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.)

See also: IRC log




Approval of Minutes

Alan Ruttenberg: NOT RESOLVED: Our first working drafts, to be published before the 3-month heartbeat, will be one: (1) Structural Specification, (2) Semantics. We may include (3) RDF Mapping in this list. These are based on the text for each of these at

RESOLVED: based on email discussions, this issue is reopened at this meeting.


RESOLVED: Accept minutes of meeting 10/24/2007.

Peter Patel-Schneider: with regard to ACTION 1 from last week, will need this resolved in the near future. How can we transition this to the wiki if this isn't resolved?

Sandro Hawke: Action 1 is the log-ins?

Peter Patel-Schneider: Yes. While we can redirect links, we can't merge at this point. One strategy may be to rename accounts, use open id.

Sandro Hawke: If the history is attributed to your old login name rather than new, that may not be a big issue.

Peter Patel-Schneider: It probably isn't too much of a problem if my inputs are split over two logins.

Rinke Hoekstra: Everyone can create logins with new names, since nothing has been edited yet.

Sandro Hawke: Maybe W3C logins are the proper logins to use.

Alan Ruttenberg: Let's take this up this week and try to resolve it.

Peter Patel-Schneider: ok, but I'm not going to wait to get the "right" login to start doing things then

Ian Horrocks: There are more people on the call than have accounts on the wiki; everyone needs to create a wiki account.

Sandro Hawke: ACTION: Alan to send e-mail reminding and instructing people to make Wiki accounts [recorded in].
Tracker (Meeting Support System): Created ACTION-4 - Send e-mail reminding and instructing people to make Wiki accounts [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2007-10-31].

Alan Ruttenberg: The front page should represent consensus of what we all think it should be and what W3C would like it to be. If someone wants to change the front page, they should send a request to the chairs and they will address it accordingly.

Jeremy Carroll: +1 to prposal
Boris Motik: +1 to proposal
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 to proposal
Tommie Meyer: +1 to proposal
Carsten Lutz: +1 proposal

Vipul Kashyap: Why is it a bad idea for anyone to add what they want (not disagreeing with guidelines, just asking). When something is approved or disapproved, some sort of reasons should be given, and an alternative proposed.

Uli Sattler: +1 to proposal
Vit Novacek: +1 to proposal

Alan Ruttenberg: We should add these to the agenda and discuss. I'm in favor of taking a wiki approach, that said, what does it mean to be as permissive as possible?

Ratnesh Sahay: +1
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to proposal, as accidents can end up making it hard to find things (yes you can go to the history, but ...)

Alan Ruttenberg: We should develop a set of policies that everyone can live with, but the front page may be special - the front page may need to look a certain way depending on W3C policies, etc.

Vipul Kashyap: I agree with what you're saying but this should evolve over time.

Alan Ruttenberg: Addition to agenda for next meeting to discuss further.

Bijan pointed out Michelle's table from use cases.

Alan Ruttenberg: Any other comments on this proposal?

Achille Fokoue: +1 for the proposal
Alan Ruttenberg: PROPOSED: Edits to the Front Page should be vetted by WG chairs.

Alan Ruttenberg: RESOLVED: Edits to Front Page should be vetted by WG chairs.

Alan Ruttenberg: Should there be a functional requirements section with links on the front page? Proposed by Vipul for next agenda.
Bijan Parsia: Blog post with Dumontier table:
Bijan Parsia: The original paper:

Vipul will work on functional requirements based on this for next time.

Publication Schedule

Alan Ruttenberg: There was a fair amount of discussion on this topic last week, that we would effectively put the current set of documents as a public working draft, sometime before the heartbeat requirement for a public working draft, around the 6th or 8th of January. Subsequently, there was discussion in email regarding both content and process issues.

Bijan Parsia: My discussion summary, which alan just recapped:

Alan Ruttenberg: In light of this, we decided to slow down a bit and reconsider how we should proceed. See

Vipul Kashyap: Bijan, is it possible for you to post this link under publications or something on the wiki page?
Vipul Kashyap: The paper above
Bijan Parsia: I presume so
Vipul Kashyap: Thanks
Bijan Parsia: But I think it's possible for you too :)

Alan Ruttenberg: What we're proposing is that the editing of the 3 documents, whatever comes out of this, will be the first draft, but we will migrate these to the wiki. Effectively, everyone who has an interest in contributing would be able to edit them in the wiki and make them our own.

Vipul Kashyap: Well, I just got one change of mine rolled back :)
Bijan Parsia: That doesn't make me *more* inclined to try :)
Vipul Kashyap: BTW, I noticed that we need a publications/resources tab on the wiki
Vipul Kashyap: :) to bijan

Alan Ruttenberg: The procedure would be to post an issue to the tracker. Use pages on the wiki to draft changes, issues will be discussed during meetings and changes made based on resolutions. Shortly before, or during f2f, we will make a decision about publication as first WD. Then sandro will take wiki contents and format them back out as draft documents depending on group consensus.

Jeremy Carroll: +1 to proposal
Evan Wallbace: +1 to proposal

Peter Patel-Schneider: Not that it's likely to come to pass, but I'm a bit uneasy about a decision to not publish for some period of time.

Alan Ruttenberg: It would be self-imposed...

Ian Horrocks: I wouldn't describe this as a publication black-out - we'll decide before a certain date.

Peter Patel-Schneider: Well, shortly before...

Bijan Parsia: One thing that caused a lot of difficulty - the proposal was to publish this week, then we might target the F2F instead, and say that's what we're going for, when we feel ready.

Sandro Hawke: Bijan: Maybe we should just set a goal for ourselves of trying to publish before the F2F.

Deborah McGuinness: I was reading some of the email, are we now proposing that we're going to have three documents come out ...
I want to make sure we don't have something that only theoreticians can read. Is the structural specification something we expect to be readable by a broad audience?

Boris Motik: Many non-theoreticians were able to use and implement OWL 1.1

Alan Ruttenberg: We were trying to triage to see which documents were available for publication first.

Bijan Parsia: +1 to bmotik

Alan Ruttenberg: The reasoning wasn't to avoid publication of the more readable documents. We should take the same approach to the other docs, post issues, and publish them when they are ready.

Deborah McGuinness: Now matter how hard we work, we're not going to be able to make the semantics document, for example, readable for a large audience. We need another document to come out at the same time that is readable by the broader audience.

Jeremy Carroll: +1 to sense of urgency for more readable docs

Alan Ruttenberg: ...What will the users go to as the ultimate set of documents we produce, and what are the steps in the process. I think what you're saying is that you want some kind of overview document to be in the first set we publish.

Bijan Parsia: There's a queue!

Deborah McGuinness: Yes, or something that can take its place.

Alan Ruttenberg: It might be confusing to have some version of the user docs if there is flux in the set of features discussed.

Deborah McGuinness: But if there isn't something available that is readable, people won't be able to follow what's going on.

Bijan Parsia: I'm strongly against this - reasons include that we don't have such a document available for OWL 1.1 yet, although quite a few people have been able to comment on what we do have. There is a limit even with the OWL Guide on who can read it and comment effectively. Most working groups I have participated in recently publish tech docs first, long before publishing a guide, until the tech docs are farther along. I don't think that other WGs would have a problem with publishing the tech docs well in advance of the guide. We can deal with some questions in email along the way.

Vipul Kashyap: I agree with Deborah and disagree with Bijan. I believe that this depends on who we believe our audience is.

Bijan Parsia: I work with end users all the time on various lists, and my primary customer is the end user (people building and using ontologies).

Vipul Kashyap: This reinforces my claims, because he provides these things to implementors and technical teams.

Alan Ruttenberg: He has clarified that this isn't his primary audience.

Bijan Parsia: Can I clarify?

Vipul Kashyap: If you think your end user is someone using OWL, then that's not the same as an end user who is a business user presenting this technology to a CIO or business user.

I'm in favor of Deborah's position - the first thing in the SW dev lifecycle is to go out and develop use cases (end user use cases rather than technical use cases).

Boris Motik: We had two years of collecting use cases at OWL-ED, as documented in 50+ papers.
Ian Horrocks: See survey at -- seems that 80% edit OWL using Protege or SWOOP. Guide argument seems predicated on belief that "end users" will look directly at OWL.

We should bring this issue of use cases forward in the development cycle

Rinke Hoekstra: I think the audience differs per document.
Evan Wallbace: Question for Vipul and Deb: what kind of feedback are you looking for from end users?
Bijan Parsia: Including a panel of industry people
Bijan Parsia: And a specific HCLS panel
Bijan Parsia: Plus, all this is not remotely normal behavior for a working group

The table Michelle developed is fantastic - we need to do the same thing in [other domains] - we need to give primacy to the end user.

Bijan Parsia: Plus if we look at the documents deb cites as models, they are not for CIOs

Ian Horrocks: It seems to me that alot of this argument in favor of guides, etc. is predicated on the belief that end users will look at OWL; in a way they care less about OWL and more about the editors they use that are based on the standards. I believe that the goal is to bring all of these documents into the domain so that we can work on them as soon as possible. There is an overview document that isn't great but provides some idea of the features which we can point people to.
This whole discussion has drifted quite away from the agenda - if people believe that we should start working on a guide or other doc we should propose an agenda item for that for next week.

Zakim (Teleconferencing System): JeremyCarroll, you wanted to mention requirements...

Jeremy Carroll: If the best way to move forward is to propose to create these end user facing documents ... I believe that a requirements document would be useful, but agree with Ian ...

Peter Patel-Schneider: \me can we please move on?

Vipul Kashyap: I was attempting to differentiate my view of an end user ...

Evan Wallbace: call the question

Alan Ruttenberg: There is broad agreement that we should have good user facing docs. The current procedure doesn't preclude that, but talks about focus on the tech docs and working on them via the wiki.

Ian Horrocks: +1 to Peter's (and my) request!
Carsten Lutz: +1 peter!
Uli Sattler: +1 to Peter and Ian and to move on
Boris Motik: +1 to peter
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1 to peter

Alan Ruttenberg: Do you believe that we have adequate support for these user docs (to Deb and Vipul)?

Bijan Parsia: It's not clear to me that Deb and Vipul mean the same documents

Vipul Kashyap: The issue may be sequencing - we should add this to a future agenda.

Bijan Parsia: OWL overview, guide, and references are fairly narrowly targeted

Alan Ruttenberg: Do you agree that we can migrate the three proposed technical documents to the wiki as soon as possible, that people can raise issues, etc., and that we can move forward to work on these between now and the F2F?

Ian Horrocks: Charter already calls for "Descriptive specification" and "User guide", so clearly we as a group are committed to working on these.

Vipul Kashyap: Maybe we should consider trying to publish a use cases and requirements document at the same time, which we can take up in the next agenda.

Peter Patel-Schneider: I'm against delaying documents that are ready to wait for documents that are not.
Ian Horrocks: Charter also calls for "Overview"

Deborah McGuinness: I was pushing much more for the overview than the guide - updating the guide is a massive amount of work.

Rinke Hoekstra: +1 to peter
Jeremy Carroll: A FPWD of an overview could just be the new bits for O|WL 1.1 does not to have OWL 1.0 part as well

Deborah McGuinness: My worry is that if the focus is just on the three docs, that work on an overview would be relegated to the end of telecons and ultimately wont get addressed.

Bijan Parsia: I would like some evidence of this broad user base.
Ian Horrocks: ?q
Bijan Parsia: With these specific complaints

Deborah McGuinness: I'm trying to support a broad user base of scientists and business people who are trying to work with this. Something like an overview is really critical for them.

Boris Motik: But nobody doubts that both an overview and a user's guide should be produced by the WG.
Uli Sattler: Boris, the question is the order of publication: what goes first/what waits?
Jeremy Carroll: (I would prefer not to work on user facing docs ... not really my skill set ... but I will cheer someone else on!!)

Alan Ruttenberg: To address the issue of these getting short shrift on the agenda - Ian and Alan are responsible for the agenda, and will make sure it gets appropriate time. I will take this seriously to make sure that all of the concerns of people in the group are considered.

Rinke Hoekstra: I'm all for working in parallel

Alan Ruttenberg: Are there any objections currently to adopting this proposal to the group?

Ian Horrocks: PROPOSED:
Jeremy Carroll: second
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 to proposal

Alan Ruttenberg: Objections?

Jeff Pan: +1 to proposal
Uli Sattler: +1
Vit Novacek: +1
Tommie Meyer: +1
Evan Wallbace: +1
Boris Motik: +1 to proposal
Giorgos Stoilos: +1
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1
Bijan Parsia: +1
Ratnesh Sahay: +1 to proposal
Michael Smith: +1

Alan Ruttenberg: This does not preclude an additional resolution that we would publish another document on a similar schedule.

Achille Fokoue: +1
Vipul Kashyap: +1 conditionally to publishing the use cases document on the same schedule
Fabien Gandon: +1
Bijan Parsia: I don't think jim asbtains

Alan Ruttenberg: Not hearing any objections, and with one abstention from Jim ...

He indicated support for the chairs proposal.

Jeremy Carroll: If Jim wants to abstain he can abstain by e-mail
Ian Horrocks: RESOLVED:

Document Migration

Ok, we're getting close to the end of an hour ...

Peter Patel-Schneider: These meetings are scheduled for 90 minutes, not 60

Ian Horrocks: We should take a quick stab at the next agenda item ... what form these documents are going to take in the wiki or otherwise.

Bijan Parsia: I propose we talk about task forces
Bijan Parsia: 1+

Alan Ruttenberg: There seems to be productive discussion on this in the mailing list at this point

Ian Horrocks: I would like to get this moved forward as quickly as possible so that people can start working on the documents.

Peter Patel-Schneider: I would prefer that we keep the meetings to 90 minutes

Bijan Parsia: one solution is shorter agendae

Alan Ruttenberg: There are a number of people that can only attend for 60 minutes, and this is an issue for the entire working group, so we should address it at the next meeting.

Sandro Hawke: Alan: Let's talk about meeting length next time.

Bijan Parsia: I'd like to talk about the task forces - and have some guidance about how we are going to proceed with reviews.

Alan Ruttenberg: So in between the wiki docs and task forces is the issues list, tracker, and so forth.

Bijan Parsia: +1 to talking about the issues list
Jeremy Carroll: +1 to talking about issues

Alan Ruttenberg: Should we address those first or skip to the task forces?

Jeremy Carroll: (i will leave in ten mins)

Peter Patel-Schneider: I'd like to be able to have something happen before the next telecon - like moving docs to the wiki, or getting the issues list set up, or something.

Ian Horrocks: +1 to Peter -- let's get on with it!

Alan Ruttenberg: The last discussion was on how we might mark up the documents.

Bijan Parsia: +1 to doing stuff

Peter Patel-Schneider: We have documents in html, let's just move them over to the wiki and figure out how to deal with the math tags later.

Alan Ruttenberg: When you say html, does that mean wiki vs. html?

Uli Sattler: +1 to Peter

Sandro Hawke: Right now the docs are pure html, for math will they use images or what...

Boris Motik: The images are used only for the diagrams in the strucutral specification
Boris Motik: All other documents use plain HMTL
Bijan Parsia: +1 to the migration simply and soonly

Ian Horrocks: The structural specification uses images, so it would be possible to move the other two over that don't use images, and deal with the images later.

Bijan Parsia: How about moving to wiki markup over time?
Bijan Parsia: Some participation and editing is better than none

Alan Ruttenberg: I think use of wiki mark-up is alot cleaner, I'm concerned with broad participation in editing.

Bijan Parsia: And we can move over time
Bijan Parsia: if it seems happy
Bijan Parsia: to do so

Alan Ruttenberg: There is a converter that seems to do reasonably well, but we should be sure that we can use html if that's not the case.

Sandro Hawke: We don't need full html to do the equations ...

Bijan Parsia: It's not
Bijan Parsia: No scripts

Peter Patel-Schneider: I would be very surprised if there were scripts.

Boris Motik: We are currently using a stylesheet for the fonts in the HTML, and we are using <sub> and <sup>.
Boris Motik: No scripts whatsoever

Sandro Hawke: We would convert to wiki markup but not wiki math - math equations stay in html.

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: as boris sat=ys, we are just using very simple stuff for the math
Bijan Parsia: +1 to math in current html and every else in wiki syntax

Alan Ruttenberg: The complicated stuff is in html, but the uncomplicated stuff goes to wiki markup. Sandro and I will do this before next week.

Uli Sattler: ace!
Bijan Parsia: Isn't this jsut an action?
Boris Motik: We were fairly strict with usage of stylesheets, so this information might be used for migration into Wiki
Bijan Parsia: Do we need a decision per se? Maybe so.
Alan Ruttenberg: PROPOSED: Documents to be edited using wiki markup facilities, but leave complicated markup in html. Revisit if there are problems. Target: Next TC
Bijan Parsia: OK
Boris Motik: "Strict" in the sense that we tried to use them everywhere in the same way

Boris Motik: The important bits of markup in the documents are always in style sheets, so it may be possible to automate the process of migration.

Alan Ruttenberg: That's our thought as well; the OWL WG front page was done in a similar way. Any objections?

Bijan Parsia: Any abstensions?
Alan Ruttenberg: RESOLVED: Documents to be edited using wiki markup facilities, but leave complicated markup in html. Revisit if there are problems. Target: Next TC
Achille Fokoue: I am leaving in one mintute
Ian Horrocks: unmute me
Scribe Error: ACTION: Alan and Sandro will migrate documents to the wiki by the next telecon [recorded in]
Tracker (Meeting Support System): Created ACTION-5 - And Sandro will migrate documents to the wiki by the next telecon [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2007-10-31].

Task Forces / Tracker

Alan Ruttenberg: If we can get one or two of the activities identified for task forces we would be in good shape. If people can start working on issues related to backwards compatibility audits, for example, they can submit issues, comments.

Bijan Parsia: We may want to create wiki pages for this.

Ian Horrocks: +1 to poking Jim

Alan Ruttenberg: There are two people that should be involved in this - I'll poke at Jim and Jeremy. We should define what this means. As soon as we can start working on test cases against the specs the better as well. If we can start to create test cases, then a harness that can be run right out of the wiki. If we can identify people who want to start working on this, that would be good.

Bijan Parsia: I can start to send email out to people who might want to work on this.

Alan Ruttenberg: We should create a wiki page, and start adding these issues to the wiki.

Sandro Hawke: The tracker doesn't support this yet.

Alan Ruttenberg:

Alan Ruttenberg: On the tracker page - the last thing i noticed is that the tracker didn't let me enter an issue due to permissions.

Sandro Hawke: ACTION: Sandro to edit to document a REPORTED and ACCEPTED convention on issues [recorded in]
Tracker (Meeting Support System): Created ACTION-6 - Edit to document a REPORTED and ACCEPTED convention on issues [on Sandro Hawke - due 2007-10-31].
Bijan Parsia: sandro, the base of <> has group specific text...maybe we can pop some help in?

Alan Ruttenberg: This is just an introduction to get the topic started.

Ian Horrocks: We skipped over this issue list in order to get to the task forces, but getting the issues and tracker sorted out is important to supporting the task forces. Now we're in a position where we may end up with two parallel issues lists.

Alan Ruttenberg: My understanding was that we were going to migrate the OWL 1.1 issues to the tracker once it was working.

Ian Horrocks: So what is the issue with doing that?

Alan Ruttenberg: I think it means someone has to manually do this, so perhaps we should manually move them over once the tracker is up and running.

Ian Horrocks: Qk, we can do this offline, but we need to get to it.

Alan Ruttenberg: Agreed.

Rinke Hoekstra: Is there some way to 'close' the google code page?

We wanted to have a publicly open place (the google site) for people to enter issues, but that the working group should use the tracker.

Rinke Hoekstra: (oops)

Ian Horrocks: By moving issues to the tracker now, what happens to new issues added to the google site, and what is the status of those that are moved?

Peter Patel-Schneider: I note that the tracker requires you to log in, but then doesn't know who you are.

Alan Ruttenberg: They are all reported, and Alan and Ian have to decide how to address those.

Sandro Hawke: Indeed, pfps. :-(

It should be a lower priority to deal with new publicly added issues, but we should decide what to do with them going forward.

Bijan Parsia: I can do that, probably

Ian Horrocks: It would be a big commitment to continue monitoring the other list and moving issues on an ongoing basis.

Alan Ruttenberg: Maybe what we can do is have people monitor this and move them accordingly.

Boris Motik: Wouldn't it be simpler to have just one issues list, let eveyone add issues then, but be able to flag different issues appropriately?
Ian Horrocks: Time check?

Bijan Parsia: Maybe we can set it up so that they can be monitored automatically and moved.

Sandro Hawke: Attendees: Sandro, Carsten, Rinke, IanH, MikeSmith, bijan, vit, Elisa_Kendall, bmotik, pfps, TommieMeyer, Alan, uli, Bernardo, Zhe_Wu, Deborah, Evan_Wallace, GiorgosStoilos, JeffP, FabienG, Ratnesh
Bijan Parsia: Ok
Bijan Parsia: yep

Alan Ruttenberg: We might be taking on more work that we are chartered to do, which I'm reluctant to do right now.

Ian Horrocks: Just to conclude, the initial action is that we will divvy up the work to manually move these issues to the tracker once the tracker is working sufficiently to do so.

Alan Ruttenberg: Anything else we want to cover at this point?

Jeff Pan: +1

Alan Ruttenberg: Move to adjourn

Evan Wallbace: Did Sandro's suggested convention for inserting into tracker get recorded somewhere?

Ian Horrocks: second

Bijan Parsia:
Alan Ruttenberg: Sandro should have action to modify the to reflect it
Evan Wallbace: Thanks