PROPOSED: Annotate the Syntax, Semantics, and Mapping-to-RDF documents with links to all issues, as they might affect the text, and then (give or take editorial changes) we will publish.

Jeremy Carroll: i guess i bow to pfps and bijan here, but some rider

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1, as long as I'm not doing the work!

Alan Ruttenberg: +1

Ian Horrocks: would prefer to say "issues" rather than all issues

Jeremy Carroll: ok

Achille Fokoue: +1

Uli Sattler: +1

Deborah McGuinness: +1

Ivan Herman: +1

Bijan Parsia: +1 with "issues"

Zhe Wu: +1

Conrad Bock: -1

Martin Dzbor: +1

Ratnesh Sahay: +1

Michael Smith: +1

Ian Horrocks: +1 otherwise

Giorgos Stoilos: +1

Jeff Pan: +1

Sandro Hawke: -0 concerned about deciding before deciding, but it seems vaguely okay.

Carsten Lutz: Regarding my issues discussed here:

Carsten Lutz: - I saw lots small issues before, so I was just trying to follow common practice

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1

Carsten Lutz: - Several of my issues I wouldn't call "small"

Carsten Lutz: - I can live with grouping as long as decisions are taken individually (this

Carsten Lutz: is why I separated them)

Carsten Lutz: +1

Boris Motik: -0 This might be a lot of work

Evan Wallace: 0

Uli Sattler: -0 is the slightly more negative vote than the neutral o?

Evan Wallace: +1 with metamodel issue included

Carsten Lutz: -o ?

Sandro Hawke: I don't think we should have a resolution here

Jeremy Carroll: (I find Sandro compelling, but can't say why)

... but it seems that it is good enough to proceed?

Peter Patel-Schneider: that's an action, not a resolution

Bijan Parsia: It's his air of mystery

Sandro Hawke: I think people need to review how it is done

Bijan Parsia: I think the difference between a blessing and vote is not good

Jeremy Carroll: (Personally I would like to see the post-Wiki doc before the vote)

Sandro Hawke: So the only future discussion will be about issue links.

Jeff Pan: action or resolution?

Evan Wallace: I'm confused now

Evan Wallace: Are we to do an up or down vote later?

Alan Ruttenberg: no resolution but general agreement to the direction

Evan Wallace: yes

Jeremy Carroll: The chairs appoint editors

Ian Horrocks: chairs may delegate the tasks

Bijan Parsia: I hate the idea, but I think UManchester can mobilize some resources to this end

Bijan Parsia: (er.. the idea of workign on it :)

Jeremy Carroll: I feel the discussion needs booze

Conrad Bock: Alan, I filed the metamodel issue on Syntax at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/82.

Alan Ruttenberg: thanks, conrad

Bijan Parsia: Hmm. I think it is a fragment

Mapping to/from RDF

Boris Motik: owl dl is not 100% sub-language of owl full

Bijan Parsia: I'm looking at 5.3...what's the difference?

Ian Horrocks: Also, even to the extent that we believe that it is a fragment, this is a belief/conjecture and not a proven fact

Bijan Parsia: to reply to Boris

Bijan Parsia: it seems that part of the issue what counts as compatibility

Bijan Parsia: your idea is a stronger version of compatibility

Alan Ruttenberg: There is a strictly increasing chain of sets of entailments

Alan Ruttenberg: >

Alan Ruttenberg: > Simple <= RDF <= RDFS <= D- <= OWL DL <= OWL Full

Alan Ruttenberg: >

Alan Ruttenberg: > It was a design goal that the last strict inclusion should be an equality; see

Alan Ruttenberg: >

Alan Ruttenberg: > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.3-Semantic-Layering

Alan Ruttenberg: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Oct/0022.html

Alan Ruttenberg: >

Alan Ruttenberg: > In other words (subject to the syntactic constraints of OWL DL) the

Alan Ruttenberg: > entailments of OWL DL are exactly those of OWL Full. This goal

Alan Ruttenberg: > slipped a little: see

Alan Ruttenberg: >

Alan Ruttenberg: > http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/byFunction#function-Thing

Deborah McGuinness: +1 to getting clear on a working defn of compatibility

Jeremy Carroll: OWL 1.0

Ian Horrocks: we had similar discussion in WebOnt

Uli Sattler: but the entailments aren't the same.

Jeremy Carroll: The two known exceptions are size of universe and certain entailments involving annotations

Alan Ruttenberg: I want more compatibility than what is between RDF and OWL

Peter Patel-Schneider: where are the new sources of "incompatability"?

Bijan Parsia: I agree with alanr...the corner case semantic alignment is much less important than bringing in more wffs

Deborah McGuinness: it is a good idea to clarify compatibility

Bijan Parsia: That was a goal of, e.g., adding punnings

Bijan Parsia: I.e., to align to owl full

Peter Patel-Schneider: my understanding is that semantic-full annotations are the result of not having black triples in RDF

Peter Patel-Schneider: s/black/dark/

Alan Ruttenberg: s/dark/graphite/

Bijan Parsia: I thought we *did* implement anntotions per the spec...I would love a pointer to where this is not the case

Peter Patel-Schneider: there is a solution to backward compatability wrt annotations (but I don't like it)

Bijan Parsia: I would love there to be a unity OWL

Boris Motik: one design principle of OWL 1.1 is that ...

Boris Motik: annotations have no semantics

Jeremy Carroll: who are users???

Boris Motik: comments are simply comments

Ian Horrocks: in the charter we say to refine and extend OWL

Alan Ruttenberg: three cases of disparity: annotations, punning, (forget third)

Alan Ruttenberg: third= bnodes

Jeremy Carroll: wrong - strong disagreement

Alan Ruttenberg: wrong what, jeremy?

Ian Horrocks: an OWL document should be one that could be translated from the one written in abstract syntax

... according to the spec

Boris Motik: Yes, there is

Bijan Parsia: There seem to be test cases

Ian Horrocks: Sean's work was *excellent*, but it shouldn't have been *needed*

Boris Motik: Ontology O1 does not entail O2 even if O1 and O2 are the same save for annotations.

Jeremy Carroll: the semantics document is hard to get interpretation

Ian Horrocks: this is completely different order

... the semantics document is technical

... and understood by many people

Zakim: alanr, you wanted to ask how we can tell whether annotations are correctly implemented

Alan Ruttenberg: Does any tool implement ontology entailment?

Bijan Parsia: Yes

Bijan Parsia: Pellet

Boris Motik: We don't know even if it decidable

Alan Ruttenberg: Pellet has it commented out last time I checked

Bijan Parsia: ?

Bijan Parsia: No

Bijan Parsia: could do more on this

Boris Motik: No need to continue now. We should have a strategy to address this issue soon.

Bijan Parsia: $ Usage: java Pellet OPTIONS

Bijan Parsia: {-if,-inputFile} <file URI> Input ontology URI

Bijan Parsia: {-is,-inputString} string A string representation of the input file

Bijan Parsia: -cf,-conclusionsFile} <URI> Check if all the triples in this ontology is

Bijan Parsia: entailed by the input ontology

Bijan Parsia: {-cs,-conclusionsString} str A string representation of the conclusions fil

Issues (35 min)

PROPOSAL: Base abbreviated URIs in Functional-style Syntax on CURIES not QNAMES (see Issue 14)

PROPOSED: Base abbreviated URIs in Functional-style Syntax on CURIES not QNAMES (see Issue 14)

Alan Ruttenberg: +1

Ian Horrocks: +1

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 Issue 14 proposal

Michael Smith: +1

Jeremy Carroll: HP abstain (but no desire for further discussion)

Ivan Herman: +1

Evan Wallace: +1

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1

Ratnesh Sahay: +1

Achille Fokoue: +1

Jeff Pan: 0

Boris Motik: 0

Deborah McGuinness: 0

Martin Dzbor: 0

Sandro Hawke: 0

Boris Motik: Could someone please point out the main benefit of using CURIES?

Ivan Herman: it seems that we could do that without too much problems

Peter Patel-Schneider: curies allow abbreviating all IRIs

Peter Patel-Schneider: qnames don't

Jeremy Carroll: The main benefit is ids like http://ex.og/id/9324

RESOLVED: Base abbreviated URIs in Functional-style Syntax on CURIES not QNAMES (see Issue 14)

PROPOSED: Structural specification, XML Schema, and RDF mapping be extended to allow for multiple facet--value pairs in data ranges (see Issue 28)

Alan Ruttenberg: +1

Jeff Pan: +1

Jeremy Carroll: +1

Evan Wallace: +1

Uli Sattler: +1

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1

Michael Smith: +1

Ian Horrocks: +1

Deborah McGuinness: +1

Bijan Parsia: +1

Martin Dzbor: +1

Giorgos Stoilos: +1

Ivan Herman: what I said is (for the minutes) we can normatively refer to the CURIE document (http://www.w3.org/TR/curie) [Scribe assist by Ivan Herman]

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1

Sandro Hawke: 0

Ivan Herman: +1

Achille Fokoue: 0

Boris Motik: +1

RESOLVED: PROPOSAL: Structural specification, XML Schema, and RDF mapping be extended to allow for multiple facet--value pairs in data ranges (see Issue 28)

PROPOSED: Issue 64 be resolved as per this email

Michael Smith: the email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Nov/0391.html

object property chains in triples: confusion of list with property

Alan Ruttenberg: +1

Boris Motik: +1

Ian Horrocks: +1

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1

Sandro Hawke: 0

Achille Fokoue: +1

Michael Smith: +1

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1

Deborah McGuinness: +1

Evan Wallace: 0

Martin Dzbor: +1

Uli Sattler: +1

Jeff Pan: 0

Ivan Herman: 0 (do not remember the detail, but no reason for discussion for me)

Jeremy Carroll: +1

Alan Ruttenberg: q?

Bijan Parsia: +1

RESOLVED: Issue 64 be resolved as per [this http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Nov/0391.html] email

Jeremy Carroll: q+ to ask about publications

Alan Ruttenberg: ack jeremy

Zakim: jeremy, you wanted to ask about publications

Jeremy Carroll: OK

Alan Ruttenberg: Issue 2 revisited: RDF syntax for other "n-ary constructs"? (See [1] and thread.)

Jeremy Carroll: do the issues resolved go into about to be published docs [Scribe assist by Jeremy Carroll]

Alan Ruttenberg: yes [Scribe assist by Jeremy Carroll]

Boris Motik: Yes

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ alanr

Alan Ruttenberg: ack pfps

Boris Motik: q+

Jeremy Carroll: I am against

Uli Sattler: against what

Uli Sattler: ?

Peter Patel-Schneider: I am not conviced that it would solve the round-tripping problem

Jeremy Carroll: against more vocab

Peter Patel-Schneider: what about the case for n=2?

Bijan Parsia: With suitable annotations, we could round trip without new vocab!

Peter Patel-Schneider: agreed

Ian Horrocks: against adding explicit rdf syntax for all n-ary constructs

Boris Motik: the spec should be more implementable

Bijan Parsia: need to make things easier

Bijan Parsia: Oh, I have users who really like nice serializations...that was a big deal

Bijan Parsia: So I would like to reduce *parser* freedom

Bijan Parsia: (sorry, illness making me think slow...)

Bijan Parsia: IT's not just an implementator issue, but a user issue

Bijan Parsia: Not if you use the binary constructs

Alan Ruttenberg: if so, then an OWL DL ontology could become something not a proper OWL DlL ontology after some parsing

Bijan Parsia: I think Protege4 is using some aggressive pretty printing

Jeremy Carroll: (for me this is hitting the bigger issues about what are the goals ....)

Ian Horrocks: Yes, I guess that P4 "helps" you by turning multiple binary into an nary?

Alan Ruttenberg: this is not a help

Bijan Parsia: It may

Peter Patel-Schneider: but what if you are building an OWL 1.0 ontology in Protege? then you would generate OWL 1.1, not OWL 1.0, in the RDF

Bijan Parsia: Yep...this may be a bug in the serializer

Uli Sattler: ...but this is about P4 and not about "what is possible/should be done"

Ian Horrocks: but this is a tool issue

is this n-ary thing done by Protete using the well known design pattern for n-ary relations?

Ian Horrocks: P4 should allow you to explicitly save as 1.0

Bijan Parsia: It should respect how you construct

Ian Horrocks: See numerous Microsoft tools for details

Bijan Parsia: That's the intend of the roundtripping design

Alan Ruttenberg: annotation properties would be changed too

Uli Sattler: But Alan, these are still P4 issues -- or are any of them due to OWL1.1?

Jeff Pan: (maybe we should take this offline)

Ian: I think this is a tool issue rather than a language issue

... tools supporting OWL 1.1 will produce OWL1.1 files by default

Bijan Parsia: But you need to distinguish the tool issues from langauge issues

Jeremy Carroll: Please let me know when we are on topic

Ivan Herman: :-)

Jeremy Carroll: and I will rejoin

Achille Fokoue: +1 for Ian's view that it is a tool issue

Bijan Parsia: Round tripping, as boris described, should work fine. If protege does some munging in its serialization...that's different

rool call on Issue 2?

Alan Ruttenberg: roll call on Issue 2 revisited?

Jeremy Carroll: -1

Boris Motik: +1 to extend all n-ary constructs to n-ary

Issue 2 revisited: RDF syntax for other "n-ary constructs"? (See [1] and thread.)

Bijan Parsia: Yeah, what'st he resolution?

Uli Sattler: did we not already do this call?

Peter Patel-Schneider: no proposal was in the agenda

Ian Horrocks: +1 to either extend all n-ary constructs to n-ary or remove them from functional syntax

Bijan Parsia: IanH, really?

Bijan Parsia: Including AllDisjoint?

Ian Horrocks: yes -- I want the various syntaxes to be properly aligned

Jeremy Carroll: AllDisjoint was solved and agreed

Bijan Parsia: That was my understanding too, jeremy

Bijan Parsia: IanH do you propose reopening AllDisjoint? What about AllDifferent?

Uli Sattler: mine too, Jeremy

Ian Horrocks: My preference would be to extend the RDF, not emasculate the functional syntax

Alan Ruttenberg: alldifferent is already in this form in 1.0 iirc

Ian Horrocks: I don't ropose reopening AllDisjoint? What about AllDifferent? -- they are in alignment

Jeremy Carroll: yes

Peter Patel-Schneider: what about objectunionof, objectintersectionof?

Bijan Parsia: Can we move this to email?

Ian, I would like to see some alignment between the two syntax

Evan Wallace: agree with Ivan, but can we have an action to record where we are on this

Bijan Parsia: sure

Ivan Herman: :-)

Alan Ruttenberg: open to suggestions of which one might have been easier :)

RIF meeting

Bijan Parsia: there is a draft on compatibility between RIF and OWL

Alan Ruttenberg: apologies for taking liberty with chair

Peter Patel-Schneider: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/SWC/OWL-Compatibility

... people suggested RIF should talk to us on it

... proposed a joint TF

... between the two WGs

Alan Ruttenberg: do we need nominate someone?

Sandro Hawke: we didn't remember the exact number

Bijan Parsia: {{{what}}}

Retrieved from "https://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Teleconference.2007.11.28/Minutes&oldid=2072"

Teleconference.2007.11.28/Minutes

Contents

ADMIN

Teleconference 2007.12.05 ?

Discussions (35 min)

Publication Schedule and First Working Drafts

Mapping to/from RDF

Issues (35 min)

PROPOSAL: Base abbreviated URIs in Functional-style Syntax on CURIES not QNAMES (see Issue 14)

RIF meeting

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

More

OWL Working Group

Tools