See also: IRC log
- Alan Ruttenberg, Bijan Parsia, Boris Motik, Carsten Lutz, Doug Lenat, Ian Horrocks, Jeff Pan, Markus Krötzsch, Michael Smith, Peter Patel-Schneider, Ratnesh Sahay, Rinke Hoekstra, Uli Sattler, Zhe Wu
- Deborah McGuinness, Elisa Kendall, Evan Wallace, James Hendler, Martin Dzbor, Michael Smith, Sandro Hawke
- Ian Horrocks, Alan Ruttenberg
- Boris Motik
Ian Horrocks: agenda amendments; Peter may have suggested one in email?
Ian Horrocks: no agenda amendments
Ian Horrocks: PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes
Ian Horrocks: Hearing no objection
RESOLVED: Accept Previous Minutes
Ian Horrocks: Review of action items status
Ian Horrocks: ACTION-4 Sandro not on phone; postpone until next week.
Ian Horrocks: ACTION-22 Deborah not on the phone; postpone until next week.
Jeremy Carroll: ACTION-23 not resolved; would like to close as not done.
Ian Horrocks: ACTION-31 status, not done yet
Bijan Parsia: lost the track of what is the purpose of this action
Ian Horrocks: we'll abandon the remaining actions from UFDTF
Ian Horrocks: ...because neither Evan dor Deborah are here
Bijan Parsia: I didn't do that yet (I yet have to describe imports)
Ian Horrocks and Boris: ACTION-35 done at F2F, action closed
Ian Horrocks: What else do we need to do to publish the working draft?
Ian Horrocks: we decided that the attibutions on the documents will be extended to include the editors that will do the document clean-up Ian Horrocks: Sandro needs to run an exportatino script to produce the HTML document
Ivan Herman: We have to wait for Sandro to come back to resolve the issue of short names in the URI of the documents
Ivan Herman: Questionable whether the documents will be published before Christmas
Alan Ruttenberg: (Correction) It was decided at the F2F that the attributions will be left as-is, and the authors will be responsible for producing the final documents
Peter Patel-Schneider: Sandro should push the button so that we see what needs to be done at the technical level
Ian Horrocks: good idea
Peter Patel-Schneider: We should try with the syntax document
Ian Horrocks: Boris Motik and Bernardo should do one each for the semantics and RDF mapping
Ian Horrocks: Sandro will produce the actual html document, and the editors (i.e., authors) will need to do some manual tweaking to the html to make if W3C OK
Ian Horrocks: This might put a lot of work on Sandro
Alan Ruttenberg: Let's leave this open
Ian Horrocks: Let's leave this item to Sandro and editors (= authors)
Ian Horrocks: we cannot fix a date, because there aer many variables open
Alan Ruttenberg: I've been looking into rdf:type mapping in OWL 1.0
Alan Ruttenberg: removing one mapping rules will allow rdf:type to be used as declarations
Alan Ruttenberg: This was issue 89
Alan Ruttenberg and Ivan Herman: What is the operational definition of a fragment that Jim wants to define?
Ian Horrocks: We might look up the definition of operational semantics in Wikipedia, but we need a clearer proposal for a fragment
Ian Horrocks: Jim should make a clear proposal that we can all understand
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: The proposal by Jim on RDFS 3.0 is a proper fragment of Horn-SHIQ
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: I determined that it was Horn-SHIQ by a bit of guessing
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: I'm not clear about what "operational" means
Alan Ruttenberg: My attempt to understand Jim is that his proposal is contrary to his requirement that the language should not depend on the reasoning system
Ian Horrocks: Zhe, will you take an action to come up with a more specific proposal of the syntax and semantics?
Zhe Wu: Yes
Jeremy Carroll: We should not limit subsets to syntactic subsets only; we should allow for semantic subsets as well
Jeremy Carroll: the WG is responding to Jim's proposal with antagonism
Zhe Wu: I'm waiting for Carsten to give me some paper
Boris Motik: pD* is closely related to DLP - should look at that
Alan Ruttenberg: What do you mean by "support SPARQL query"?
Zhe Wu: I would like the user to be able to query the original query and the inferred information
Jeremy Carroll: Maybe we should wait for next year when Jim will be on call and then continue with the discussion
Alan Ruttenberg: Can we all agree that pD* is a well-defined fragment?
Peter Patel-Schneider: I don't argue that pD* is ill-defined; who is doing that?
Ian Horrocks: We can continue this discussion via email (accessible to Jim) and next year when Jim will be on call
Ian Horrocks: We'll look at newly reported issues (we didin't have a mechanism for accepting issues)
Ian Horrocks: Each person raising an issue should explain what an issue is about
Ian Horrocks: does this mean we should close the issue?
Uli Sattler: What Alan Rector wants is to have a special annotation property that gives hints to the reasoner how to handle certain classes
Uli Sattler: This property does not change the model theory; it is used only for addictional syntactical checks
Ian Horrocks: what is the propoal for the issue? Should we accept it and discuss it?
Ian Horrocks: Issue accepted, Uli gets an action to explain the issue more clearly
Ian Horrocks: ISSUE-86 - that is this about?
Alan Ruttenberg: Need to accept it
Ian Horrocks: ISSUE-87: We agreed at F2F to have rationals, so we'll accept it
Uli Sattler: We'll work out a proposal for it
Uli Sattler: doens't mind to accept ISSUE-87 as an action item
Alan Ruttenberg: We should accept the issue and resolve it when we discuss declarations
Ian Horrocks: When people edit the documents and close issues, they should send chairs an e-mail informing them about it
Ian Horrocks: ISSUE-35 is an examlpe of such an issue
Ian Horrocks: There was some confusion about the resolution of ISSUE-13, not accept the resolution at this point
Alan Ruttenberg: We can have this in OWL 1.1 Full. If the editor of OWL 1.1 wants to do this, it is at his discretion
Ivan Herman: Alan Ruttenberg, are you proposing to put a feature into OWL Full without giving it semantics?
Ian Horrocks: There is lots of stuff that you can have in OWL 1.1 Full
Ivan Herman: There should be some requirement that the features included into OWL 1.1 Full should have some use case requirement, and also some implementation evidence
Ian Horrocks: We don't suggest to put this into OWL 1.1 Full; we are just not prohibiting it
Jeremy Carroll: Let me summarize: Vipul means that this would be useful; OWL DL will not implement it; OWL Full will give it desired meaning, but nobody is likely to implement it
Ian Horrocks: We can't resolve ISSUE-83; Alan Ruttenberg should provide some wording in the spec
Alan Ruttenberg: We should come with a policy for dealing similar issues in future
Ian Horrocks: ISSUE-29
Jeremy Carroll: we have two concepts and we don't know when to use which
Alan Ruttenberg: Why do we have DataRanges in OWL 1.0?
Peter Patel-Schneider: We might use rdfs:Datatype throughout the spec
Boris Motik: we should stick to DataRanges because they fit well with the object model
Jeremy Carroll: We can have anonymous datatypes in RDF; they are awkward but legal
Ian Horrocks: please continue this discussion via email and try to find a resolution. In view of time, let's move on to AOB.
Ian Horrocks: report from RIF meeting from Bijan Parsia
Ian Horrocks: no we don't have the report
Ivan Herman: Did we agree on next meeting?
Ian Horrocks: Let's go to any other business
Ivan Herman: When should we have the next telco?
Ian Horrocks: Next week we should have a meeting
Ian Horrocks: We should have a meeting next week (this is too early for Christmas)
Jeremy Carroll: Some POWDER issues are related to OWL
Ian Horrocks: POWDER is not on the dependecy list, but we might want to use some features in OWL 1.1
Jeremy Carroll: POWDER people want annotation on axioms; we might look for inspiration over there
Ivan Herman: POWDER is not on the dependency list because the charter of POWDER says that everything as the level of RDF
Jeremy Carroll: Will report next week to OWL-WG on progress
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Zhe to provide a syntax and a more comprehensive definition for OWLPrime
[NEW] ACTION: Uli to provide more detail about ISSUE-85
[NEW] ACTION: Uli to provide a proposal for the resolution of ISSUE-87
[NEW] ACTION: Alan and Ian Horrocks to define wording for resolution of issue 83 and similar