Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
F2F1 Minutes Session 4
This is part of F2F1 Minutes
OWL Working Group Meeting Minutes, 06 December 2007
DRAFT. Currently Under Review
Contents
See also: IRC log
- Scribe
- Deborah McGuinness, Giorgos Stoilos
Rich Annotations
(Scribe changed to Deborah McGuinness)
The Working group would like to extend their thanks to the Knowledge Web project for the dinner we are about to enjoy.
Bijan's presentation of an annotation example
Slides sent to the list later
A few notes follow: The example uses one annotation space. One annotation blob includes who is responsible for the annotation (in this case self)
and sally checked it (thus showing structured annotations with reference to self)
namespaces at top
ontology header next
ontology uri, followed by comment (which expands to an rdfs comment)
followed by 2 namespace declarations
going down to womanaged50Plus
womanAged50Plus is a subclass of WomanWithBRCInShortTErm with certainty between .027 and .041
would be ignored if reasoner did not understand pronto
certainty between .027 and .041
Question from Joanne - can this be used to embed sbml in the document? Alan Ruttenberg: annotation and must understand would allow you to embed sbml into the document
Boris Motik: how should one encode constraints into an ontology?
this could be a way
bijan notes ontoclean and pronto are working
Alan Rector: we need rich linguistic representations for some applications
Alan Rector: we need rich structure
Alan Rector: a lot of information is provenance knowledge, its structure and how it was put together which is important for passing around between tools
Alan Rector: this is also a way of providing one type of representation and projecting it into an alternative representation
Alan Rector: want to take a model in owl and export it in another syntax
Bijan Parsia: part of this "must understand" is a retrofit
Sandro Hawke: must understand may be a reasonable option but there may be other options as well
what if someone wanted to put in rif rules?
one way you could interact with this is to make applications aware of the spaces
Ian Horrocks: question to sandro - what are possibly better engineering solutions?
Sandro Hawke: ummm
Sandro Hawke: extend the syntax
Alan Ruttenberg: this may lead to many different extensions ... maybe this is "too easy"
Jeremy Carroll: generally amused by mustunderstand that may be ignored
Jeremy Carroll: concerning named graphs... what about serialization
into rdfxml
Jeff Pan: mustunderstand is a nice idea to allow users to specify intended semantics...
Alan Ruttenberg: is it the case that a mustunderstand on anything, then reasoners may not understand the semantics
Motivations
Alan Ruttenberg: lets consider motivations
1: one wants to use editing tools
Sandro Hawke: suggest people give feedback to bijan on the general scheme
Ivan Herman: aestetic comment - word annotation is more what alan rector was describing
Ivan Herman: mustunderstand is not an annotation
Sebastian (guest): any tool that finds something strange could just say I do not know what to do with it... he likes the structure
Boris Motik: useful to group certain types of properties into annotation or extension.... not sure that this should be in the ontology.
Boris Motik: this may be worthy of putting in a separate document
about to move on to user facing documents (and hoping for test discussion to come)
Straw Poll
Ian Horrocks: rich annotation mechanism but without notion of mustunderstand
most people agree a good idea
(jeremy objecting and, steve battelle abstained
that was for the general mechanism without semantics
now general idea with flagging semantic intention
good - 13
count good increased to 14 includes joanne
discussion about what the vote was...
some kind of decorating mechanism of the existing syntax that would indicate a semantic change
PROPOSED: decoration of existing syntax as a way to make a syntactic change
revoting (guest):
in favor 14 (including the 3 remote participants)
against - pfps, sandro, alanrut - 3 total
abstain - hp
we could consider adding a swrl extension syntax to this proposal
Alan Ruttenberg: this may be out of scope
feedback that it is reasonable to continue developing this
(Scribe changed to Giorgos Stoilos)
User Facing Documents
Slides for this session: Media:wallace-f2f1.pdf
Evan wallace is presenting the status of User Facing Documents
...documents that will help users into owl 1.1
...like guide, overview, reference
Evan Wallace: work mainly volunteered
...should these documents be produced as part of the spec?
...what syntax to use for the examples, different users have different preferences...DL syntax
...abstract syntax, etc
Evan Wallace: e.g. some docs use the DL side, while others use, like the Reference use a Semantic Web side (meaning RDF)
no much progress has been done
preference in producing an overview doc that is between OWL 1.1 overview and OWL overview
Bijan Parsia: is working in a way to choose to preview an example in the syntax of your choice
Deborah McGuinness: looked in OWL 1.1 overview
Jeremy Carroll: a question is how much of the old docs we will use or start new ones
Jeremy Carroll: do we want to extend the owl1.0 docs?
Bijan Parsia: oposes to extending the owl 1.0 docs. Finds them confusing
...don't thinks that good "tutorials" could be written within the WG
Bijan Parsia: if people want to go forward then he proposes something like RDF Primer
Ian Horrocks: thinks that an entry doc is very important and usefull
Bijan Parsia: what about the homepage?
...contains motivation, intro, etc
Michael Smith: homepage could also be improved to serve as a better intro doc
Alan Ruttenberg: people are not learning OWL from the docs. Use them as refs rather than intros
Bijan Parsia: exaplain some problems related to w3c for updating the docs
Vipul Kashyap: agrees with alan rut
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: agrees with bijan. Why does educational material go to rec?
Uli Sattler: what about updating old docs with links to new matterial
Deborah McGuinness: don't see how this could be done
Sandro Hawke: explains a way
Alan Ruttenberg: asks for a clarification on sandros example
Evan Wallace: a plain language doc that could be used by non-experts is very good
Bijan Parsia: I am not highly against rectrack docs but more in favour for notes
Ian Horrocks: put the rectrack non-rectrack aside and think about the docs
Ian Horrocks: it seems from today that overall docs are not very good
Ian Horrocks: come again to the question whether starting fresh docs or extending old ones
Ivan Herman: has found guide docs of various groups very helpfull, like XML schema
Ivan Herman: if these docs have the blessing of the group then this is much better
....producing similar docs for the community would be good
Alan Ruttenberg: do we agree that we need a reference doc
Deborah McGuinness: because there are problems with existing ones does not mean we have to start with new ones
Bijan Parsia: proposes a fresh "primer" doc as a replacement of overview and guide
PROPOSED: To meet our charter deliverable of covering the intent of 'Overview' and 'Guide', we'll publish a new 'Primer' (written largely from scratch).
James Hendler: asks about where the specification of OWL Full would go. Does not see it in OWL 1.1. functional syntax
Jeremy Carroll: agrees with jim. It would be helpfull to have a doc which explains to non-experts features of owl full
Bijan Parsia: functional syntax must not change since it is the formal specification
PROPOSED: To meet our charter deliverable of covering the intent of 'Overview' and 'Guide', we'll publish a new 'Primer' (written largely from scratch).
Peter Patel-Schneider: Aparently we should have 3 proposals: i) old docs, ii) fresh docs iii) prime proposal (bijan's)
PROPOSED: Refresh the old documents (otherwise, start mostly from scratch).
straw poll: YES=refresh docs NO=start new ones.
Ian Horrocks: lets go doc by doc
straw poll on =overview=
PROPOSED: 'Overview' requirement from charter to be met by cleaned up and expanded-as-needed version of 2004 OWL Overview
votes for no in room - 9
Ian Horrocks: people from the call are confused on what YES/NO choices meant. New poll is performed
count on room: 3
total for yes: 7
votes for no=12 (11 + vipul)
PROPOSED: 'Requirements' requirement from charter to be met by cleaned up and expanded-as-needed version of 2004 OWL publication
next doc to poll =requirements=
voting for yes:
count on the room: 2
voting for no
room (guest): 12
PROPOSED: 'Formal Specification' requirement from charter to be met by cleaned up and expanded-as-needed version of 2004 OWL publication
next doc =Reference=
Starting vote from YES
PROPOSED: 'Descriptive Specification requirement from charter to be met by cleaned up and expanded-as-needed version of 2004 OWL publication
count yes (refresh) in the room: 4
voting for no
count in room for no: 13
PROPOSED: 'GUIDE requirement from charter to be met by cleaned up and expanded-as-needed version of 2004 OWL publication
voting for yes:
room for yes: 2
voting for no
room for no: 13
Ian Horrocks: maybe not have a poll on evan's suggestion (above) since it is currently not clear
test cases
Jeremy Carroll: explains some ways for doing tests
...every feature in the spec must have a test
Jeremy Carroll: in owl test was a normative doc
Ivan Herman: not in sparql
Ivan Herman: don't need to decide now about normative or non
Alan Ruttenberg: put test cases on wiki
Ian Horrocks: what will happen with existing test, will they be on the wiki
ACTION: Sandro to develop scripts to extract test cases from wiki, coordinating with Bijan, Jeremey, AlanRut.