F2F1 Minutes Session 4

From OWL
Jump to: navigation, search

This is part of F2F1 Minutes

OWL Working Group Meeting Minutes, 06 December 2007

DRAFT. Currently Under Review

See also: IRC log

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)

Ian Horrocks: Two files:
Ian Horrocks: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/prontoExample.owlfs
Ian Horrocks: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/ontoClean.owlfs

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

Joanne Luciano: can someone repeat how to read the certainty "0.027;0.041"?

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?

Sandro Hawke: If every axiom had a URI, you could just use RDF (or OWL, or RIF) [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

one way you could interact with this is to make applications aware of the spaces

Bijan Parsia: yes [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

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

Bijan Parsia: you could reify, use literals, use separate documnets, etc ---- lots of ways to put named graphs in [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

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


Alan Ruttenberg: lets consider motivations

1: one wants to use editing tools

Vipul Kashyap: Cool!

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

Jeremy Carroll: Ivan didn't understand mustUnderstand ?!
Joanne Luciano: It's reminds me of C++ (?) preprocessing if I"m remembering correctly

Sebastian (guest): any tool that finds something strange could just say I do not know what to do with it... he likes the structure

Jeremy Carroll: The C preprocessor is, in many ways, too powerful ... give them enough rope ...

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

Achille Fokoue: +1 good idea
Joanne Luciano: +1 good idea

(jeremy objecting and, steve battelle abstained

that was for the general mechanism without semantics

Sandro Hawke: Jeremy is the only person not generally supportive of a rich annotation mechanism (ignore MustUnderstand issue)

now general idea with flagging semantic intention

Achille Fokoue: +1 good idea

good - 13

Joanne Luciano: +1 good idea

count good increased to 14 includes joanne

Joanne Luciano: :-)

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):

Achille Fokoue: +1
Joanne Luciano: +1
Achille Fokoue: +1
Zhe Wu: +1
Joanne Luciano: +1
Sandro Hawke: rerun -- not counting observers....

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

Joanne Luciano: Please note - I have to get on another conf call at 1630; I will monitor the call, but announce loudly if you move to Testing. I want to participate in that discussion if possible.
Joanne Luciano: Monitor via the chat - need the phone for th eother conf call.
Sandro Hawke: Add a hook for user-defined extensions.
s/Add/Boris (guest): Add/ [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

feedback that it is reasonable to continue developing this

Joanne Luciano: still on chat though!
Alan Ruttenberg: What worries me is that you can have an OWL document that doesn't look like an OWL document. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Jeremy Carroll: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Dec/att-0080/UFDTF_overview2.pdf

(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

uli2 (guest): My (unfinished) tutorial with multiple syntaxes inline: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~bparsia/2007/owltutorial/

preference in producing an overview doc that is between OWL 1.1 overview and OWL overview

Sandro Hawke: (rather contovercially) I hope the Semantic Web survives RDF. [ That is, the goals of Semantic Web are important. RDF may not be the best way to meet those goals. I hope those goals are met, even if it mean moving beyond RDF. ] [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Deborah McGuinness: looking at the overview for 1.0, http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/

Bijan Parsia: is working in a way to choose to preview an example in the syntax of your choice

Deborah McGuinness: that overview suggestion might be drop section 1, and drop it from organizing section 2

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

Deborah McGuinness: my comments were on starting from owl 1.0 overview
Deborah McGuinness: (and integrating in the owl 1.1 overview diff info)

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

Zhe Wu: i'd like to see a doc with a complete list of new vocabularies and pointers to examples and semantics

Alan Ruttenberg: people are not learning OWL from the docs. Use them as refs rather than intros

Joanne Luciano: It would be good to take a poll (if one's not been already) to see objectively how people are learning OWL.

Bijan Parsia: exaplain some problems related to w3c for updating the docs

Bijan Parsia: proposes changing license on old OWL 1.0 UFD to allow derivatives [Scribe assist by Jeremy Carroll]
Bijan Parsia: this would allow (not this WG) to support the old docs (i.e. publish new versions outside this space) [Scribe assist by Jeremy Carroll]

Vipul Kashyap: agrees with alan rut

Vipul Kashyap: would like to have domain specific examples [Scribe assist by Jeremy Carroll]
Vipul Kashyap: how do we decide what goes where W3C or outside? [Scribe assist by Jeremy Carroll]

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

Vipul Kashyap: Why not?
Vipul Kashyap: I mean why should educational material/use cases/requirements not be part of the rec track?
Vipul Kashyap: I would like some clear guidance and criteria from W3C
Vipul Kashyap: Just forwarded Michel Dumontier's response to the OWL WG mailing list

Alan Ruttenberg: asks for a clarification on sandros example

Jeremy Carroll: RecTrack document means that author gets acknowledgement as W3C Document author, which in turn should mean more commitment towards the work. [Scribe assist by Pascal Hitzler]
Deborah McGuinness: +1

Evan Wallace: a plain language doc that could be used by non-experts is very good

Vipul Kashyap: Jeremy's response is "content independent"
Vipul Kashyap: Doesn't help me decide either way

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

Achille Fokoue: +1
Uli Sattler: ivan, if they are notes, they will still have the blessing of the WG?

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).

Joanne Luciano: +1 I like the primer idea
Joanne Luciano: How do we evaluate what we do (in general)?

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

Evan Wallace: test
James Hendler: gives an example of inverseFunctional DatatypeProperties [Scribe assist by Giorgos Stoilos]
Jeremy Carroll: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#InverseFunctionalProperty-def
Jeremy Carroll: jim's question is where would such text go if we do not have a document like OWL Reference
particularly (guest): [Scribe assist by Jeremy Carroll]
NOTE (guest): Because in OWL Full datatype properties are a subclass of object properties, an inverse-functional property can be defined for datatype properties. In OWL DL object properties and datatype properties are disjoint, so an inverse-functional property cannot be defined for datatype properties. See also Sec. 8.1 and Sec. 8.2. [Scribe assist by Jeremy Carroll]
Ian Horrocks: maybe we will decide to have such a documents (like the reference) [Scribe assist by Giorgos Stoilos]

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).

Jeremy Carroll: To meet our charter deliverable of covering the intent of 'Overview' we'll work from OWL OVerview 1.0
Achille Fokoue: 0
Jeremy Carroll: To meet our charter deliverable of covering the intent of 'Guide', we'll publish a new 'Guide'
Jeremy Carroll: To meet our charter deliverable of covering the intent of 'Guide', we'll work from OWL Guide 1.0
Vipul Kashyap: I need a clarification
James Hendler: (can each of the things we are being asked to strawpole on be put up one at a time? - and I cannot see IRC from before joining, of course)
Vipul Kashyap: Perhaps working towards a document set like:
Vipul Kashyap: An introductory document between OWL 1.1 Overview and OWL Overview from Rec. (without the species of OWL emphasis)
Vipul Kashyap: A document intended as a language reference written in plain english
PROPOSED-1 (guest): To meet our charter deliverable of covering the intent of 'Overview' and 'Guide', we'll publish a new 'Primer' (written largely from scratch). [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Vipul Kashyap: Requirements with traceability
PROPOSED-2 (guest): To meet our charter deliverable of covering the intent of 'Overview' we'll work from OWL OVerview 1.0 [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Jeremy Carroll: no not really (to jim)

Peter Patel-Schneider: Aparently we should have 3 proposals: i) old docs, ii) fresh docs iii) prime proposal (bijan's)

James Hendler: wish I'd joined call earlier - incremental seems a lot less work than starting from scratch

PROPOSED: Refresh the old documents (otherwise, start mostly from scratch).

straw poll: YES=refresh docs NO=start new ones.

James Hendler: but no way to say yes to some docs and no to others? shouldn't we do this doc by doc?

Ian Horrocks: lets go doc by doc

Vipul Kashyap: Forwarded Christine's response to the OWL WG

straw poll on =overview=

James Hendler: overview = YES

PROPOSED: 'Overview' requirement from charter to be met by cleaned up and expanded-as-needed version of 2004 OWL Overview

Elisa Kendall: +1
James Hendler: +1
Achille Fokoue: 0
Zhe Wu: +1 (like to see delta)
Vipul Kashyap: +1
Joanne Luciano: 0 (just rejoined)
Sandro Hawke: pro in room - 4
Vipul Kashyap: +1 to start from scratch

votes for no in room - 9

Sandro Hawke: con in room - 9
Ian Horrocks: essentially a tie.... [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
James Hendler: I VOTE YES
Elisa Kendall: +1

Ian Horrocks: people from the call are confused on what YES/NO choices meant. New poll is performed

Zhe Wu: +1
Joanne Luciano: +1

count on room: 3

Vipul Kashyap: +1 for NO

total for yes: 7

Achille Fokoue: abstain

votes for no=12 (11 + vipul)

Vipul Kashyap: OK
Vipul Kashyap: -1 then

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:

Achille Fokoue: 0
Ian Horrocks: Yes mean keep current document and warm it up. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Zhe Wu: 0
Vipul Kashyap: -1

count on the room: 2

James Hendler: -1

voting for no

Elisa Kendall: -1
Joanne Luciano: +1 voitn for no

room (guest): 12

James Hendler: so it's not just the phone that is confused :-)

PROPOSED: 'Formal Specification' requirement from charter to be met by cleaned up and expanded-as-needed version of 2004 OWL publication

next doc =Reference=

James Hendler: +1 for reference

Starting vote from YES

Zhe Wu: +1
Elisa Kendall: +1
Achille Fokoue: 0

PROPOSED: 'Descriptive Specification requirement from charter to be met by cleaned up and expanded-as-needed version of 2004 OWL publication

Sandro Hawke: (skipping Formal Spec because it's not user facing)

count yes (refresh) in the room: 4

voting for no

Joanne Luciano: +1 start fresh
Vipul Kashyap: -1

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

James Hendler: +1 yes for Guide
Achille Fokoue: 0
Elisa Kendall: +1

voting for yes:

Zhe Wu: +1

room for yes: 2

Vipul Kashyap: -1

voting for no

Joanne Luciano: +1 do new!

room for no: 13

James Hendler: but this means we cannot do incremental?
Peter Patel-Schneider: rough "page size" for Overview 14 - Reference 50 - Guide 38
Deborah McGuinness: An introductory document between OWL 1.1 Overview and OWL Overview from Rec. (without the species of OWL emphasis)
Deborah McGuinness: from evan
Vipul Kashyap: +1

Ian Horrocks: maybe not have a poll on evan's suggestion (above) since it is currently not clear

Deborah McGuinness: ha ha from joanne
Joanne Luciano: I want to stay!

test cases

Jeremy Carroll: explains some ways for doing tests

...every feature in the spec must have a test

Joanne Luciano: both are important

Jeremy Carroll: in owl test was a normative doc

Ivan Herman: not in sparql

James Hendler: note that to be able to leave PR, one must document that every feature is implementable, and the tests are a way to do that
James Hendler: +1 to postponing the decision

Ivan Herman: don't need to decide now about normative or non

Alan Ruttenberg: put test cases on wiki

Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Test_Case_Experiment

Ian Horrocks: what will happen with existing test, will they be on the wiki

Joanne Luciano: response to alanrec - would have to update the tests!
James Hendler: do we have any commitment on archivability of the wiki?
Sandro Hawke: yes
James Hendler: and can it be frozen so it cannot be changed after some point (i.e. something that goes to Rec shouldn't have a "live document")
Sandro Hawke: test cases on wiki -- Sandro coding, Bijan as user, AlanRut, Jeremy

ACTION: Sandro to develop scripts to extract test cases from wiki, coordinating with Bijan, Jeremey, AlanRut.

Joanne Luciano: do we view test cases as sameas evaluation?
James Hendler: we phone folks just got cut off - meeting room left the wiki...
Jeremy Carroll: (meeting adjourned)
Jeremy Carroll: something went wrong with phone
Sandro Hawke: We got hung up on.....
Zhe Wu: i can hear someone typing
Jeremy Carroll: but we decided to adjourn
Evan Wallace: Zakim was cut off because we went past our scheduled time