From OWL
Jump to: navigation, search

OWL Working Group Meeting Minutes, 02 January 2008

DRAFT. Currently Under Review

See also: IRC log


Agenda amendment: Discussion of short name issues

Meeting: OWL Working Group Teleconference

Alan Ruttenberg: I closed Issue 13 so can be removed from the agenda

Alan Ruttenberg:

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.

Previous minutes

Peter Patel-Schneider: The irc log wasn't public, so we can't accept yet.

Sandro Hawke: we'll take it off line

Michael Smith: also, the previous minutes cleanup was *just* finished
Sandro Hawke: IRC log from Dec 19 is now public.

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

Peter Patel-Schneider: jeremy has done this adequately
Jeremy Carroll: yes

Alan Ruttenberg: Which reminds: Agenda item - quick check in about having UFDTF documentation meeting this coming monday at usual schedule.

ACTION-38 continued until next week

ACTION-39 continued until imports task force

ACTION-42 continued until next week

Peter Patel-Schneider: I think that Sandro has done the action

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.

Peter Patel-Schneider: but the content is already available for review - why the serialization

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

Peter Patel-Schneider: I like the way the abstracts read.

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.

Alan Ruttenberg: +1 to no changes now.
Boris Motik: +1 to no changes now
Zakim: jjc, you wanted to suggest Jim does a review after publication
Sandro Hawke: I apologize for bringing up the edit-the-abstract question -- it's out of order for right now. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Sandro Hawke: whoops, I was sorta out of order

Jeremy Carroll: review after publication, but yes, we're off order

Zakim: hendler, you wanted to comment re abstract and status

James Hendler: I withdraw on abstract, but I have qualms about status.

Alan Ruttenberg: status of this document is perogative of w3c team liason
Jeremy-to-jim: the status belongs to W3C staff contact not the WG [Scribe assist by Jeremy Carroll]

Ian Horrocks: Status is not done.

Zakim: alanr, you wanted to address status of this document

James Hendler: We've approved a document without knowing what it is? Don't we need to review that text?

Ian Horrocks: 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

Alan Ruttenberg: Already resolved:
Alan Ruttenberg: officially

PROPOSED: close (as REJECTED) Issue 20 and absorb it into Issue 16

Sandro Hawke: +0
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to reject
Boris Motik: +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1
Ian Horrocks: objectons?
Alan Ruttenberg: Re: Issue 55, +1 to close, but resolution would not be Peter's email, rather further action as voted up during f2f. Method of accomplishing is yet to be determined.

RESOLVED: close (as REJECTED) Issue 20 and absorb it into Issue 16

PROPOSED: close (as RESOLVED) Issue 43 as per email

Sandro Hawke: +0
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to resolve
Boris Motik: +1 to resolve as proposed
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 (agree with stronger statement)

RESOLVED: close (as RESOLVED) Issue 43 as per email issue is already addressed by OWL 1.1

Michael Smith: +1 to close as resolved
Alan Ruttenberg: +1
James Hendler: +1

PROPOSED: close (as REJECTED) Issue 55 as per email

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.

Zakim: hendler, you wanted to discuss Issue 55
Alan Ruttenberg: I don't mind postponing, personally

Ian Horrocks: I believe I saw that email but I wanted more detail.

Jeremy Carroll: +1 to jim

James Hendler: I don't want to say that this will never be fixed.

Alan Ruttenberg: +1, Ian. Let's table it, and not take the queue
Alan Ruttenberg: in the interest of time, request to not take up the issue

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

Ian Horrocks: Postponed to next week. Depends on an open action
Boris Motik: Regarding Issue 55: At the F2F we said that we might produce a document with typical repairs that might allow for more RDF into OWL. IMHO, the distinction between owl:Class and rdfs:Class should be handled there.

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?

Michael Smith: at the f2f it was pointed out the working draft shouldn't shadow the 1.0 docs, and we had to avoid that
Jeremy Carroll: +1 to Ian

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*

Alan Ruttenberg: IIRC we *can* change short name later, but it is a pain.

James Hendler: There are different documents. Syntax and semantics seem intended to shadow S&AS, but other documents may be additive.

Peter Patel-Schneider: the syntax doc is not a replacement for S&AS as it has neither the RDF mapping nor any formal semantics
Alan Ruttenberg: My guess is that pain is preferable to resolution now

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

Sandro Hawke: "owl11-semantics" or "owl-semantics-latest-draft" or "owl1-semantics" e.g., syntax and semantics documents point to each other...but I think maybe it's ok.

Alan Ruttenberg: isn't this what we resolved in the f2f

Boris Motik: +1 to owl11-semantics
Sandro Hawke: "owl-semantics"
Michael Smith: can we get around this like html? e.g. there is latest version of html and latest version of html4. xhtml 1.0 shadows html, but not html4

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

Michael Smith: +1 for sandro and alanr to settle this
Peter Patel-Schneider: just get it done something this millenium :-)
Alan Ruttenberg: Alan says team-owl-chairs will resolve
Bijan Parsia: +1 to sandro and alanr handling

Ian Horrocks: Yet another chair complaining about IRC comments with preference for people going to speaker queue

Zakim: jjc, you wanted to suggest e-mail 24 hr review
James Hendler: +1 to jjc

Jeremy Carroll: Once sandro has the solution can he give us 24 hours review?

Sandro Hawke: 24 hours == 1 business day
Alan Ruttenberg: 24 hours review if not owl11

Alan Ruttenberg: can we make it only if short name owl11

Jeremy Carroll: yes

Raised Issues

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.

Zakim: alanr, you wanted to ask whether anyone ever found this useful?
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 to open

Ian Horrocks: we'll open Issue 90

Alan Ruttenberg: +1 to open

Issue 91 ontology properties

Alan Ruttenberg: there is another issue re: meaning

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.

Alan Ruttenberg: question before us is whether to open
Alan Ruttenberg: Discussion indicates we should open

Rinke Hoekstra: I'm ok with that but the documentation says something informal about it. We should proprogate (or at least discuss) these issues

Alan Ruttenberg: don't need and don't want

Ian Horrocks: Seems like there is some issue to discuss

Jeremy Carroll: boring

Ian Horrocks: so we should take it up. Issue 91 is open

Boris Motik: Rinke, could you perhaps additionally point to what kind of "meaning" has been lost in OWL 1.1?
Rinke Hoekstra: Boris, about your Issue 91 question: I'll put it in an email, ok?

Resolved Editorial Issues

Alan Ruttenberg: -1 to resolve as there is no pointer to diff

Boris Motik: the change was in the diagrams. How do I diff diagrams? Ian Horrocks: Peter do you object to *this* diff requriment or any requirement for diffs

Bijan Parsia: some chatter between alanr and pfps
Zakim: jjc, you wanted to support boris

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 would agree to 1/2 hour being burden. Let's pass on this one and discuss for future.
Sandro Hawke: ??? But the wiki is HTML
Alan Ruttenberg: I don't believe this is burden, but we don't have to resolve now. I'm hearing what is said.
Alan Ruttenberg: But misinformation re difficulty is not reasonable to me.

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.

Jeremy Carroll: q+ to mention history mechanism

Sandro Hawke: Is anyone else supportive of alanr technique?

Alan Ruttenberg: We already agreed to text diffs

James Hendler: yes, probably will be helpful later

Peter Patel-Schneider: text diffs - when

Alan Ruttenberg: Agree to easy. What is considered easy?
Boris Motik: +1 to jjc

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: We probably should have provided a change-log from the Submission.... [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Sandro Hawke: might be nice to have one from the submission

Sandro Hawke: (I could produce an HTML diff from the submission...... that would be interesting to see.)

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

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 let's nuke this baby
James Hendler: +1
Boris Motik: +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 to close
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 for the love of god
Elisa Kendall: +1

RESOLVED: close issue 49

Zhe Wu: +1
Michael Smith: +1