Chatlog 2008-12-03

From OWL
Jump to: navigation, search

See original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.

Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.

00:00:00 <scribenick> PRESENT: Boris Motik, IanH, Sandro, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, Alan Ruttenberg, JeffP, Peter Patel-Schneider, Achille, Christine Golbreich, pfps, Michael Schneider, Zhe, msmith
18:03:51 <bmotik> ScribeNick: bmotik
18:04:30 <bmotik> topic: Agenda amendments
18:04:34 <bmotik> alanr: No amendments
18:04:41 <bmotik> topic: Previous minutes
18:04:42 <IanH> Look OK to me
18:04:43 <bmotik> alanr: Minutes accepted
18:04:48 <bmotik> topic: Pending review actions
18:05:18 <bmotik> alanr: All pending review actions are OK
18:05:34 <bmotik> topic: Due and overdue actions
18:05:44 <bmotik> alanr: We can close ACTION-241
18:05:59 <bmotik> alanr: ACTION-250 not done yet
18:06:09 <bmotik> alanr: Thanks Sandro for publishing the docs
18:06:16 <bmotik> sandro: Thanks everybody
18:06:26 <bmotik> alanr: We now need to solicit reviews
18:06:41 <IanH> see
18:06:42 <IanH> and
18:06:44 <bmotik> alanr: Reviews are due in January
18:06:55 <bmotik> topic: Future planning 
18:07:18 <bmotik> alanr: Everybody, but editors in particular, should monitor public-owl-comments
18:07:26 <bmotik> alanr: We should respond as a group
18:07:46 <bmotik> alanr: Therefore, people responding should first discuss things with the other WG members
18:08:01 <bmotik> alanr: public-owl-dev is not our official comment list
18:08:25 <bmotik> sandro: Alan, you said that, if you are replying on some list, make sure that you say this is your personal opinion
18:08:44 <bmotik> sandro: So, should people reply sent to public-owl-comments?
18:08:48 <bmotik> alanr: No
18:09:05 <bmotik> alanr: My understanding is that public-owl-comments are comments that need to be responded officially
18:09:11 <bmotik> alanr: Every other list is just a list
18:10:09 <bmotik> alanr: If you discuss any comment that came in from public-owl-comments on some other list, you need to put a disclaimer that this is your own opinion and not that of the WG
18:10:38 <bmotik> alanr: If you read something on public-owl-comments, but discuss this on, say, public-owl-dev, you should put a displaimer
18:10:50 <bmotik> ianh: We should have a formal guidline for responding
18:10:54 <sandro> +1 everyone in WG should disclaim in any posting
18:12:07 <bmotik> ianh: If someone sends a comment to some list other than public-owl-comments, we should ask people whether they want a formal reply; if they do, we need to ask people to forward their comment to public-owl-comments
18:12:28 <bmotik> sandro: public-owl-comments is what we have a formal obligation to reply
18:12:43 <bmotik> sandro: It might be valuable to do that forwarding
18:13:33 <bmotik> sandro: It is good to say "If you want a forward reply, please forward this to the public-owl-comments list. If you don't want a formal reply, do you mind if I forward this to public-owl-comments for our record"?
18:13:40 <bmotik> topic: Plans for other documents
18:13:41 <sandro> ACTION: sandro write wiki page on mailing-list behavior guidelines during last call
18:13:41 <trackbot> Created ACTION-255 - Write wiki page on mailing-list behavior guidelines during last call [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-12-10].
18:14:19 <bmotik> alanr: We should go one-by-one through other documents and ask the editors about what their plans are
18:14:39 <bmotik> alanr: There seems to be some confusion as to what the purpose of the issue list is
18:14:55 <bmotik> alanr: We can also discuss which of these documents should be REC track
18:15:16 <bmotik> subtopic: RDF-Based Semantics
18:15:43 <bmotik> alanr: Michael, can you please let us know what your plans are?
18:16:21 <bmotik> alanr: Michael doesn't seem to be on the call
18:16:51 <bmotik> alanr: Does anyone have any comments about the state of the RDF-Based Semantics
18:17:06 <bmotik> subtopic: Quick Reference Guide
18:17:27 <bmotik> alanr: Is there anyone who can something about the quick reference?
18:17:57 <bmotik> alanr: Nobody seems to be on the call
18:18:27 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
18:18:29 <bmotik> subtopic: RDF-Based Semantics
18:18:34 <bmotik> alanr: Michael is now here
18:19:01 <bmotik> schneid: I have made many minor and medium fixes
18:19:08 <bmotik> schneid: There are only 5 significant points
18:19:26 <bmotik> schneid: I can write these points up and send them to the list
18:19:42 <bmotik> schneid: I believe that these points may become WG issues
18:20:18 <bmotik> alanr: Would you mind saying why something would become an issue on the issue list?
18:20:32 <bmotik> schneid: That should be discussed during a discussion on the list
18:20:58 <bmotik> schneid: None of these issues are of the sort "various people have various opinions"; instead, they are rather technical
18:21:17 <bmotik> schneid: I'll start with the list, we can have a dicsussion, and then we can decide
18:21:32 <bmotik> ianh: Do you have a schedule for delivery?
18:21:54 <bmotik> schneid: I hope mid January is reaslistic
18:22:22 <bmotik> schneid: In the time before Christmas I'll try to write each issue up in a form so that we can discuss them
18:23:28 <bmotik> alanr: Would be expectation be that we publish another draft before the LC comment period ends?
18:23:38 <bmotik> sandro: The expectation is that we won't publish before January 23
18:24:13 <bmotik> sandro: I think it would be OK to publish the RDF-Based Semantics before the end of LC comments
18:24:37 <bmotik> sandro: Particularly if this would get us back in sync, so that all the documents could go to CR together
18:25:24 <bmotik> schneid: I don't expect to have the RDF-Based Semantics to have done before mid January
18:25:44 <bmotik> schneid: It looks strange to me to publish the RDF-Based Semantics before the comment period end
18:26:03 <bmotik> schneid: End of January is my expectation
18:26:21 <bmotik> schneid: We could publish a LC version end of Jan
18:26:41 <bmotik> ianh: We can't be talking about much difference anyway (mid vs. end JanuarY)
18:26:58 <bmotik> ianh: We can work on comments as they come in
18:27:50 <bmotik> sandro: I assume in mid February we'd publish what we have currently in LC as CR
18:28:07 <bmotik> sandro: It would be nice if we could publish the RDF-Based Semantics in sync
18:28:20 <bmotik> sandro: It would be good to go into REC together
18:28:54 <bmotik> schneid: We don't expect implementations of the RDF-Based Semantics, so we can make the CR phase shorter
18:29:03 <bmotik> schneid: This would allow us to sync up
18:30:57 <sandro> Sandro: Okay, so we'll try to sync up RDF-Based Semantics during CR, and send them all to PR together.
18:30:58 <IanH> Ian: in order to exit CR for OWL 1 we should already have had implementations of OWL full; these will also be implementations of OWL 2 Full.
18:31:24 <sandro> Sandro: there may be some additional OWL 2 Full tests....
18:30:50 <bmotik> subtopic: New Features and Rationale
18:31:31 <bmotik> christine: We just make sure that the document is aligned with the Syntax
18:31:39 <bmotik> christine: I think there is no problem there
18:32:38 <bmotik> alanr: The part of the rationale for OWL 2 is developments in the DL community
18:32:51 <bmotik> alanr: We have some allusions to this in the Syntax document
18:33:21 <bmotik> alanr: We could add that to the New Features and Rational document, together with some pointers to the literature
18:33:53 <bmotik> sandro: It seems like Syntax contains some explanation that might go better into the Rationale document
18:34:08 <bmotik> alanr: An example is a comment about owl:Thing
18:34:22 <bmotik> alanr: This includes a reference to the DL literature
18:34:52 <bmotik> christine: I haven't seen anything like this in review comments
18:35:12 <bmotik> christine: The only comment I remember of is about global restrictions, which we might want to explain better
18:36:12 <bmotik> bmotik: This comment is not part of the rationale; instead, it is just providing a different name for things we have in the spec
18:36:44 <bmotik> christine: There are just some details to be fixed
18:36:51 <christine> if any !
18:36:56 <bmotik> subtopic: Manchester Syntax
18:37:00 <bmotik> alanr: Peter is not here, so let's skip this
18:37:04 <bmotik> subtopic: Primer
18:37:14 <bmotik> alanr: Neither Bijan nor Peter is here
18:37:19 <bmotik> subtopic: Datarange Extension
18:37:27 <bmotik> alanr: No Bijan, no Uli
18:37:42 <bmotik> ianh: I'd say this is probably close to be finished
18:37:56 <bmotik> ianh: I'd expect they'll be able to finish this in early january
18:38:21 <bmotik> alanr: RDF mapping needs to be flushed out
18:38:44 <bmotik> ianh: My expectation is that Bijan will be putting more time into the WG now
18:39:06 <bmotik> topic: Coordination with RIF
18:40:13 <bmotik> alanr: Chris Welty suggested a common document with RIF about datatypes
18:40:23 <bmotik> alanr: We need to set up some way to coordinate between the groups
18:40:56 <bmotik> alanr: We should have a small group of people who can meet with a small group of RIF people and work on that
18:41:10 <bmotik> ianh: I'd like to be clearer about the expected outcome and the impact on schedule
18:41:26 <bmotik> ianh: Are we committing that we won't go any further in our schedule without getting a result on that stuff?
18:41:46 <bmotik> ianh: We could also say that we'll do our best
18:42:08 <bmotik> alanr: We should first find out which are the issues that might affect the schedule
18:42:14 <bmotik> alanr: We can decide on the schedule then
18:42:22 <bmotik> alanr: We haven't even done a triage of the issues
18:42:48 <bmotik> alanr: We should do this soon, so that we could hit break if necessary
18:43:06 <bmotik> ianh: I can remind you of the 4 items on Chris's list
18:43:13 <bmotik> ianh: rdf:text, but that's taken care of
18:43:25 <bmotik> ianh: Aligning the datatypes
18:43:37 <bmotik> ianh: Compatibility of OWL 2 RL with RIF
18:43:46 <bmotik> ianh: General OWL - RIF compatibility
18:44:02 <bmotik> alanr: The ones that might affect us are datatypes and the RIF expression of OWL 2 RL
18:44:29 <bmotik> bmotik: expressing OWL RL in RIF is their problem
18:44:40 <bmotik> bmotik: we are using a very simple form of rules
18:44:54 <bmotik> bmotik: we could help them, but shouldn't affect us
18:45:02 <bmotik> alanr: We should at least respond in a cordial way
18:45:29 <bmotik> bmotik: willing to attend one meeting, but not committing to long sequence
18:45:32 <bmotik> bmotik: I could participate in one meeting, but I'm not comitting to a longer-running task-force
18:45:44 <bmotik> bmotik: (at least not yet)
18:45:52 <bmotik> alanr: Zhe, do you want to participate?
18:45:58 <bmotik> Zhe: Yes
18:46:18 <bmotik> ianh: At least one of us, and possibly both of us should be there
18:46:45 <bmotik> ianh: I am happy to participate to some exploratory effort, but I am not willing to commit to some longer-running WG
18:47:24 <bmotik> Zhe: What is the time line?
18:47:41 <bmotik> alanr: The goal is just to meet minds and then decide how to proceed
18:48:00 <bmotik> christine: Is it a meeting or a teleconf?
18:48:05 <bmotik> alanr: It will be a teleconf
18:48:16 <bmotik> alanr: Can you be there?
18:48:26 <bmotik> sandro: Yes
18:48:37 <bmotik> jeffp: I could offer some support on datatypes
18:49:11 <bmotik> alanr: Are these people enough, do we need Peter?
18:49:25 <alanr> sandro, boris,  jeff, christine, ian, alan
18:49:25 <bmotik> ianh: We don't absolutely need him, but it woul be good to have him
18:49:47 <bmotik> sandro: I'll try coordinate things for next week
18:50:04 <sandro> ACTION: sandro set up telecon time poll for rif/owl joint coordination one-time meeting
18:50:04 <trackbot> Created ACTION-256 - Set up telecon time poll for rif/owl joint coordination one-time meeting [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-12-10].
18:50:22 <bmotik> alanr: Could you please mention in the e-mail that this is an exploratory meeting, and not a longer-running task-force
18:50:31 <bmotik> topic: Coordination with XML Schema
18:50:51 <bmotik> ianh: This is just a place-holder for Peter's on-going tasks related to XML Schema WG
18:50:58 <bmotik> ianh: I don't think there is much outstanding here
18:51:20 <bmotik> topic: Test Cases
18:51:39 <bmotik> alanr: Sandro, it is desirable to have as many test cases as possible before CR?
18:51:42 <bmotik> sandro: yes
18:51:55 <bmotik> msmith: There are quite a few test cases that exist
18:52:06 <bmotik> msmith: We need details about whether the repository will be
18:52:21 <bmotik> msmith: We need to determine which test-cases we propose
18:52:41 <bmotik> Markus: Beside the test case we already have, we already have a platform for collecting test cases
18:53:00 <bmotik> Markus: This should be made announced so that people can submit their tests
18:54:05 <bmotik> sandro: Could you look into if anything needs to be done?
18:54:24 <MarkusK_> Markus: some minor updates are required so the test case collection site agrees with the most recent changes in the specification
18:54:34 <bmotik> sandro: Markus, have you read the W3C guidelines about test cases?
18:54:41 <bmotik> Markus: No, I didn't.
18:55:12 <bmotik> Markus: We could say that whoever publishes a test case, he does it under any of the licenses
18:55:13 <christine> sorry have to leave, bye
18:55:20 <bmotik> sandro: We need to think this through
18:55:31 <bmotik> alanr: Have you got some legal counsel for W3C?
18:56:01 <sandro> markus check with
18:56:20 <MarkusK_> The current license text is
18:56:44 <bmotik> ianh: I noticed that the test case ontology contains a few names that have "URI" in their name
18:56:56 <bmotik> ianh: In the rest of the spec we've recently changed all "URI" to "IRI"
18:57:15 <bmotik> ianh: Do the keepers of the test ontology want to change "URI" to "IRI?
18:57:16 <MarkusK_> I am happy to change this
18:57:29 <bmotik> msmith: It would be fine to change it, but is it too late to change it?
18:57:42 <bmotik> ianh: I don't think it needs to be changed
18:58:05 <bmotik> alanr: Editorial changes to the documents should be fine
18:58:20 <bmotik> msmith: We should change this before we approve tests
18:58:30 <bmotik> alanr: How do we go about adding and approving tests?
18:58:34 <MarkusK_>
18:59:05 <bmotik> sandro: One style is meticulous: everyone looks at a test case, understands it, and then agrees on it
18:59:44 <bmotik> sandro: There is this bulk-test style: These three engines all pass particular tests, so we all approve them and don't look at each test in detail
18:59:54 <bmotik> alanr: Where is in this process place for discussion?
19:00:00 <bmotik> sandro: I don't understand the question
19:00:14 <bmotik> alanr: Is approving tests expected to be controversial?
19:00:35 <bmotik> sandro: I think it will test at least 3-4 or 10 minutes to approve each test
19:00:51 <bmotik> ianh: I don't recall there being a great deal of discussion and arguments in OWL 1
19:01:06 <bmotik> ianh: This is because we had many implementations that agreed on everything
19:01:12 <bmotik> ianh: The semantics is well-defined
19:01:21 <bmotik> ianh: I don't expect problems
19:01:44 <bmotik> sandro: The problem is when you have an issue in the langauge, and you realize this only when you look at the test
19:02:02 <bmotik> msmith: Most of the OWL 1 tests are already OK
19:02:18 <bmotik> msmith: There is some work to make them ready to go
19:03:06 <alanr> Mike will start posting sets of links to test cases that are ready review
19:03:26 <alanr> Ian and I will start adding question periods / approval items to the agenda
19:03:28 <msmith> I will do all this in coordination with MarkusK
19:03:48 <bmotik> alanr: Do you have an expectation when we can start receiving tests on the mailing lists?
19:03:55 <bmotik> msmith: I hope next week
19:04:52 <bmotik> topic: F2F5
19:05:15 <bmotik> alanr: What is the likelyhood of us needing another F2F?
19:05:24 <bmotik> alanr: We'd need to give 8 week notice
19:06:17 <bmotik> alanr: If we decided that don't know now whether we need another F2F b ythe end of LC, then we'd be able to have F2F only in March
19:06:27 <bmotik> ianh: This would mean that we'd have significan schedule delay
19:06:36 <bmotik> ianh: Therefore, we should plan for another F2F
19:06:40 <bmotik> bmotik: +1 to Ian
19:07:02 <bmotik> ianh: We should plan to February; if we decide later tha we don't need it, we can cancel it
19:07:25 <bmotik> alanr: There might be some penatly for canceling
19:07:37 <bmotik> ianh: I agree, but we could at least settle on some provisional date
19:08:06 <bmotik> sandro: If we reserve a date now, we can have less than 8 weeks notice
19:08:54 <bmotik> schneid: One day might suffice
19:09:05 <IanH> Well, a lot depends on the comments!
19:09:48 <bmotik> bmotik: will need F2F if we get substantial LC comments
19:09:49 <bmotik> bmotik: We'll probably need a F2F
19:09:57 <IanH> +1 to Boris
19:10:11 <bmotik> sandro: We should have a poll about dates and times
19:10:23 <bmotik> alanr: I'm rather constrained in February and March
19:11:14 <bmotik> STRAWPOLL: Should we try for February (1) or March (2)?
19:11:07 <sandro> Feb
19:11:10 <schneid> Feb
19:11:12 <bcuencagrau> Any
19:11:13 <IanH> February
19:11:20 <Zhe1> +1 to any as long as in the US
19:11:20 <schneid> 1
19:11:24 <alanr> no opinion
19:11:24 <IanH> 1
19:11:25 <msmith> if in boston, no preference
19:11:26 <Achille> where?
19:11:33 <IanH> Boston
19:11:33 <bmotik> bmotik: 1 (February)
19:11:36 <JeffP> prefer in Europe
19:11:40 <Achille> +1 
19:12:00 <alanr> calling back in
19:12:08 <MarkusK_> any, but prefer Europe
19:12:39 <bmotik> ianh: It might be difficult to have the meeting anywhere other than in Boston
19:13:07 <schneid> no preference on location on my side
19:13:15 <IanH> Nobody said March
19:13:26 <bmotik> alanr: We should set up a poll for February and 1st week of March
19:13:56 <bmotik> alanr: Can you do this?
19:14:07 <sandro> ACTION: Sandro set up WBS poll for F2F times
19:14:07 <trackbot> Created ACTION-257 - Set up WBS poll for F2F times [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-12-10].
19:14:08 <bmotik> sandro: Sure
19:14:31 <bmotik> topic: Frequency of calls
19:14:39 <bmotik> alanr: Do we want to continue weekly?
19:14:50 <bmotik> alanr: What about holidays?
19:14:58 <schneid> on demand, not over the holliday
19:15:10 <IanH> Wed 24th an 31st
19:15:27 <bmotik> alanr: We wouldn't have meetings on Wed 24th and 31st
19:16:19 <bmotik> schnei: I think we can do calls on demand, depending on the agenda
19:16:32 <bmotik> schnei: We shouldn't plan now for this
19:16:47 <bmotik> ianh: I sort of suggest doing it the other way around
19:16:56 <bmotik> ianh: We have a few issues to resolve, approcing test cases
19:17:03 <bmotik> ianh: We should carry on for the moment
19:17:18 <bmotik> ianh: If we see that we don't have material, we can cancel
19:17:20 <bmotik> bmotik: +1 to Ian
19:17:30 <Zhe1> +1 to ian
19:17:38 <bmotik> ianh: Having meetings on demand might easily turn into never
19:17:39 <schneid> no problem with this, was just a suggestion :)
19:17:52 <IanH> +1
19:17:58 <bmotik> alanr: OK, so we are continuing with weekly
19:18:24 <bmotik> topic: Status of at-risk items
19:18:40 <bmotik> ianh: I just tried to group together everything that is outstanding
19:18:46 <bmotik> ianh: No particular comments
19:19:18 <schneid> the "At Risk" points are perfect for the next F2F
19:18:53 <bmotik> topic: Open items
19:19:23 <bmotik> alanr: I'll try to speed up my action regarding Man Syntax labels
19:19:35 <bmotik> alanr: Ian, can you take over chairing?
19:19:52 <bmotik> ianh: OK. Alan, introduce what you have in mind regarding repairs
19:21:00 <IanH> Alan: preference is to have repairs in existing docs, but could be another doc
19:21:13 <bmotik> alanr: We should explain to OWL users which kinds of RDF graphs could be brought into OWL by repairs
19:21:28 <bmotik> alanr: We could have a pointer to owl:list for the list vocabulary
19:21:41 <bmotik> alanr: as an example
19:22:32 <bmotik> alanr: Is anyone willing to help?
19:23:05 <Zakim> sorry, msmith, I do not know which phone connection belongs to aaaa
19:23:22 <bmotik> pfps: Not only am I not willing to work on this, but I'm disenthartened
19:23:33 <bmotik> pfps: I worry that this might delay other work
19:23:42 <bmotik> ianh: Alan, have you got some idea about schedule?
19:24:05 <bmotik> alanr: If we had a section in the Primer that I authored, I'd try to align it with the next publication or Primer
19:24:40 <bmotik> alanr: End of January would be a realistic schedule for this
19:25:00 <bmotik> ianh: Some comment from Peter about this?
19:25:17 <bmotik> pfps: Primer is in Bijan's hands
19:25:34 <bmotik> pfps: If Bijan doesn't get his act together, I'll start working on it
19:25:42 <bmotik> pfps: Bijan has promised to work on it
19:25:47 <bmotik> ianh: So no schedule?
19:25:49 <bmotik> pfps: No
19:26:15 <bmotik> ianh: This depends on whether they would be REC track?
19:26:36 <bmotik> alanr: A question would be whether my suggestion of adding a section to Primer is a reasonable way to go
19:26:58 <bmotik> ianh: It looks you are alone on that
19:27:11 <bmotik> ianh: Your contribution might either go into the Primer or a note
19:27:21 <bmotik> ianh: Are you happy with that?
19:27:52 <bmotik> ianh: Perhaps we should take the Primer idea off-line for discussion with Bijan and Peter
19:28:18 <bmotik> ianh: We can put this on the agenda next week, together with a decision about whether these documents would be on the REC track
19:28:38 <sandro>
19:28:40 <bmotik> topic: Additional business
19:29:22 <bmotik> sandro: The link to the time for the RIF meeting is in IRC
19:30:12 <Zakim> Attendees were bmotik, IanH, Sandro, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, alanr, Achille, JeffP, Zhe, christine, schneid, msmith, +1.908.612.aaaa, Peter, Alan_Ruttenberg