F2F1 Minutes Session 8
Part of F2F1 Minutes.
OWL Working Group Meeting Minutes, 07 December 2007
DRAFT. Currently Under Review
See also: IRC log
- Uli Sattler
(Scribe changed to Uli Sattler)
Organizational Things and Scribing
Jeremy Carroll: has resigned from UFDT, but wants to cancel next monday?
Alan Ruttenberg: will arrange next UFDT
ACTION: on AlanR to arrange next UFDT meeting
Sandro Hawke: has seen 7 sessions' minutes, currently 57 pages and asks how to read to accept them and asks the scribes, when cleaning them up, to add sub headers: syntax is "===" for sub headers
ACTION: AlanR to arrange next UFDT meeting
Michael Smith: asks whether to serialize shuffled subdiscussions
Sandro Hawke: yes, please disentangle
Ian Horrocks: asks what to do with parallel discussions, esp. on the IRC
Sandro Hawke: keep them if they are relevant
Sandro Hawke: scribes finish cleaning up this wednesday
Jeremy Carroll: wants to see actions & resolutions in the minutes
Bijan Parsia: subgroups affected by discussions at F2F should update their documents with pointers to minutes
Jeremy Carroll: suggests to minimize effort on minutes
Alan Ruttenberg: asks for subjects for discussions
Bijan Parsia: non-OWL full issues with RDF mapping
Alan Ruttenberg: agrees with Bijan, mentions reification
Bijan Parsia: axioms annotation asserted versus reified
Alan Ruttenberg: wants to see both
Ian Horrocks: we already agreed that we should explore both assertions & reifications
Sandro Hawke: what about b-nodes and reification?
RDF Mapping Issues and Minutes (mixed discussion)
Bijan Parsia: can we discuss now some RDF mapping issues?
Michael Smith: has added such an issue wrt declarations
Bijan Parsia: you can't specify a signature for an ontology without using the elements of that signature in an axiom or a declaration (which requires owl11 terms)
Matthew Horridge: reports on user complaints regarding declarations
Joanne Luciano: asks for a summary sections of minutes and wants to discuss evaluation issues
Peter Patel-Schneider: disagrees with JLucianos suggestions: scribes should never paraphrase
Alan Ruttenberg: suggests to have summaries outside minutes
Ian Horrocks: suggests to post summaries on the mailinglist
Sandro Hawke: add links to presentations in minutes
Ian Horrocks: suggests clean up/mark up other material as well
Sandro Hawke: mentions that chairs could, if they wanted, blog meetings
Jeremy Carroll: doesn't want to do them
Alan Ruttenberg: hasn't seen a lot about evaluation
Jeremy Carroll: wants to give 2 examples reg. OWL Full compatibility: (1) we have an OWL11 document with reified annotions, we save and modify it....
Matthew Horridge: do we discuss punning or declaredAs?
Jeremy Carroll: is worried about (starts reading out from the text above)
Jeremy Carroll: there are various rules like this one, and they are the wrong ones
Bijan Parsia: understands why: if we have r subproperty of s, and then I add a composition, then this addition would lead to a different kind of serialization
Bijan Parsia: suggests that using different syntax for SubPropertyOf would solve this issue
Bijan Parsia: this is different from round tripping
Jeremy Carroll: suggests to have some form of switch that safes an ontology in OWL11, then we shouldn't expect it to be saved in an OWL10 format unless I require this explicitly
Matthew Horridge: asks whether the spec shouldn't specify this behaviour
Michael Smith: asks whether Jeremy wants tools to save ontologies only in OWL10 if explicitly asked to do so
Jeremy Carroll: observes a subtle relationship between the 2 OWL syntaxes
Ian Horrocks: comes back to AlanR' spoint, and points out that it would introduce nasty non-determinism wrt serialisation and that our n-ary disjointness axioms would cause trouble
Alan Ruttenberg: regards it as a bug to have these 2 possibilities for reading/serializing n-ary disjointness
Bijan Parsia: sees an issue with the mapping, we need to decide what to do with it: deal with it or not. And it would be nice to be clear on our decision in the spec and to have test cases.
Alan Ruttenberg: declarations fall into similar league
Matthew Horridge: disagree - we can throw them in/out
Alan Ruttenberg: asks whether we like declarations
Matthew Horridge: mentions that we can have both, declarations and roundtripping, but with a different mapping
Matthew Horridge: mentions discussions on the mailinglist
Boris Motik: explains that there are 2 readings of declarations. Declarations, possibly using rdf:type can and should be used for linting/simple syntactic check
Bijan Parsia: adds that we can also throw out some "used terms"
Boris Motik: wants to distinguish declaredAs from type. Since there is no notion of typing of RDF, things become problematic, especially with imports, e.g, do we need to re-declare when importing? In the owl10, there was no difference between "class" and "declaration"
Alan Ruttenberg: there wasn't even a notion of an ontology containing an axiom
Bijan Parsia: there is something about documents and ontologies (how to get one from the other)
Jeremy Carroll: suggests to use lateral thinking to solve this: use a new way of imports, namely one where we put import statements at the top of our ontologies and then all declarations will be there!
Boris Motik: seems to agree that this will help tools - if I knew what the type of things are, I could use streaming mode
Bijan Parsia: if they come late, they can still be useful (eg to find typos), but they are most useful at the top
Jeremy Carroll: suggests that we can do this via searching & process imports first
Boris Motik: asks whether typed vocabulary will be obsolote - if yes, we can re-use it
Boris Motik: we can merge the notion of typing and declarations, but cleanly
Jeremy Carroll: wouldn't it make a difference wrt model theory
Boris Motik: no, it's all syntax
Matthew Horridge: we need orphaned entities rather than declarations
Michael Smith: paraphrases that we want to be clear whether rdf:type is a declaration or something else?
Boris Motik: can we add a class to an ontology without adding an axiom? Declarations are a way to mention an entity outside any axiom.
Alan Ruttenberg: asks whether in OWL11, can we have X owl:class Class?
Bijan Parsia: yes, it's in OWL Full, but it disappears in the OWL DL mapping and in the XML syntax
Sandro Hawke: wants to add next F2F meeting to agenda
Bijan Parsia: wants to see from Boris examples explicating differences and consequences of both solutions
Alan Ruttenberg: and we need to check our claims re. what appears/disappears in mappings
Alan Ruttenberg: wants to see backwards compatibility on the agenda
Peter Patel-Schneider: F2F2 will be on April 3 and 4, in the Washington DC area, venue to be determined. OWLED might be in the area, but perhaps not. One possibility is to make use of NIST, but access is restricted
Evan Wallace: access to NIST is a bit tricky, but only first time
Peter Patel-Schneider: downtown DC or near to NIST are possible, too.
Peter Patel-Schneider: considers the possibility to move 1 day earlier to make AlanRector happier
Joanne Luciano: has mentioned MITRE
Peter Patel-Schneider: says that access at MITRE is even more difficult than at NIST. This time of year, the DC area will be extremely busy and thus we need to book Hotels early
Bijan Parsia: offers to make use of C&P rooms
Peter Patel-Schneider: reinforces the need to book hotels early
Peter Patel-Schneider: will come up with proposal together with Kendall Clark
ACTION: ppatelsc to tell us by 2 weeks where F2F2 will be
Alan Ruttenberg: wants to talk about backwards compatibility
Ian Horrocks: closes, thanks Sean Bechhofer for hosting