From OWL
Jump to: navigation, search

These minutes have been approved by the Working Group and are now protected from editing. (See IRC log of approval discussion.)

Note that some names appear in red on this page. That simply indicates that the name is linking to a wiki page which does not yet exist. Users should click on that link and create a page for themselves. If they already have a page, they can link from this 'canonical name' page to their existing page by making the page content be "#REDIRECT otherPage", where otherPage is the name of the other page.

OWL WG Teleconference 10 Oct 2007

See also: IRC log



ADMIN (20 min)


Ian Horrocks: Procedural preliminaries; everyone should get better at getting connected so as to not take up telecon time with us getting connected
... Please check the using zakim and the ettiquette page.
...and importantly, help the scribe!

Sandro Hawke: Meeting Etiquette Page
Alan Ruttenberg:

PROPOSED regular telecon time Wednesday 1300 East US

Peter Patel-Schneider: grumble, grumble, but its better than Friday
Rinke Hoekstra: 1 to pfps
Anne Cregan: 3am Australian Eastern Standard Time !

Ian Horrocks: Anyone have a problem with this time? No, let's move on.

Sandro Hawke: RESOLVED: regular telecon time Wednesday 1300 East US

Agenda amendments

Ian Horrocks: no amendments

Telecons and IRC

Peter Patel-Schneider: It is best to sign on to the IRC before you phone in, so that you can see your phone call being added.

Sandro Hawke: Normally irc logs are public. So we need to decide that

Sandro Hawke: PROPOSED: irc logs default to public

Lots of agreement both on and off IRC.

Sandro Hawke: RESOLVED: irc logs default to public
Alan Ruttenberg:

Scribe Alternation

Alan Ruttenberg: e.g. look at the bottom of

Ian Horrocks: For scribing, please check the list and let chairs know if you can't make your turn

Regrets to be posted on meeting wiki

Alan Ruttenberg: if someone doesn't want to use the wiki for regrets, send email *directly* to Alan Ruttenberg (not to the list)

Wiki authorship policy

Peter Patel-Schneider: Problem with the wiki involving colons and usernames

Sandro Hawke: ACTION: Alan to clean up User: prefix on wiki [recorded in]

Markus Krötzsch: tools like showing all-contributions-of-user require using User: namespace

Alan Ruttenberg:
Markus Krötzsch: 1 to use proper names for wiki accounts
Rinke Hoekstra: 1 idem
Alan Ruttenberg: peter has to be patelp123

discussion about names in wiki names

Alan Ruttenberg: if you have issues with your wikiname, contact alanr or sandro *off list*

Sandro Hawke: everyone should create a wiki account in the next few days

Sandro Hawke: Sandro: Everyone should go ahead and set up a wiki account in the next few days, using your full name (as on the participants list).

Ian Horrocks: Accounts are important because much of the work of the group will be done via the wiki

Alan Ruttenberg: Wiki authorship policy: Every page is editable by all users. If you want to protect a page from arbitrary edits *say so on the page*. Default is that all users are free to edit.

Markus Krötzsch: as wikis track all changes, it is usually easier to undo changes than to make them anyway

Alan Ruttenberg: question about who gets write access (e.g., out side of group

Peter Patel-Schneider: We might want to have user pages editable by the user only.
Markus Krötzsch: pfps: that is not easy to realise in MediaWiki
Peter Patel-Schneider: I meant that the default community practise is not to edit other people's user pages.

Sandro Hawke: If the edits are friendly, just do it. If you expect disputation, try the talk page first

Alan Ruttenberg: alanr has ambitious plans for using the wiki; e.g., doing the specs there; test cases; etc.

Alan Ruttenberg: keep an eye on the recent changes

Markus Krötzsch: also note that you can watch pages in the wiki, and receive notiifcations if someone changes them

Peter Patel-Schneider: Is the wiki support full html?

Markus Krötzsch: @pfps: full HTML is not possible, but you can get most formatting-related stuff
Peter Patel-Schneider: I thought that there was an option to make MH be full HTML.
Sandro Hawke: There is -- we can turn on full-HTML in MW.
Alan Ruttenberg: don't know if we want to
Scribe Error: ACTION: alanr to check for HTML support in mediawiki, esp. to support the semantics document [recorded in]
Markus Krötzsch: -1 to use talk pages for discussions
Sandro Hawke: Alan: Wiki folks -- Sandro, Alan, Markus, Peter

Charter review (scope, deliverables, timeline)

Ian Horrocks: We're not going to do the charter review on the phone -- good homework. Participants shoudl read the charter very carefully and review the input documents for next week

Ian Horrocks: and the issues list, etc.

Alan Ruttenberg: we need to transistion the various issue lists

Bijan:This was my question/point

Peter Patel-Schneider: let's just look at the pointers, what are they?
Alan Ruttenberg:

Ian Horrocks: The timeline is aggressive. Need first draft of the deliverables soon. So we need to identify potential land minds. Please review documents with an eye to these landmines.

Ivan Herman: OWL1.0 issues
Sandro Hawke: WebOnt issues (I think)
Sandro Hawke: heh
Ivan Herman: :-)
Alan Ruttenberg: charter says: The OWL1.1 member submission, the list of postponed issues of the WebOnt Working Group,

Vipul Kashyap: Combined issues list is a great idea, but many issues from the origianl list are closed. What should deal with it?

Ivan Herman: I agree

Vipul Kashyap: Some closed issues weren't *accommodated* but deferred. How do we reopen?

Ian Horrocks: Prefer to make a new issue for that

general agreement

Peter Patel-Schneider: If you go to the issue list, then to the issue, there should be a Resolution that closed it, and pointers to where the resolution came from.

Vipul Kashyap: Could the issue transfer person add all the resolutions and rationales?

Ian Horrocks: prefer that the burden is on participants who want to champion an old closed issue should propose it fresh

Sandro Hawke: Note about issues: chairs have discrestion about actually raising issues. Participants propose issues.

Ian Horrocks: We must recall the timeline. So issues are better raised as early as possible.

Sandro Hawke: Homework: two issues lists, charter, owl 1.1 submission

Sub-groups to work on deliverables

Ian Horrocks: A proposal for organization: We should have subgroups for the deliverables.
... And we would use the wiki heavily for the collab document editing/authoring.
... Feedback?

Vipul Kashyap: How to create the subgroups? Divide by technology or by application.

Ian Horrocks: We'd divide by *documents*.

Ian Horrocks: i.e., each subgroup is "in charge" of a corresponding document

Sandro Hawke: Bijan: Maybe coordination would be difficult, if it's per-document sub-groups?

Ian Horrocks: That's a point. If you look at the owl, there's a lot of overlap. Might be good.

Sandro Hawke: Ian: If you look at the OWL spec, you'll see there's lots of overlap between them, so ... yes, lots of overlap ... good thing? bad thing? different documents for different audiences?

Bijan Parsia: I meant more that e.g., syntax changes affect the semantics document

Sandro Hawke: Joanne: How about people dedicated to cross-checking documents?

Joanne Luciano: Useful for getting crosschecks

Evan Wallace: Describing the same things in different ways for different audiences is good.

Bijan Parsia: I agree, but this is orthogonal to my point that the *language* decisions are separate

Vipul Kashyap: Can we have an overarching example or use case to drive the documents.

Sandro Hawke: Vipul: would it make sense to have an over-arching use case to drive the documents?

Ian Horrocks: We do have a requirements document deliverable

Alan Ruttenberg: Added and sidebar link under inputs: Issues
Evan Wallace: Language design decisions should be the responsibility of the WG

Ian Horrocks: but requirements can eat up a lot of time so we can't presume that the other documents can wait on them.
... any objections?

Alan Ruttenberg: I agree with Ian that we have a clear set of goals for the language extensions (originally motivated from OWLED), but don't want to close off new use cases. Given the timeline, if you think there's something missing based on a use case

Anne Cregan: I think we have a very clear set of goals and we don't need to mill around considering requirements and use cases

Alan Ruttenberg: please bring it to group attention

Rinke Hoekstra: 1 to alanr's remarks
Conrad Bock: Logging off

Bijan:Can we defer some of these discussion to the mailing list?

Vipul Kashyap: Perhaps a table mapping constructs to use cases? I.e., how each cosntruct meet the use cases

Alan Ruttenberg: A user guide could incorporate that. It would be a good idea to have this connectability in the guide.

Alan Ruttenberg: opinion: #2
Alan Ruttenberg: 1

Bijan Parsia: Are subgroups "merely" editors or do they advance the technical work

Ian Horrocks: function as traditional editors

Anne Cregan: Just clarify - I'm open to new use cases if needed
Alan Ruttenberg: do we need a resolution here?

Bijan Parsia: So, we use the traditional proposal mechanism via email?

Alan Ruttenberg: anne: yess
Alan Ruttenberg: 2
Jeff Pan: 1 to keep it an hour
Peter Patel-Schneider: 1 do all decisions be made by the full group, but I expect that the subgroups will be ironing out details that will be ratified later

Bijan Parsia: I think that only an hour is hopeless

Achille Fokoue: 1 do all decisions be made by the full group

Relationships to other W3C groups

Choose contact persons

Ian Horrocks: There are a bunch of WG to coordinate with. People should look at the related groups in the charter and people should see if they are interested to be the contact person for select group

Peter Patel-Schneider: there is supposed to be a new RIF BLD draft out this week. I'm planning on looking at it. Are we going to make review of this doc a part of this WG's process?

Alan Ruttenberg: The role of the contact person is to monitor the target group activity for things which might affect owl and informing them about things from owl that might affect them.

Review of the RIF document

Alan Ruttenberg: Reviewing the RIF BLD should be an activity of owlwg. Peter would be a good person to do that.

Peter Patel-Schneider: OK by me, as I'm going to read it anyway, but they might not like what I have to say. :-)
Peter Patel-Schneider: I'm also willing to produce a personal review and a WG review.

Sandro Hawke: Whenever we do a review as a group, we generally delegate but they can publish that individually or as a group. A group decision is needed for the latter

Ian Horrocks: Everyone is personally welcome to review RIF

Peter Patel-Schneider: Ask the people who were in RDF Core. :-)
Alan Ruttenberg: PROPOSED there will be WG Review of RIF BLD

Sandro Hawke: It's a lot of wg work to do a group review

Ian Horrocks: but given the importance of the relationahip it's worth doing a group review

RESOLVED there will be WG review of RIF BLD

Peter Patel-Schneider: but it might be a good idea to get our dibs in so that there might be changes before publication.

Sandro Hawke: publishing morotoriam meants that the BLD will not formally published for a few weeks

Alan Ruttenberg: 1 to pfps dibs
Sandro Hawke: ACTION: Peter to Review the RIF BLD draft and report back to OWL-WG for discussion [recorded in]

Manchester F2F: Estimate attendance

Alan Ruttenberg: postpone item 16
Alan Ruttenberg: close item 16 take it up next week
Ivan Herman: 1
Evan Wallace: I will attend FTF1
Peter Patel-Schneider: I'll be there
Ivan Herman: yes
Jeff Pan: possible
Alan Ruttenberg: f2f yes
Sandro Hawke: 1 mancheseter
Boris Motik: yes
Doug Lenat: sorry 50-50
Rinke Hoekstra: yes (most likely)
Anne Cregan: No
Bijan Parsia: bernardo and bijan are
Tommie Meyer: regrettably no
Carsten Lutz: yes
Vipul Kashyap: No, Sorry!
Markus Krötzsch: yes
Giorgos Stoilos: possible
Achille Fokoue: not sure yet
Alan Ruttenberg: who is stoil?
Jeff Pan: Giorgos Stoilos
Peter Patel-Schneider: you can set up a poll (vote?)

Manchester F2F: Outline objectives

Ian Horrocks: Objectives of the f2f: Time is pressing (again). F2F can get a lot of work done.

Alan Ruttenberg: A big concern is getting everyone up to speed technically on all aspects of the documents.
... so we should find out how much tutorialness is needed
... an example, I didn't understand declarations until talking to people. How many issues are like that? How much prep should we do

Ian Horrocks: People should feel free to ask questions on the mailing list, esp. if there's something they don't understand.

Peter Patel-Schneider: 1 to having some documents for discussion at F2F1
Doug Lenat: good!

Bijan Parsia: Are we aiming for FWD before the f2f or decide there? what's the publication schedule.

Ian Horrocks: we'll take that up next week. I'll add it on the agenda.

Alan Ruttenberg: minutes to be posted at (even if just a link to log)

Ivan Herman: have the local arrangements page been updated?

Sandro Hawke:

Ian Horrocks: Yes. There is a new la page linked from the wiki

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Alan to clean up User: prefix on wiki [recorded in]
[NEW] ACTION: alanr to check for HTML support in mediawiki, esp. to support the semantics document [recorded in]
[NEW] ACTION: Peter to Review the RIF BLD draft and report back to OWL-WG for discussion [recorded in]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.128 (CVS log)
$Date: 2007/10/10 18:40:38 $

original html converted to wiki markup using with edits by AlanRuttenberg

Further processing done to convert that wiki-text into template calls, and canonicalize user names to those used by tracker, in customer software by Sandro Hawke.