OWL Working Group Meeting Minutes, 02 January 2008
DRAFT. Currently Under Review
See also: IRC log
- Bijan Parsia, Rinke Hoekstra, Ian Horrocks, Boris Motik, Sandro Hawke, Michael Smith, Alan Ruttenberg, Jeremy Carroll, Zhe Wu, Peter Patel-Schneider, Jim Hendler, Elisa Kendall, Deborah McGuinness
- Ivan Herman, Martin Dzbor, Markus Krötzsch, Uli Sattler
- Ian Horrocks
- Bijan Parsia
Agenda amendment: Discussion of short name issues
Meeting: OWL Working Group Teleconference
Ian Horrocks: We're going to be much stricter about enforcing the time limits for discussion listed in the agenda. If you think more time is needed for some item, propose so during the agenda amendments portion of the Admin topics. Ian Horrocks: Otherwise, if we run over, it'll go to email.
Peter Patel-Schneider: The irc log wasn't public, so we can't accept yet.
Sandro Hawke: we'll take it off line
Rinke Hoekstra: What about F2F minutes?
Some discussion between Peter and Ian about F2F minutes.
Ian Horrocks: We'll ask people to review them again and put them on the agenda for next week
ACTION: Ian to send email reminding people to review the F2F minutes for next week and to put an item on next week's agenda
Action item review
ACTION-47 declared accomplished by Jeremy
ACTION-38 continued until next week
ACTION-39 continued until imports task force
ACTION-42 continued until next week
ACTION-44 pretty much done; close when docs are published
ACTION-45 dependant on Sandro's Test related action
ACTION 51 continued until next week
ACTION-53 progress has been made
Sandro Hawke: I have an internal target of next Tues.
Alan Ruttenberg: We have a procedure wherein the chairs take a week
Sandro Hawke: Why not parallelize the review?
general acclaim and agreement from IanH and alanr
Alan Ruttenberg: some issues with status
Sandro Hawke: some issues with abstract
James Hendler: I don't like the abstracts
Alan Ruttenberg: We shouldn't touch the abstracts now. Jim can file an issue and then we'll link to the issue.
James Hendler: it's a document review issue not a content issue.
Ian Horrocks: We're just acting on the resolution of the F2F and the current text is already agreed to.
Sandro Hawke: whoops, I was sorta out of order
Jeremy Carroll: review after publication, but yes, we're off order
James Hendler: I withdraw on abstract, but I have qualms about status.
Ian Horrocks: Status is not done.
James Hendler: We've approved a document without knowing what it is? Don't we need to review that text?
Ian Horrocks: No..as jeremey pointed out, status is a team contact thing not a wg thing
Alan Ruttenberg: though feedback is welcome
ACTION-56 continued until next week
ACTION-55 is closed
Proposals to resolve issues
PROPOSED: close (as REJECTED) Issue 20 and absorb it into Issue 16
PROPOSED: close (as REJECTED) Issue 20 and absorb it into Issue 16
RESOLVED: close (as REJECTED) Issue 20 and absorb it into Issue 16
PROPOSED: close (as RESOLVED) Issue 43 as per email http://www.w3.org/mid/BDC59251-1FB7-4F70-8900-E7E38FC86BA4%2540comlab.ox.ac.uk
RESOLVED: close (as RESOLVED) Issue 43 as per email http://www.w3.org/mid/BDC59251-1FB7-4F70-8900-E7E38FC86BA4%2540comlab.ox.ac.uk issue is already addressed by OWL 1.1
PROPOSED: close (as REJECTED) Issue 55 as per email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Dec/0188.html
Alan Ruttenberg: Reiterating what I posted in IRC. We agreed that some sort of effort by the working group to allow more RDF into OWL is a good idea, but I don't want the specific solution of Peter to be part of the resolution since this is an ongoing thing.
James Hendler: RPI will official object to rejecting but will abstain to postponed.
Ian Horrocks: I believe I saw that email but I wanted more detail.
James Hendler: I don't want to say that this will never be fixed.
Ian Horrocks: pretty clear that we won't resolve this as it is proposed to be resolved, so we should put it back to the email
Alan Ruttenberg: and will go to issue discussion for next week
PROPOSED: close (as RESOLVED) Issue 83 as per email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Dec/0028.html
Amended item: Short name issue
Sandro Hawke: [reluctantly] There is a uri for each document with a date embedded, but there is also a "short name" or "latest uri". Problem: does the owl (1.1) semantics override the old one? Where will people want to end up 5 years from now
Ian Horrocks: That's clear, but it would be strange if people wanted to go to the older semantics.
Alan Ruttenberg: but isn't this exactly why we went for the owl11 short name? So that we wouldn't shadow?
Ian Horrocks: How irrevocable is the current decision wrt recommendation?
Sandro Hawke: [still reluctantly] The current drafts will contain a latest draft url and we need to do right by that. But it's still flexible.
Ian Horrocks: well, we can't shadow recs with our current *drafts*
James Hendler: There are different documents. Syntax and semantics seem intended to shadow S&AS, but other documents may be additive.
Ian Horrocks: We can weasal like minks and avoid committing now.
Sandro Hawke: It's not clear that we can. Whatever draft we publish will have urls that change overtime but we need to make sure we manage that change sensibly
Alan Ruttenberg: isn't this what we resolved in the f2f
Sandro Hawke: But there's new information. We can't use owl-semantics since that would make our drafts shadow recs (BAD WEASAL). "owl-semantics-latest-draft" is very future proof and handy
Ian Horrocks: Yet another chair complaining about IRC comments with preference for people going to speaker queue
Jeremy Carroll: Once sandro has the solution can he give us 24 hours review?
Alan Ruttenberg: can we make it only if short name owl11
Jeremy Carroll: yes
Issue 90 class and property deprecation
Rinke Hoekstra: These are in OWL 1.0 but not in OWL 1.1 docs, so we should deal with it.
Issue 91 ontology properties
Rinke Hoekstra: Boris and I talked about this and some properties are now annotation properties but what do they mean?
Boris Motik: What do you mean by meaning? In the old spec they didn't have meaning either.
Rinke Hoekstra: I'm ok with that but the documentation says something informal about it. We should proprogate (or at least discuss) these issues
Ian Horrocks: Seems like there is some issue to discuss
Resolved Editorial Issues
Jeremy Carroll: I support Peter. The key audit point is publication, not editors draft. So there is no need for this extra fine grained diff requirements.
Alan Ruttenberg: I'd like to resolve this issue but not to accept rejection of the procedure. I think it's not hard (in principle) but needs to be better documented
ACTION: Alan to document how to diff images.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I'm not convinced that alan is the person should be made happy. The WG needs to be made happy.
Sandro Hawke: Is anyone else supportive of alanr technique?
James Hendler: yes, probably will be helpful later
Jeremy Carroll: sometimes it is easy to provide a diff. Boris's point was that it was hard in this case. When it is easy, we should encourage (not require) them to do it.
Bijan Parsia: Are we providing change logs?
Ian Horrocks: we don't need them now, right? First draft?
Sandro Hawke: might be nice to have one from the submission
Alan Ruttenberg: I think that the change log could be most easily generated from issues whose resolution has a diff pointer
Alan Ruttenberg: This is a chairs issue not a wg issue
PROPOSED: close issue 49
RESOLVED: close issue 49