W3C * T&S * Semantic Web * WebOnt * prev: ftf1
where/when/logistics * who * what: preparation, agenda, minutes/records
see also:
Frank van Harmelen is arranging local logistics and registration at CWI. cf 28Feb
See local agenda info regarding social event Sunday evening etc.
Per charter, participation is open to WG members and experts invited by the chair.
Note that Massimo Marchiori is filling in for Dan Connolly as W3C team contact at this meeting.
ftf meeting materials due 1 Apr, as agreed 21Mar
cf 26 Mar
cf 26 Mar
See also: local agenda info regarding social event Sunday evening etc.
see also: AGENDA: A'dam ftf (draft) Guus Schreiber (Wed, Mar 27 2002)
09.00-09.15 | Welcome, agenda, local arrangements | (chairs + local organizers) |
09.15-09.45 | LANG: OWL Language proposal | (van Harmelen) |
09.45-10.30 | Discussion on core language features | (chairs) |
10.30-11.00 | Coffee break | |
11.00-12.30 | DAML+OIL comparison preliminary decision on core features initial language issue list |
|
12.30-14.00 | Lunch | |
14.00-15.30 | Break-out sessions for focus areas
|
|
15.30-16.00 | Coffee break | |
16.00-17.30 | Decisions about on how to move forward with
syntax - basic RDF/XML syntax - presentation syntax (when to use, translators?) During last 45 minutes: telecon facilitie |
|
20.00 | Dinner |
09.00-10.30 | SEM: Semantics/syntax/layering presentations discussion |
10.30-11.00 | Coffee break |
11.00-12.30 | TEST and GUIDE report out |
12.30-14.00 | Lunch |
14.00-15.00 | Review of issues list |
15.00-15.30 | Coffee break) |
15.30 | Wrap-up, issues, schedule consequences, activity
planning Telecon facilities during final 45 minutes. |
van Harmelen presented
Potential issues were raised:
triage language features into 'do it the way daml does' or 'discuss further'
POLL: cardinality (B - some objections, majority in favour)
POLL: class (A - in favour)
POLL: complementOf (B)
STRAW POLL: choice between above options (DanC isn't sure of the significance; see the log)
10:49:04 [nmg] *** session breaks for lunch
Additional participants joined by teleconference:
PROPOSED:
last point fails to gain consensus.
RESOLVED:
break for the evening...
Peter Patel-Schneider presented
WebOnt requirements -- 2 issues 1) LIST 2) DARK TRIPLES
JimH: proposed action: PeterPS + FrankVH + JeremyC write down a paragraph for RDFCore w.r.t. these issues
after lunch...
strawpoll: 12 people support dark triple proposal;
3 support solipsistic proposal;
6 abstain
1 paragraph is request; other paragraphs are suggestions
volunteers from this group to join conversation with RDFCore: Jeremy, Pat, Peter, Jos, Massimo Jonathan (Borden)
unanimous agreement to send message to RDFCore
Action to the chairs Jim and Guus to report this issue to the SWCG
[@@summarize discussion?]
ACTION: revisit new level 1/2 proposal by MikeD, EnricoM, ZivH, RaphaelV, IanH and FrankVH, DebM.
Additional participants joined by teleconference:
RESOLUTION: The meaning of an OWL document is conveyed in
the RDF graph
==> ALL in favour, NO opposed
RESOLUTION: All RDF/XML documents that are equivalent
under the RDF Recommendation are equivalent OWL exchange documents
==> 14 in favor -- 3 opposed
RESOLUTION: The exchange language for OWL is RDF/XML
==> 16 in favour
RESOLUTION: We intend to produce non-normative
presentation syntaxes and their mapping to the exchange syntax
==> 16 in favour -- 1 opposed
RESOLUTION: The preference of the WG is to produce at
least one XML and one frame presentation syntax
==> 11 in favour -- 2 opposed
JimH: a set of issues will be collected, then ask the group, then go to REAL issue list
JimH: issue drive process -- ACTION chairs + MikeS
Dan Connolly, for Guus S. and Jim H., chairs
$Revision: 1.22 $ of $Date: 2002/05/29 19:00:47 $ by $Author: connolly $