See also: IRC log
- Rinke Hoekstra, Michael Smith, Martin Dzbor, Sandro Hawke, Ian Horrocks, James Hendler, Ivan Herman, Jeremy Carroll, Bijan Parsia, Zhe Wu, Alan Ruttenberg, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Carsten Lutz, Michael Schneider, Achille Fokoue, Peter Patel-Schneider, Boris Motik, Uli Sattler, Evan Wallace
- Jeff Pan, Elisa Kendall (traveling), Markus Krötzsch, Ratnesh Sahay
- Ian Horrocks
- Uli Sattler
Ian Horrocks: can we accept previous previous minutes?
PROPOSED: accept previous previous minutes
RESOLVED: accept minutes of http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.01.30/Minutes
PROPOSED accept minutes of http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.02.06/Minutes
RESOLVED: accept minutes of http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.02.06/Minutes
Peter Patel-Schneider: F2F2 is right after OWLEd, registration is open
Peter Patel-Schneider: OWLEd papers are due this friday
Ian Horrocks: so far, nobody has objected to observers, provided they stick to conditions in email
Evan Wallace: are there restrictions on the number of observers?
Peter Patel-Schneider: reports that Clark&Parsia will sponsor dinner, NIST will possibly sponsor the room, but we still need fees
Joanne Luciano: wonders whether her organisation can sponsor (?)
Ivan Hermann: has never been to a W3C F2F with fees
Sandro Hawke: agrees that fees are very rare
Peter Patel-Schneider: suggests to drop lunches which will then reduce fees to about 50 dollars
Peter Patel-Schneider: with lunch fees would be about $100
Bijan Parsia: F2F registration page is closed
Alan Ruttenberg: suggests to bring own foot/take food payment out of general bill
Sandro Hawke: easy food is more valuable due to time saving
Peter Patel-Schneider: please sign up
Action Item Status
Due and overdue Actions
Sandro Hawke: in 2-3 weeks, some code will be cleaned up, and people who want to put up test cases now, please talk to me
Alan Ruttenberg: will be continued, will change deadline
Proposals to Resolve Issues (15 mins)
Ian Horrocks: the proposal is to keep the status quo from OWL 1.0
Boris Motik: there is a counterproposal and we should postpone the discussion to next week
Boris Motik: use blank nodes in OWL11, so to be more compatible with RDF, use SPARQL-like semantics
Peter Patel-Schneider: agrees with Boris to postpone to next week
Ian Horrocks: Boris has added ontology annotations, sent an email, ...
Ian Horrocks: proposes to close Issue ??
Alan Ruttenberg: sees open questions/possible issues regarding 91
Jeremy Carroll: mentions as example owl:imports which is not an annotation
Ian Horrocks: this sounds to complicated to be resolved today, we will postpone
ACTION: jeremy to send an email proposing a resolution of 91
ACTION: jeremy to send proposal for issue-91 ontology property
Ian Horrocks: there is now a table relating facets to datatypes
Michael Smith: would prefer this table being non-normative
Boris Motik: we need to restrict the datarange inside datatype restrictions
Boris Motik: without such a restriction, this table is meaningless
Michael Schneider: is missing explanation of meaning in this table
Boris Motik: agrees
Ian Horrocks: is disappointed :(
General Discussions (30 min)
Fragments and Conformance
Ian Horrocks: do we want to retain OWL Lite
Bijan Parsia: we shouldn't retain OWL lite
Bijan Parsia: OWL lite is difficult for an implementor
Bijan Parsia: doesn't know of any OWL lite tools
James Hendler: thought he could suggest to let OWL lite go, but has heard people screaming out about this
James Hendler: sees external critique for dropping
Joanne Luciano: suggests to asks for input by OWL lite community
Ian Horrocks: this would be helpful
Peter Patel-Schneider: if users were upset, they should speak out
Alan Ruttenberg: hears that people using OWL lite are worried. Suggests to draft note with an explanation of how OWL lite relates to OWL DL, and suggest to not use it
...but to use OWL DL instead because it is so close and not computationally much cheaper
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: wonders what OWL lite1.1 would be and who would specify it
Ivan Herman: wonders what the question is: do we want to say that OWL lite does no longer exist
James Hendler: we are not the entire OWL community, but we are being told explicitly that backward compatibilty is important
James Hendler: we need to ask openly for input
Ian Horrocks: Jim, what does it mean to keep OWL lite?
James Hendler: OWL lite is subset of OWL1.0, and we could update the this subset description???
Jeremy Carroll: sees 3 ways: (1) explicit deprecation, (2) silence (don't mention "lite", (3) Jim's suggestion
Jeremy Carroll: whereas OWL lite *is* close to OWL DL, there might be other advantages, eg, outside the implementors/complexity area
Jeremy Carroll: eg, it is easier to learn since it has fewer constructs
Jeremy Carroll: Lite might also discourage the use of potentially oppressive constructs
Ian Horrocks: another option is to keep the name, but change its definition
Carsten Lutz: suggests to first discuss fragments in general before discussing them individually
Carsten Lutz: we should have an idea about our opinion regarding fragments before putting loads of work in
Ian Horrocks: suggests to cut OWL lite discussion and move on to next point
Alan Ruttenberg: suggests to keep OWL lite to not force people/users to change what they are doing
Alan Ruttenberg: we keep a note saying that every OWL lite ontology is an OWL11 ontology
Alan Ruttenberg: suggests to not use "broken" for Lite but "not well motivated"
Alan Ruttenberg: suggest to users to how to do things in the future, *if* they want to do things differently
Michael Schneider: OWL lite would be different to OWL lite11 due to punning
James Hendler: we made some changes to OWL DL which might cause problems with OWL lite
James Hendler: we changed the semantics, so we should have change lite's semantics
Ian Horrocks: we have true compatibility with OWL DL, and therefor also with OWL Lite
Alan Ruttenberg: suggests we do check Ian's compatibility understanding
James Hendler: wants to see how this compatibility looks like before agreeing
Alan Ruttenberg: suggests to have a proposal to check in the future
Ian Horrocks: we need to record an action on somebody to carry out this check
ACTION: alanr to write an email to propose such a check
ACTION: jeremy to respond to punning and owl lite point
Ian Horrocks: over to "number of fragments"
James Hendler: the more fragments in a normative spec the worse it is:
James Hendler: more fragments causes confusion, so the bulk should happen in an informative and not in a rec track
Ian Horrocks: is this a suggestion for all fragments
James Hendler: hm, perhaps Lite is different, and oracle might have a different opinion
Uli Sattler: suggests to discuss properties of fragments first, then their number
Alan Ruttenberg: if we can agree that the fragments document is a note rather than REC track
Ian Horrocks: who would agree fragments not being rec track?
Ivan Herman: even if fragments are only a note, some fragments could be rec track
Zhe Wu: oracle would like to see 1 fragment on the REC track and not just some kind of a note
Zhe Wu: this doesn't have to be OWL prime, but something sufficiently expressive and rule implementable
Zhe Wu: it could be bigger than OWL prime
Zhe Wu: but it couldn't be OWL Full
James Hendler: doesn't want to fight over *every* fragment
James Hendler: if we put a lot of them into REC track, then this will cause confusion
Ian Horrocks: looks at his watch
Ivan Herman: knows of other DB vendors who would like to support REC track fragment of OWL
Peter Patel-Schneider: if others want their fragment on REC track, then I want mine/other want theirs as well...
Jeremy Carroll: supports OWL Prime being REC track in case there are multiple vendors
Ian Horrocks: is this limited to *vendors* or can other people have a say?
Jeremy Carroll: in the past, the OWL DL people did such jumping and got their REC track
Alan Ruttenberg: would like to hear an argument for *why* a certain fragment should be in REC track
Sandro Hawke: would like to see something like "for a fragment to be REC track, it needs at least 2 independent, public, complete implementations"
Ian Horrocks: how do we specify what an implementation for a fragment is?
Sandro Hawke: it should be serious, but doesn't need to be commercial
Ian Horrocks: it could still be that quite a number would satisfy this
Sandro Hawke: plus "2 members of the WG needed per fragment, only 1 vote per member"
Alan Ruttenberg: the "implementation exists" seems to be a good criteria
James Hendler: disagrees with "implementation exists" is a good criterium because he would also like to see "vendors" and "companies" (??)
Ian Horrocks: many different criteria, but Jim doesn't seem to like them
Sandro Hawke: asks Jim why many fragments are harmful?
Ian Horrocks: especially if it were clear that they are all subsets of OWL11 for which there also exists implementation
Alan Ruttenberg: tries to clarify the "what is a serious implementation"
James Hendler: wants to see oracle doing something being treated differently from what researchers are doing
James Hendler: REC track for the companies, notes for the researchers
James Hendler: we need to be more careful with REC track than with notes, and we can't correct, eg, errors
Ian Horrocks: but our fragments are not "new research project outcomes"
James Hendler: we should learn from OWL
James Hendler: if all 7 fragments have the same status as EL+, then perhaps they can all go to REC track
Ian Horrocks: tries again to clarify the "what is a serious implementation"
Alan Ruttenberg: suggests to move discussion to email
Jeremy Carroll: the QA group adviced recently to have "as few parts as possible", and offers to check it out
ACTION: Jeremy to investigate QA group advised recently to have "as few parts as possible",
Alan Ruttenberg: next week no Monday meeting because of holiday in US
Alan Ruttenberg: asks for suggestions for the week thereafter