four

[09:32:59] pfps

danc - also need comments from other groups - dan has list

[09:34:34] pfps

danc - going into last call means that we think we are done

[09:34:48] pfps

danc - going out of last call means that the world thinks we are done

[09:35:13] pfps

danc - then we can go to candidate recommendation

[09:35:53] pfps

danc - jumping to proposed recommendation requires implementation experience (i.e., 2 full implementations)

[09:36:25] pfps

danc - there are other possibilities - depending on role of spec

[09:36:53] pfps

jim - what do we do - create a document?

[09:37:48] pfps

danc - yes, but not a TR or even Note, just perhaps a message

[09:38:14] pfps

jim - next session is concerned with figuring out implementation details

[09:38:50] pfps

jim - what about problems in the process?

[09:42:34] pfps

- pieces of the spec that are not covered in implementations

[09:43:29] pfps

danc - process table

[09:45:06] pfps

danc - we decide whether to go to last call

[09:45:18] pfps

danc - then we have to handle feedback

[09:45:36] pfps

danc- we could get feedback that requires serious work

[09:46:28] pfps

danc - making changes requires another last call (except editorial changes)

[09:47:20] bh

bh has joined #webont

[09:47:30] pfps

danc - to go to proposed rec we have to give evidence of implementation experience

[09:48:05] pfps

danc - we generate a request to go to proposed rec, which is approved by director

[09:48:45] pfps

danc - then W3C members can generate negative votes (because their comments were not handled)

[09:49:17] ChrisW

ChrisW has joined #webont

[09:49:34] pfps

danc - W3C members can generate negative votes for other reasons such as non-technical business reasons

[09:50:58] pfps

danc - finally director approves recommendation

[09:52:11] pfps

danc - at recommendation time there is a press release

[09:52:13] ChrisW

"BE WISE, USE OWL"

[09:52:42] pfps

jim - what happens if there are problems?

[09:53:04] pfps

danc - technical bugs require iteration to last call

[09:54:30] pfps

jim - the WG should realize that before LC is the last time for WG members to make objections

[09:54:37] heflin

heflin has joined #webont

[09:55:00] pfps

jim - LC comments are much more serious, so we have been trying for comments before LC

[09:56:56] pfps

jim - reiterations cause serious delays - look at RDF Schema

[09:59:14] ChrisW

"Don't get caught in the dark - Use OWL"

[09:59:44] pfps

jim - we need to think about our testing methodologies

[10:01:17] pfps

jeremy - another risk is that we get to recommendation and we are ignored

[10:01:46] bh

bh has quit

[10:02:24] pfps

jeremy - cutting corners during the process means that there is larger chance of being ignored

[10:03:40] pfps

jim - our tests currently target reasoners, there are other tools that should be targetted

[10:04:11] pfps

jeremy - can we use the DAML implementations

[10:04:23] pfps

danc - only if they do something with OWL

[10:04:36] ChrisW

"Use OWL - do it for Jeremy"

[10:04:58] pfps

jim - we'll try to point to the DAML tools,

[10:06:49] bh

bh has joined #webont

[10:08:10] pfps

jim - jim and guus will dispatch LC comments, the comments list should be reserved for official responses

[10:09:30] pfps

scribe is now ChrisW

[10:09:40] ChrisW

break

[10:27:20] ChrisW

Jim flogs himself

[10:27:40] ChrisW

on the board:

[10:28:03] ChrisW

OWL Lite: Decidable, efficient D.P.

[10:28:30] ChrisW

OWL DL: Decidable, efficient D.P.

[10:28:46] ChrisW

Full: Undecidable, powerful heuristic tools

[10:29:00] ChrisW

[OWL DL was ~efficient D.P.]

[10:34:14] ChrisW

test methodology - reasoners, works better for OWL DL

[10:34:20] ChrisW

DanC - why only DL?

[10:34:51] ChrisW

Jim - because it asks if you can handle (ie be decidable) for all cases

[10:35:12] ChrisW

DanC - again, why only DL. This applies to OWL Full as well

[10:35:57] ChrisW

PeterC - We have something that can generate any number of cases

[10:36:03] ChrisW

DanC - that's different

[10:36:57] ChrisW

Jim - current test philosophy has to do with entailment tests, which requires decidability

[10:39:14] ChrisW

Jeremy - current test suite is not a conformance suite, it is representative.

[10:39:54] ChrisW

- We can imagine there being conformance requirements for a DL reasoner (ie complete wrt the semantics)

[10:40:12] ChrisW

- but many of us believe that wouldn't make sense for OWL Full

[10:48:06] ChrisW

Jim - one way to think of it is that there are four aspects to OWL conformance: reader, writer, create RDF triples, inference

[10:48:34] ChrisW

Jeremy - don't want to punish incomplete reasoners as they are very useful for the cases they handle

[10:51:05] ChrisW

Jeremy - useful to have something that can figure out if a document is OWL Lite, DL, or Full

[10:55:17] ChrisW

Jim - draws a matrix with rows for each "OWL system" and colum for each test. A system has a check mark in the col for the tests it "passes"

[10:55:47] ChrisW

- some tools will just have a lot of Xs

[10:55:58] ChrisW

- some tools will have a sparse number of Xs

[10:56:11] ChrisW

- some tools will have dense clusters of Xs

[10:56:46] ChrisW

- tests are arranged by Lite, DL, Full

[10:58:10] bwm

bwm has joined #webont

[11:00:54] ChrisW

Jim & Dan - need implementations to show that the design is implementable

[11:02:17] seanb

seanb has quit

[11:02:40] ChrisW

Danc - for XMLS, first question was is there an authoring tool, next was is there a validator, next is are there examples

[11:04:50] ChrisW

Jeremy - drop the idea of a reader and have a validator

[11:05:33] ChrisW

- a syntactic validator

[11:07:17] seanb

seanb has joined #webont

[11:07:45] ChrisW

Jim - some would like to see a D+O to OWL converter

[11:09:14] ChrisW

Dan - do people want an "This is OWL" sticker

[11:10:38] pfps

pfps has quit

[11:12:06] ChrisW

- people do, but what does it mean to have this WHAT DOES AN OWL TOOL DO???

[11:14:00] ChrisW

Jim - discussion out of scope, we're talking about how to evaluate tools to make our business case

[11:16:03] ChrisW

Jeremy - need tools that, eg, read valid OWL Lite and write valid OWL Lite. These will be interoperable

[11:20:49] ChrisW

discussion of what it should mean to be OWL compliant

[11:21:52] ChrisW

Jim i don't think a discussion of "must" and "should" is what this is about

[11:23:07] ChrisW

DanC - shouldn't specify classes of SOFTWARE in the spec, just classes of DOCUMENTS

[11:25:43] ChrisW

Jim - industrial compliance is out of scope

[11:28:37] ChrisW

Jeremy - we need an OWL editor that produces valid OWL documents

[11:29:31] ChrisW

- generate OWL Lite, OWL DL, Full

[11:30:04] ChrisW

MikeD - there is an emacs tool for OWL, and a validator

[11:31:29] ChrisW

Seanb - Oil-ed outputs the OWL XML presentation syntax

[11:31:55] ChrisW

PFPS - implementation of translator (XSLT)

[11:37:38] ChrisW

DanC - need to know there is real need for three languages

[11:38:02] ChrisW

Jack - Network inference feels OWL DL is important

[11:38:20] ChrisW

ChrisW - IBM thinks OWL DL is important

[11:38:59] ChrisW

Jack - and NI is working on a reasoner.

[11:39:46] ChrisW

ChrisW - IBM also thinks OWL Full is important

[11:41:58] ChrisW

DanC is chair

[11:42:29] ChrisW

Discussion of features vs. implementations

[11:42:54] ChrisW

Guus - please include discussion of conformance

[12:01:19] ChrisW

PROPOSED: Action the Test editor to add a test for Syntax checker that can tell the difference between OWL sublanguages

[12:01:38] ChrisW

Abstain: Connoly, Hendler

[12:01:54] ChrisW

Resolved

[12:02:15] ChrisW

ACTION: Jeremy to add a test for syntax checker

[12:03:19] ChrisW

Jeremy - need a definition of what OWL Lite is in a document

[12:03:47] ChrisW

ACTION: Peter add definition of OWL Lite document

[12:09:05] ChrisW

discussion of possible conformance proposal

[12:09:18] ChrisW

for OWL syntax levels

[12:09:44] ChrisW

PROPOSED: The test document should specify the conformance clauses for OWL Lite, DL, and FULL documents

[12:09:50] ChrisW

resolved

[12:11:10] ChrisW

Ian - there should be a semantics checker, then

[12:24:18] ChrisW

discussion of consistency checker

[12:24:24] ChrisW

one for OWL Lite

[12:24:28] ChrisW

other language levels?

[12:25:48] ChrisW

Discussion of OWL Reader

[12:25:49] ChrisW

Vocab Reader (no one voted for)

[12:25:49] ChrisW

OWL Lite/DL/Full Syntax Checker (resolved to have a test case)

[12:26:16] ChrisW

lots of discussion of Consitency checker (complete or not, etc)

[12:26:29] ChrisW

possible problem with making this a conformance "stamp"

[12:26:43] ChrisW

Jim takes over as chair

[12:29:48] ChrisW

Should there be a document conformance section

[12:29:55] ChrisW

in the test document

[12:31:01] ChrisW

jim is trying to make jeremy happy

[12:31:10] ChrisW

he suceeds

[12:31:46] ChrisW

Danc - argue against software conformance

[12:32:56] ChrisW

jim - except for syntax checker, already resolved

[12:35:48] ChrisW

should the syntax checker be the ONLY kind of software conformance "stamp"

[12:41:04] ChrisW

should there be a semantic conformance checker, maybe just for lite, maybe for all levels

[12:41:13] ChrisW

some supports

[12:41:25] bh

bh has quit

[12:41:43] ChrisW

discussion ended with lunch break

[13:20:31] GuusS

GuusS has quit

[13:51:22] Raphael

Raphael has joined #webont

[13:51:33] Raphael

Topic is "Consistency Checker"

[13:52:22] Raphael

Possible Compinations {Lite, DL, Full] x {Syntax, Incomplete, Complete}

[13:54:50] heflin

heflin has quit

[13:54:52] Raphael

Ian says, sound is important, no matter what variant you consider

[13:57:57] Raphael

Welty has problem with stamps, specifaly what is the definition of complete exactly

[13:58:13] Raphael

Complete is to be understood as "Logically complete"

[14:00:25] Raphael

Decided: Stickers are: {Lite, DL, Full} x {Incomplete, Complete}

[14:00:54] Raphael

DeRoo, Hendler, Connoly Abstaining, all others in favour

[14:01:01] bh

bh has joined #webont

[14:01:24] Raphael

Action: De Roo

[14:02:44] DanC

DanC has joined #webont

[14:02:49] DanC

Action: Review of satisfaction of requirements

[14:02:49] DanC

From: Jeff Heflin (heflin@cse.lehigh.edu)

[14:02:52] DanC

Date: Mon, Dec 30 2002

[14:02:56] ChrisW

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0300.html

[14:02:56] DanC

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0300.html

[14:03:01] DanC

logger, pointer?

[14:03:01] DanC

See http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/webont/2003-01-10#T14-03-01

[14:03:09] GuusS

GuusS has joined #webont

[14:03:13]

* DanC neglected to get RRSAgent here. bummer

[14:04:18] jhendler

jhendler has joined #webont

[14:05:45] DanC

R.19 and R.20 are handled by RDF Syntax as a result of http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure

[14:07:02] bh

bh has quit

[14:08:26] ChrisW

dan, does that mean my scribe notes (in IRC) were not recorded?

[14:11:31] Raphael

Resolved: Req Doc to be included in last call, abstains IanH, PPS

[14:11:42] Raphael

Action Guus to get it into road map

[14:12:20] DanC

no, logger got them (at ilrt)

[14:12:27] ChrisW

tnx

[14:12:56] ChrisW

what about the actions, proposals?

[14:14:08] Raphael

Action: DanC figure out privacy, security risks / issues in spec

[14:16:05] Raphael

Discussion on whether we meet Requirement R13

[14:20:16] Raphael

Topic is now: Review of the test documents (next 30 Minutes), Managed by Jeremy Carol

[14:22:00] Raphael

Issues are on mailing list: 2003Jan/0136.html

[14:22:42] Raphael

standard DL test available in literature, include them here ?

[14:26:55] Raphael

action jeremy caroll: teach sean bechhofer, peter crowber editing/creating tests

[14:34:18] bwm

bwm has quit

[14:36:48] bwm

bwm has joined #webont

[14:45:05] heflin

heflin has joined #webont

[14:54:05] Raphael

Action: Put examples from guide into test suite to Jos De roo

[15:03:14] bwm

zakim, who is on the phone?

[15:05:17] Raphael

Raphael has quit

[15:09:01] jjc

jjc has joined #webont

[15:12:10] JosD

JosD has quit

[15:18:06] DanC

------- Resume

[15:18:10] DanC

=== AllDifferent

[15:18:52] DanC

PFPS: what we're after is a way to say, compactly (i.e. O(N)) that there's a list whose members are all different

[15:19:59] DanC

... RDFCore gave us the list syntax we asked for, but not what we actually needed; [rdf:parseType="Collection" only works for objects of property elements]

[15:23:49] DanC

pfps writes several examples on the board... proposal #1 distinctMembers #2 sameAs #3 first/rest Collection

[15:24:49] DanC

PFPS: given more time, we could ask RDF Core for list syntax that works for typednodes.

[15:31:12] bh

bh has joined #webont

[15:31:14] DanC

PROPOSED: to resolve the AllDifferent issue using an AllDifferent class and a distinctMembers property (to be elaborated by the semantics editors).

[15:31:36] DanC

ACTION PFPS: relaty feedback on parseType="Collection"

[15:31:53] DanC

RESOLVED; connolly, carroll, Beckhofer, Dale, Volz abstaining.

[15:32:07] jjc

(carroll abstained because I wasn't listening)

[15:32:11] DanC

Horan abstainng

[15:33:04] DanC

ACTION guide editor (Welty), semantics editor (Peter),

[15:33:40] DanC

yes, it's in Lite (provided differentIndivudual is in Lite; confirmed, it is).

[15:34:14] DanC

ACTION ref editor (Dean).

[15:34:20] DanC

a test is hoped for.

[15:36:17] DanC

[discussion of appending to an enuemeration: x first PuertoRico; rest UnitedStates ]

[15:36:18] seanb

seanb has quit

[15:37:32] DanC

[and discussion of a methodology of maintaining lists of distinct classes across imports...]

[15:38:24] DanC

--- pop back to requirements for R 13 about statements

[15:38:44] DanC

Horan: I have questions about R 13 and 2 others.

[15:39:45] DanC

Hefflin: examples: consider "Jeff wrote reqDoc". tagging looks like "Mike said Jeff wrote reqDoc". OK?

[15:39:46] DanC

Horan: OK

[15:40:29] DanC

Horan: R16. Cardinality constraints. editorial concerns; not clear what an object

[15:40:56] DanC

ACTION Hefflin: update terminology (e.g. object) in requirements document

[15:41:20] DanC

Horan: about R18. User-displayable labels; met by rdfs:label? [several]: yes.

[15:41:24] DanC

----

[15:42:11] DanC

==== enumeration of document Editors

[15:42:48] DanC

Hendler reads from W3C manual of style...

[15:43:32] DanC

http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#editors

[15:43:36] DanC

9.1.4 Editors, Authors, and Contributors

[15:44:00] DanC

[scribe notes the manual of style is "best practice" but not W3C process]

[15:45:08] DanC

--- Authorship of non-WG publications...

[15:45:22] DanC

Guus: regarding authorship of OWL articles and such...

[15:45:23] jhendler

[chair apologizes, stands corrected]

[15:46:03] DanC

... e.g. I have been invited to write an article about OWL; I'm inclined to credit [all WG members?] as authors.

[15:46:15] DanC

... should we have a shared policy? or just leave it as is?

[15:47:13] DanC

DanC: I'd rather not be listed as editor on that article; I'm not likely to review it, and I don't want to put my name on stuff I didn't review.

[15:47:44] DanC

PeterPS: I'd rather not be listed as author either; I think it's important that folks writing articles about OWL make it clear that OWL is a product of the WG.

[15:47:50] ChrisW

ChrisW has quit

[15:48:04] seanb

seanb has joined #webont

[15:48:28] DanC

Ian: 2nded

[15:48:49] DanC

Guus: so no particular policy, but we've aired the issue.

[15:48:54] DanC

----

[15:48:59] DanC

======== WG schedule

[15:50:19] heflin

Jeff is temporarily scribe while Dan is at the board

[15:51:43] heflin

Dan is discussing schedule for recommendation...

[15:51:51] heflin

1) WG decide last call

[15:52:22] heflin

2) LC publication (soon after)

[15:52:47] heflin

3) WG requests PR (after 3 weeks)

[15:53:04] heflin

4) PR publication

[15:53:13] heflin

5) Membership reviewes due (4 weeks)

[15:53:34] heflin

6) Rec party and press release (2 weeks)

[15:54:43] DanC

Guus writes a calendar of telcon dates on the board...

[15:54:46]

* DanC ths heflin

[15:54:53]

* DanC thanks heflin

[15:56:35]

* DanC checks on jjc in #webont

[15:56:54] DanC

Guus enumerates docs: Requirements, Guide, Sem, Test, Overview, Ref

[15:57:32] DanC

[Dan's schedule above is "speed of light" schedule, absolute minima]

[15:58:16] DanC

straw poll: subject to editorial discretion (to be checked by one or two reviewers), move Requirements to Last Call.

[15:58:43] DanC

lots in favor

[15:58:46] DanC

non against

[15:59:57] DeborahMc

DeborahMc has joined #webont

[16:00:28]

* DanC waves to deb

[16:01:02] DeborahMc

greetings - does someone have a url for the meeting logs?

[16:01:08] DanC

logger, pointer?

[16:01:08] DanC

See http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/webont/2003-01-10#T16-01-08

[16:02:24] DanC

PROPOSED: to publish Requirements as a WD, subject to editorial discretion.

[16:02:30] DanC

RESOLVED, unanimously

[16:03:23] DanC

connolly: I'm interested in deciding to take Guide and Semantics to last call.

[16:03:32] DanC

hi deb, we're calling you

[16:03:49] DanC

deb, we're not sure we can dial internationally from here.

[16:04:17]

* DanC notes we're trying to figure out the number here or something...

[16:04:47] DeborahMc

i provided a phone number to ian in email that does not require exposing the incoming calling number.

[16:05:17] DanC

# F2F Version of Requirements Document Jeff Heflin (Thu, Jan 02 2003) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0055.html

[16:05:47] DanC

deb, we got a fax at the phone number we've got

[16:05:55]

* DanC sees Ian getting new info

[16:06:25] ChrisW

ChrisW has joined #webont

[16:07:02] DanC

attendance + Deb M by phone

[16:08:55] DanC

Guus: recall we decided to target Requirements for REC, not NOTE.

[16:09:14] DanC

Guus: based on review from yesterday, it seems Guide is in good shape.

[16:09:53] DanC

Guus: I'd like to decide to delegate remaining work on Guide to a few reviewers.

[16:10:26] DanC

JJC: I'd prefer to have a stable doc to review for a time before deciding to go to last call, though I'm prepared to stand aside if other folks prefer otherwise...

[16:11:04] DanC

PFPS: hmm... there are some new sections...

[16:11:36] DeborahMc

it is hard to hear - if you want to make sure i get something, please put it in the irc or ask me if i heard it; for example, i can tell that someone is talking now but i cant make out anything

[16:11:46] DanC

roger, deb.

[16:13:31] DanC

[... discussion of end-game logistics ...]

[16:13:58] DanC

Guide reviewers are solicited...

[16:14:12] seanb

seanb has quit

[16:14:28] DanC

Heflin: when will the draft be avaiable?

[16:14:33] DanC

Chris: Monday.

[16:14:59] DanC

Heflin: I could do a review of the new material by Friday

[16:15:36] DanC

Guus: I could do a review by the following tuesday

[16:16:10] DanC

Chris: I need help on the AllDifferent details.

[16:16:18] DanC

Hendler: the roadmap needs doing, no?

[16:16:38] DanC

Hendler recalls discussion among editors yesterday about a "roadmap" to go in all document.

[16:17:11] DanC

Guus: we/I have the ball on the roadmap

[16:17:55] DanC

Guus: can you get all this other stuff in by Weds, Chris?

[16:18:20] ChrisW

ok

[16:18:39] DanC

Guus writes on board: guide draft available to reviewers 15Jan, reviews complete 21Jan, ready for W3C staff to publish

[16:18:48] DanC

deb, did we lose you?

[16:19:02] DeborahMc

yes - i just got dial tone

[16:19:23] DeborahMc

first i had a drop in background noise but the line was up, then just dialtone. ihung up now

[16:19:42] DanC

PROPOSED: to publish Guide as last call, after edits as actioned in this ftf and editorial discretion, subject to review by Guus and Jeff H.

[16:19:58] seanb

seanb has joined #webont

[16:20:05] DanC

2nded.

[16:20:18] DanC

so RESOLVED, Carroll, ter Horst abstaining

[16:20:46] DanC

ACTION Welty: provide guide last call candidate by 15Jan

[16:20:52] DanC

ACTION Guus: to review by 21Jan

[16:21:00] DanC

ACTION Hefflin: to review Guide by 21Jan

[16:21:20] DanC

ACTION Connolly: to publish Guide, after Welty/Guus/Hefflin do their part of Guide.

[16:21:37] DanC

Guus: on to semantics...

[16:21:58] DanC

DanC: summary of changes resulting from this meeting?

[16:22:02] ChrisW

does this mean that the entire working group has until 15Jan to provide any (official) feedback?

[16:22:31] DanC

well, they can send mail, Chris, but it's at your discretion whether to act on them.

[16:23:20] DanC

Peter: aside from stylistic stuff, * AllDifferent stuff, * OWL lite [something], * Jeremy to review [informal something], * Ian to review proofs [somewhere]

[16:24:01] DanC

... stylistic stuff including terminology as discussed with editors [and send to www-webont-wg, I think]

[16:24:47] DanC

Peter: I don't think Semantics is ready for last call, cuz it depends on RDF semantics, and I have oustanding issues with RDF model theory

[16:25:13] DanC

... w.r.t. rdfs:Literal, among other things

[16:27:05] DanC

Guus: aren't they going to last call this week?

[16:28:05] DanC

JJC: they're working on the last few bits, going to make the last call decision next week. PatH wasn't at today's meeting.

[16:28:30] DanC

Peter: the work-around, if they don't accept my suggestions, is really, really, ugle.

[16:28:31] DanC

ugly.

[16:30:01] DanC

ACTION: JJC: investigate this issue (rdfs:Literal etc.) in RDFCore

[16:30:56] DanC

ACTION JimH: ask SemWeb CG about RDF model theory.

[16:31:23] DanC

# problems with RDF literals Peter F. Patel-Schneider (Fri, Jan 03 2003) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0093.html

[16:32:41] DanC

JimH: msg 0093 doesn't make clear the impact on OWL

[16:33:01] DanC

ACTION PeterPS: write to webont WG (only to webont WG) about the impact of this on OWL.

[16:33:11] bwm

bwm has quit

[16:33:45] DanC

PeterPS: provided a fix from RDF Core, I think I can prepare a last call candidate by Monday.

[16:34:22] DanC

DanC: is that including the roadmap? PeterPS: well, I'll need that, yes.

[16:34:40] DanC

Semantics reviewers solicited

[16:35:23] DanC

ter Horst, Jeff Pan [sp?] agree to review.

[16:35:59] DanC

[discussion of expectations of Ian to review the proofs...]

[16:36:49] DanC

Guus: I'd like us to decide, 23Jan to take Semantics to Last Call.

[16:38:31] DanC

ACTION Pfps: keep Dave Beckett informed of status of his comments.

[16:39:05] DanC

...

[16:39:16] DanC

Guus: on to Overview (nee Feature Synopsis)

[16:39:25] DanC

... Deb, seen recent news?

[16:39:32] DanC

Deb: I just got what Frank mailed out

[16:39:59] DanC

Deb: Frank is going to do a draft based on comments from Thu [yesterday]. No date given.

[16:40:56] DanC

Guus: substantial changes were discussed yesterday, including a title change. I don't guess you can estimate timeline, then, Deb?

[16:41:04] DanC

Deb: no, probably not.

[16:42:06] bh

bh has quit

[16:42:27] DanC

DanC: since there's no normative content, we can just talk about this as the next telcon

[16:42:42] DanC

Deb: are there timelines for other docs?

[16:43:03] DanC

Guus: 23Jan is a deadline for Semantics. that's reviews done.

[16:43:14] ChrisW

anf Guide

[16:43:18] ChrisW

and Guide

[16:43:38] DanC

Deb: it's not clear how the requested changes will be disposed of.

[16:44:02] DanC

Deb: and it's not clear how much text we can grab from other places

[16:44:14] DanC

Guus: we discussed moving some of the details of the feature description to Ref.

[16:45:10] DanC

JimH: Frank's notes are superceded by discussion among editors...

[16:45:34] DanC

frank's notes: # Report of Feature Synopsis Breakout Session Frank van Harmelen (Thu, Jan 09 2003) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003Jan/0021.html

[16:45:46] DanC

Guus: I'd like a draft by [when?] with review [when?]

[16:46:26] DanC

Deb: are some folks doing reviews in less than a week? Guus: yes, but more time seems in order due to the magnitude of the changes.

[16:46:42] DanC

Deb: so this might trail others? Guus: well, we havent' discussed Reference yet

[16:46:58] DanC

Deb: then yes, it seems appropriate to discuss at an upcoming telcon

[16:47:50] DanC

Guus: please communicate to the chairs ASAP, before the next telcon, [...]

[16:49:25] DanC

[... discussion of review timing...]

[16:49:48] DanC

JJC: based on the scope of changes we're discussing, I think a couple week's review time is in order.

[16:50:18] DanC

Guus: asuming editors provide a draft Mon 20Jan, ...

[16:50:30] DanC

... how about a 10 day review until 30Jan ...

[16:50:48] DanC

... prepare for decision a week after the 23Jan Semantics doc.

[16:51:04] DanC

draft = last call candidate

[16:51:18] DanC

JJC: I can live with 10 days

[16:51:47] DanC

Deb: I'll be offline 17-19Jan, so I'll have to check with Frank and such...

[16:51:57] DanC

Guus: that's the best guess we can make for now, I suppose.

[16:52:40] DanC

...

[16:52:45] DanC

=== Reference schedule

[16:53:12] DanC

Guus: recall changes discussed in break-out [yesterday?]...

[16:53:44] DanC

... editors plan a draft available for 20Jan; I'd like to get review in the same 10 days, by 30Jan.

[16:53:59] DanC

... i.e. for decision 30Jan.

[16:54:10] DanC

JJC: what title are we talking about?

[16:54:48] DanC

Guus: we're going with "Reference"; we intend to meet expectations around that name [being careful about informative material]

[16:54:50] GuusS

GuusS has quit

[16:54:52]

* jhendler ...OWL "easy going" reference document

[16:55:06] DanC

JJC: let's recruit reviewers

[16:55:27] DanC

ChrisW volunteers to review Overview

[16:55:31] DanC

Horan volunteers to review Overview

[16:55:57] DanC

Volz volunteers to review review Reference

[16:56:10] DanC

JJC volunteers, tentatively, to get a review from HP

[16:57:20] DanC

Guus: in sum, it looks like 3 docs coming in [3?] weeks, ~23Jan, with others to follow a week or two later.

[16:57:53] DanC

... I had envisioned one big package, but I don't see any objection to this...

[16:58:00] DanC

JJC: how about test...

[16:58:43] DanC

JJC: to get all the tests we plan, we estimate[d] ~6 weeks, but we can get the text ready in less time

[16:58:58] DanC

JJC: we could publish a test WD with more tests later in the last call period

[16:59:20] DanC

Guus: I'd like to have test ready [for last call?] 30Jan...

[17:00:26] DanC

[... discussion of pointing from Last Call WD to working test development area and/or editor's draft ...]

[17:01:27] bwm

bwm has joined #webont

[17:01:32] bwm

bwm has quit

[17:01:32]

* DanC waves to brian

[17:02:00] bwm

bwm has joined #webont

[17:02:02] DanC

JJC: I think I can have a lcc for the 16Jan telcon

[17:02:36] DanC

Connolly volunteers to review test between 16 and 30 Jan

[17:02:50] DanC

Stanton volunteers to review test between 16 and 30 Jan

[17:03:58] DanC

JJC: how long is last call?

[17:04:29] DanC

DanC: the number that keeps coming up is 4 weeks, though I'm not sure when that should start

[17:05:21] DanC

[... discussion of impact of 3-7Mar W3C tech plenary on end-of-last call schedule ...]

[17:06:50] DanC

JJC: I'm concerned that this might push last call to 3 weeks; I'd prefer 6 weeks...

[17:07:40] ChrisW

jim - need 4-5 weeks. This schedule (done by Jan 30) gets us there but with no slippage

[17:07:52] ChrisW

Jim - I'm OK with that

[17:08:05] ChrisW

Jim - again, it means no slippage

[17:08:31] ChrisW

danc - this doesn't get us to rec by mar 31

[17:08:42] ChrisW

- means have to attend telecons after Mar 31

[17:08:54] ChrisW

pfps - they will be short ones

[17:09:10] ChrisW

jim - we're all committed thru mar 31

[17:09:26] ChrisW

jim - we will have to extend after that time

[17:09:42] ChrisW

jim - we will propose in the middle of march, rec at the end

[17:09:54] ChrisW

danc - editors are committed for life

[17:09:59] DanC

1/2 ;-)

[17:10:02] ChrisW

(not sure that was a joke)

[17:10:40] ChrisW

guus - few words about tech plenary

[17:11:28] DanC

Proposed

[17:11:28] DanC

6-7 March 2003 - Semantic Web Architecture Meeting http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/meetings/tech-200303/

[17:12:01] ChrisW

jim - editors should probably consider coming to finish things up

[17:12:03]

* DanC checks access; yes, that's world-readable

[17:12:16] ChrisW

-probably not a f2f

[17:12:27] ChrisW

(f2f for webont)

[17:13:05] ChrisW

danc - semantic web activitiy is chartered thru mar. 2003

[17:13:25] ChrisW

danc - proposal of what to do next shoudl be out by then

[17:13:37] ChrisW

danc - proposal could say "take a break"

[17:13:46] ChrisW

(perhaps miami for spring break)

[17:13:51] DeborahMc

was that a comment that editors should consider coming to the march 6-7 portion?

[17:13:57] ChrisW

yes

[17:14:27] ChrisW

danc reading the URL posted above

[17:15:18] DanC

actually, getting editors together is more likely on Mon/Tue

[17:15:50] ChrisW

jim - editors should strongly consider coming the to meeting, finding the information

[17:16:12] DanC

Technical Plenary http://www.w3.org/2002/10/allgroupoverview.html (member confidential, I think)

[17:16:52] ChrisW

(some jokes about location)

[17:17:11] ChrisW

march 3-4 meeting in boston for webont working group

[17:17:26] ChrisW

jim - we are particularly asking editors to come

[17:17:31]

* DanC helps volz log in...

[17:18:02] ChrisW

jim - everyone is invited

[17:18:18] DanC

Connolly: please accept my regrets for anything on 4Mar. I have another obligation

[17:18:30] ChrisW

jim - not confident we don't need another f2f

[17:18:41] Raphael

Raphael has joined #webont

[17:18:44] ChrisW

jim - but expect at least the editors

[17:18:55]

* DanC trying to sort out access for volz

[17:20:21] ChrisW

jim - still not completely clear that we need even the editors meeting

[17:21:15] ChrisW

dan - thanks hosts

[17:21:17] ChrisW

applause

[17:21:20] DeborahMc

ok - i also have a request if we need the editors meeting to have it back to back with the other meeting there. thus propose editors meeting on wed and then leave the possibility for staying for thurs meeting

[17:21:24] ChrisW

jim - thanks everyone in WG

[17:21:53] jhendler

deb - Wednesday is the technical plenary all groups, I am committed to that, as is Guus and all are invited

[17:22:03] ChrisW

bye deb

[17:22:09] heflin

heflin has left #webont

[17:23:02] ChrisW

deb, you there?

[17:23:25] DeborahMc

yes

[17:23:48] ChrisW

i started another chat w/ you directly

[17:24:07] ChrisW

do you see it?

[17:24:08] DeborahMc

that did not come up. try again?

[17:24:30] ChrisW

anything?

[17:25:26] jjc

jjc has quit

[17:27:44] seanb

seanb has left #webont

[17:29:38] Raphael

Raphael has quit

[17:33:12] jhendler

jhendler has quit

[17:39:28] ChrisW

ChrisW has quit

[17:48:58] DaveB

DaveB has joined #webont

[17:49:54] DaveB

I noticed that logger is the only irc recording bot for today. That's fine but I suggest you copy the logs for today into webont w3.org space. Cheers

[17:49:58] DaveB

DaveB has quit

[17:50:16] DeborahMc

where is the recording for yesterday?

[17:51:24] bwm

http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/webont/

[17:52:46] DeborahMc

thx - found that

[18:00:22] bwm

bwm has quit

[18:17:57] DanC

DanC has quit

[18:55:54] mdean

mdean has quit