Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
Teleconference.2008.01.09/Minutes
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
Contents
- Present
- Bijan Parsia, Ian Horrocks, Rinke Hoekstra, Jonathan Rees, Jeremy Carroll, Boris Motik, Markus Krötzsch, Elisa Kendall, Evan Wallace, Zhe Wu, Carsten Lutz, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Peter Patel-Schneider, Sandro Hawke, Uli Sattler, James Hendler, Michael Smith, Doug Lenat, Vojtech Svatek, Jeff Pan
- Regrets
- Joanne Luciano, Martin Dzbor, Ivan Herman, Deborah McGuinness
- Chair
- Alan Ruttenberg
- Scribe
- James Hendler
Vojtech Svatek: new to W3C, interested in ontology patters/matching
... worked some on the rich annotations
Alan Ruttenberg: agenda ammendments? [none received]
PROPOSED: accept minutes of 2007-12-19
RESOLVED: accept minutes of 2007-12-19
PROPOSED: accept minutes of 2008-01-02
RESOLVED: accept minutes of 2008-01-02
PROPOSED: accept minutes of manchester face to face
general discussion of minutes and presentations
Alan Ruttenberg: let's postpone to next week and we have time to make sure presentations are linked right
Alan Ruttenberg: ok, please fix this up during the week - I could put presentation pointers in
ACTION: alanr will try to get links as best as possible, and to get slides right
ACTION: Alan will try to get links updated and link slides int
ACTION: Alan will try to get links updated and link slides int
working drafts are out, Alan thanks everyone
and there is much rejoicing
Alan Ruttenberg: review actions - I'd like to consider these closed
ACTION: Alan to add test guidelines to working group to agenda for next week
RESOLVED: all pending review actions on the WIKI are closed [Alan will close]
scribe notes these are actions 51,52, and 53
Action Review
Uli Sattler: working on this, problem is we still are slightly unclear about
... do we want rationals, rationals and reals, or what?
... we're currently looking at a way to go that is a little simpler
... I think we can go further, but I would like some feedback
Alan Ruttenberg: we need a proposal so we can discuss it
Bijan Parsia: I'm unclear on where things stand, and there's some related issues - I'd like time to review
Alan Ruttenberg: action is postponed, Bijan will work w/Uli
Bijan Parsia: need to discuss in context of n-ary. Can we discuss with that aproach
Bijan will lead discussion on WG email, action 56 is postponed
Alan Ruttenberg: who would like to be on a task force on imports
Jonathan Rees: action58
Alan Ruttenberg: will set up TF
Sandro Hawke: suggests use of WBS for surveying times
alanr and sandro will discuss
action58 postponed
action46 continued
FPWDs should be announced widely
Alan Ruttenberg: what relevant lists should we use, who will post
Ian Horrocks: we should do as soon as possible
Alan Ruttenberg: what lists, please let us know on irc:
Ian Horrocks: set up a page in Wiki, if you see a list that isn't included, add the list to the wiki page, and send the announcement - you can use the standard announce from W3C or something more community relevant
Alan Ruttenberg: what should we do with UFDTF
James Hendler: Deb, Vipul, me and a couple of others were also on the list, weren't we?
Alan Ruttenberg: I will poll folks, look for a time we can do it
Jeremy Carroll: page has list of people, my recollection is we were going to move earlier - but same day (Mon)
Alan Ruttenberg: I'll make sure to get more people in
issue proposals
Alan Ruttenberg: issue83 - propose to close as resolved with text as written
Alan Ruttenberg: the issue has to make some words w/respect to the relation between DL and Full
PROPOSED: close (as RESOLVED) Issue 83 (Property Chain Axiom: P1 o P2 => P2 o P1 ) as per email
Jeremy Carroll: there may be some issues with the OWL Full 1.1 semantics which might cause us to reopen later
Alan Ruttenberg: new info can always let us reopen an issue
discussion of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0022.html
Jeremy Carroll: just nervous that OWL Full semantics could mean we change things later
Ian Horrocks: the email says the WG might or might not give the OWL 1.1 full semantics, so closing text doesn't require this
Alan Ruttenberg: we have general approval with a couple of abstentions
RESOLVED: close (as RESOLVED) Issue 83 (Property Chain Axiom: P1 o P2 => P2 o P1 ) as per email
Alan Ruttenberg: discussion of Issue 55
Alan Ruttenberg: we propose to close this as postponed
PROPOSED: close (as POSTPONED) Issue 55 (owl:class v. rdfs:class) per email
PROPOSED: close (as POSTPONED) Issue 55 (owl:class v. rdfs:class) per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0023.html
Peter Patel-Schneider: votes against, but does not request further discussion
RESOLVED: close (as POSTPONED) Issue 55 (owl:class v. rdfs:class) per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0023.html
Should we keep or abandon data/object property punning
Alan Ruttenberg: several issues have come up linked together with respect to punning - esp around cardinality restrictions
Alan Ruttenberg: so some people said maybe we should drop this kind of punning
Boris Motik: note that IMO this issue is not just about datatypes, but is general to our approach to typing (cf emails on Dec 15 2007)
Peter Patel-Schneider: in some sense I echo Boris' comment, I don't see how abandoning this kind of punning fixes Issue 65
Alan Ruttenberg: as I understand it - there's a relation between vocabulary for easy local typing, as opposed to just the punning
Alan Ruttenberg: (notes Jon Reese is sitting in on this portion of the call)
Alan Ruttenberg: asks about declarations
Peter Patel-Schneider: not local - each use of a term has to be typed
Bijan Parsia: describes issue w/respect to a restriction - how do I know if this is being used as a data or object type
Bijan Parsia: so problem is we cannot "contextualize" use of a URI
Bijan Parsia: with typed vocabulary = "Data somevaluesfrom" ...
Ian Horrocks: will chair so alan will discuss
alan and ian and peter send time discussing how long to discuss the issue instead of discussing it
ian eventually says "Carry on"
Boris Motik: I believe it is slightly misleading to say this is just Issue 65 - this comes up a lot
Ian Horrocks: boris, can you summarize quickly?
Boris Motik: our general approach to typing things in ontologies is complex w/respect to a number of issues (parsing RDF, punning, etc.)
... these are related, and what we do and don't allow relates to that
... in my emails, I discussed typing triples and the compatibilities
Alan Ruttenberg: I meant primarily to discuss the particular punning issues, so maybe identifying 65 was the issue... I think there are specific problems w/this kind of punning
... seems if we don't use this we need annotation properties back in
Bijan Parsia: one reason we introduced punning was to let more OWL RDF graphs be in DL - punning made some of this easy
... this way, more things out in the word would not have to worry about DL vs. Full issues
... there are ways we can look at this - things are either always one or the other, or things could be typed, or (etc)
... so the problem is we fix the problem (of rejecting graphs) by coming up wth a solution that also rejects graphs (as it were)
... so not sure what to do about it
Jeremy Carroll: thanks Bijan, that was helpful - my thought is perhaps we could come up with a different way to handle typing triples
Jeremy Carroll: thinks that the issue of wider RDF compatibility important
Alan Ruttenberg: question - to take "second half of this" (not typing issue) - i.e. we would like for the Web architecture for instance names to mean different things in different contexts
... relates this to punning and entailments
Alan Ruttenberg: so what about cardinality restrictions?
Bijan Parsia: Alan, I think that doesn't happen - untyped quantifiers (somevaluesfrom) and a couple of constructs... (and then bijan loses scribe)...
Bijan Parsia: but this is like qualified cardinality
Bijan Parsia: so doable
Bijan Parsia: problem is when we cannot know what they are - it's lack of information, not too much, that causes the problem
James Hendler: thinks if we can find way to make this "optional" as opposed to required it would make a lot of OWL/RDF graphs be in OWL DL -- this vocabulary hurts this -- which is why I think the issue is so important
Bijan Parsia: so maybe we could add this as a way to do things, and maybe in some "how to handle RDF graphs" (which may be slightly heuristic) we could suggest how to fix these things
Bijan Parsia: essentially defaults that would help with the coercion
Ian Horrocks: global issue - I think we're going to need an email discussion on this, so maybe someone should lead email discussion on this following on from Boris' email?
Alan Ruttenberg: I find this discussion helpful, glad we had it, but -- is this a case of us doing something because technology says we can, or is this something somebody has asked for -- do we have use cases?
Alan Ruttenberg: if this adds complexity, and isn't called for, maybe we should consider whether it is worth the trouble and potential incompatibilities
Boris Motik: I don't know whether people have asked for this explicitly, but it did come up in annotation discussion - punning helps
... when URI is used two ways --- but the question is "does this add complexity to the spec"?
... I mean we do already have this split.
Jeremy Carroll: moving things to email is not always useful - but chairs focusing some issues to the email does help -
Ian Horrocks: good idea
Ian Horrocks: let's focus on this issue for this week
Peter Patel-Schneider: I agree w/Jeremy, but if we're going to do this sort of thing, we need more lead time -- Ian: I agree
perhaps the wiki irc agent could have some way we could note - discussions to be moved to email - so that people could more easily see those in the logs
Ian Horrocks: back to alan
raised issue
issue92
+1 to take up this issue (and the realated issues Rinke brought up w/other owl ontology declaration vocabularies)
Alan Ruttenberg: issue92 is opened for discussion
issue 29 and issue 74
Michael Smith: I don't think this issues are the same
Michael Smith: they were split into two issues because they weren't really related.
Michael Smith: on Issue 74, I sent some email
Michael Smith: not clear if anyone cares
Ian Horrocks: suggest in line w/previous discussion, it might be case that we suggest this as mailing list point
Ian Horrocks: we could revisit next week
Bijan Parsia: I thought this included interaction w/XS WG
Peter Patel-Schneider: I sent an email, was told it is under "heated" discussion
Uli Sattler: I don't want to drop this, because I agree with Bijan it would be nice if we could just use xsd: - so why should we not wait and see?
Jeremy Carroll: procedurally, I suggest we write it into our spec and ask them to review it
Bijan Parsia: advocate we close this making the change, and reopen if we discover an issue
ACTION: jeremy to write a proposal to close issue-74 XSD URIs for facets
ACTION: bijan to draft proposal to close ISSUE-29
Alan Ruttenberg: propose to adjourn
ADJOURNED