From OWL
Jump to: navigation, search

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

(Scribe changed to Vipul Kashyap)

Alan Ruttenberg: Rearrange agenda to get the fragments discussion earlier

Achille Fokoue: Start the discussion on fragments earlier

James Hendler: +1 prev min

PROPOSED: approve previous minutes

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 minutes
Ivan Herman: +1 prev minutes
Doug Lenat: 0 (wasn't on the call)
Ian Horrocks: +1
Michael Smith: +1 to accept prev min
Zhe Wu: +1
Rinke Hoekstra: 0 (wasn't on the call either)
Bijan Parsia: +1 mintues
Ratnesh Sahay: 0 (wasn't on the call)

RESOLVED: approved minutes

Alan Ruttenberg: Issue 95 discussion to resolve... Was the action item completed?

Alan Ruttenberg: How to resolve Issue 3, Tabled for now

Alan Ruttenberg: seek feedback on Action IItems

Alan Ruttenberg: Close pending action items

Alan Ruttenberg: Status of Action 86?

Alan Ruttenberg: Jeremy to respond?

Bijan Parsia: Anticipating my overdue action...I've been posponing until we get closer to discussing hte proposal
Bijan Parsia: I'll push it off a bit again
Bijan Parsia: I expect to do it in the next few weeks but have been working on primer etc.

Alan Ruttenberg: Issue 97, Adding GRDDL to the OWL XML syntax.

Alan Ruttenberg: Transform OWL-XML into OWL-RDF

Peter Patel-Schneider: q+ to ask Jeremy how to do this

Alan Ruttenberg: Do we accept this issue?

Bijan Parsia: OK with accepting the issue

Zakim: pfps, you wanted to ask Jeremy how to do this

Ivan Herman: Each XML dialect has a namespace

Bijan Parsia: It doesn't have to be XSLT

Ivan Herman: Describes how GRDDL transformations are identified and invoked using the GRDDL standard

James Hendler: the main thing is that an HTTP-GET of an XML ontology document could automagically serve up an RDF version
Alan Ruttenberg: right
Bijan Parsia: "Non-XSLT transforms may indicate the RDF graph in some other, unspecified, fashion."
Rinke Hoekstra: ok, thanks bijan

Alan Ruttenberg: Schedule a discussion on the issue

Bijan Parsia: The quote is from:

Alan Ruttenberg: Issue 96 on next week's agenda

Rinke Hoekstra: it's a raised issue

Alan Ruttenberg: Issue 95 to remove datatype restrictions to say things like complementOf?

Alan Ruttenberg: remove nested restrictions on datatype range

Alan Ruttenberg: Resolve this issue as is and add a new issue to name and further restrict datatypes

Evan Wallace: I would be happy with taken up Boris' suggestion as a new issue
Boris Motik: +1
Evan Wallace: +1
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1
Doug Lenat: +1
Ian Horrocks: +1
Jeff Pan: +1
Jeremy Carroll: +1
Ivan Herman: 0
Michael Smith: +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1
Martin Dzbor: +1
Elisa Kendall: +1
Zhe Wu: +1
Bijan Parsia: +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1
James Hendler: 0
Achille Fokoue: 0
Alan Ruttenberg: PROPOSED resolved Issue 95 per and open new issue for discussion of Evan and other concerns re naming and further restricting datatypes
Alan Ruttenberg: RESOLVED resolved Issue 95 per and open new issue for discussion of Evan and other concerns re naming and further restricting datatypes
Sandro Hawke: (calling it Issue 95 help the auto-linking.)

Alan Ruttenberg: Start with Fragments Discussion

Alan Ruttenberg: Pragmatics of organizing work going forward

Alan Ruttenberg: 3 fragments

Alan Ruttenberg: Overlap between OWL Lite and OWL Prime

Alan Ruttenberg: Overlap between DL Lite and OWL Prime

Alan Ruttenberg: Task Force devoted to each Fragment

Peter Patel-Schneider: How much work needs to be done, given the work done by Bors and Bernardo?

James Hendler: Agree with Peter... Work of this document or have another task force?

Achille Fokoue: +1

James Hendler: Far enough ahead, so probably put it in as a document of the workgroup?

Ian Horrocks: +1
Zhe Wu: second that
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1
Doug Lenat: sounds good
Jeff Pan: +1
Bijan Parsia: +1
Martin Dzbor: +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1
Jeremy Carroll: +1
Michael Smith: +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1

Alan Ruttenberg: Discuss document on the mailing list and work through issues that come up on the mailing list

Sandro Hawke: Is this a Rec track document?

Michael Schneider: I will need quite some time to read this new version, esp. on OWL-R. It's a *big* change!
Jeremy Carroll: q+ to support rec track-ing

Alan Ruttenberg: Replace the document on the wiki?

Bijan Parsia: I support replacement and rec-tracking

Ian Horrocks: Replace the existing fragments document with the new one on the premise rec track?

Ian Horrocks: What do you do with the existing one?

Zakim: jeremy, you wanted to support rec track-ing
Bijan Parsia: q+ to discuss what to do with others

Jeremy Carroll: In favor rec tracking this document

Ivan Herman: Favor to rec track

Ivan Herman: Do not have to do this decision at the moment

Ian Horrocks: OK -- fine by me
Zakim: bijan, you wanted to discuss what to do with others

Ivan Herman: Turning the submission 1 into a note might make sense, but do not need to decide on this right now

Bijan Parsia: Agree with Ivan, Nice Template to describe fragments

Bijan Parsia: Making this docuiment nice to read would be good

Bijan Parsia: Link to the submission on the new one

James Hendler: Current document should be somewhere accessible...

Michael Schneider: The old version will be in the Wiki history ;-)
Michael Smith: wiki history is easy
James Hendler: wiki history not sufficient for this

Alan Ruttenberg: Leave the document "tractable fragments" remain where it is and change the draft pointer to the new location

James Hendler: Need ability to look at both of them carefully

Rinke Hoekstra: pages are easily moved to other locations
Alan Ruttenberg: Action for alan? Change sidebar fragments link to new proposal?

Ivan Herman: OWL 1.1 input submission links to Fragments document. 2 links away from wiki page... Don't need to do anything

ACTION: Alan to change sidebar Fragments link to new page

trackbot-ng: Created Action 99 - Change sidebar Fragments link to new page [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-03-12].
Bijan Parsia: q+ to ask about RIF

James Hendler: Entry recognized W3C format

James Hendler: built rules for the fragment in that

Zakim: bijan, you wanted to ask about RIF

James Hendler: It is an executable format as engines can execute N3 descriptions

Bijan Parsia: Separate what format vs how to coordinate/reference other W3C work such as RIF

James Hendler: N3 representation of the rules is useful and also gives mapping to RDF

Sandro Hawke: Wait for the RIF last call

James Hendler: General discussion - What flavors of presentation of syntaxes etc are we going to use?

James Hendler: If we use different syntaxes - all syntaxes should be used in other documents

Bijan Parsia: I don't understand the syntaxes part either
Bijan Parsia: (of jim's comment)
Michael Schneider: I think that I have seen the old SKOS primer using Jena Rules syntax, but this might have changed in the meanwhile
Zhe Wu: is this ok
Zhe Wu: for N3 rules

James Hendler: ... use of standard rule formats

Sandro Hawke: N3 Rules do not have stable documentation

James Hendler: some of it may be in the N3 document

Alan Ruttenberg: Separate issues related to syntax versus putting the rules on wiki

ACTION: Hendler to put n3 version of rules on wiki with pointer to documentation. All to review and discuss via email

trackbot-ng: Created Action 100 - Put n3 version of rules on wiki with pointer to documentation. All to review and discuss via email [on James Hendler - due 2008-03-12].

Alan Ruttenberg: Publication schedule: 3 documents - 3rd document is fragments document

James Hendler: seems to have what we used in it
Michael Schneider: q+ on XML doc

Bijan Parsia: What are the three documents? I missed that

Michael Schneider: For what applications is the XML doc needed?

Peter Patel-Schneider: the three documents are Primer, XML, Fragments

Michael Smith: q+ to provide a use case
Zakim: msmith, you wanted to provide a use case
Bijan Parsia: q+ to point to existing uses
James Hendler: q+ to ask about Note v. rec track status
Zakim: bijan, you wanted to point to existing uses
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ to ask that xml not be able to do anything rdf/xml can't - poor motivation

Michael Smith: Implementation experience with XML format within DIG client/server architecture for passing explanation in the context of an NCI project

Bijan Parsia: Matthew used it in MyGRid experiments

Zakim: hendler, you wanted to ask about Note v. rec track status

James Hendler: Useful, but confusion on status of various documents

Michael Schneider: anyone aware of this old W3C note: <>
Bijan Parsia: Any FPWD can end up as a note

James Hendler: If published as a draft , can decide whether to stop it as a note or go to a rec?

James Hendler: XML exchange syntax not to be published as rec

Ivan Herman: What are the arguments for the above and what has changed since then?

Bijan Parsia: For jim:

Scribe not: Lines -1, -2 by Ivan and not Jim

Bijan Parsia: "Work on a technical report may cease at any time. When a Working Group completes its work on a technical report, it publishes it either as a Recommendation or a Working Group Note."
Zakim: pfps, you wanted to reply
Zakim: alanr, you wanted to ask that xml not be able to do anything rdf/xml can't - poor motivation

Jeremy, Peter: If we got to rec, we would have to look for implementations

Bijan Parsia: q+ to talk about "Selling owl" via the XML syntax

Alan Ruttenberg: Things in XML you cannot do in RDF/XML - undue burden on RDF/XML clients

Peter Patel-Schneider: q+ to talk about RDF/XML problems
James Hendler: q+ to respond to alan

Alan Ruttenberg: Validate: GRDDL transformation can be written to correct the syntax errors

Jeremy Carroll: q+ to note known limitations

Boris Motik: DIG simple protocol for DL reasoners, committed to use XML syntax

Boris Motik: DIG is using XML syntax for updates ot KB, DIG is axiom based

Zakim: bijan, you wanted to talk about "Selling owl" via the XML syntax
Michael Smith: +1 to boris' dig use case. he is describing it better than I did

Bijan Parsia: People in XML groups do not like RDF/XML

Bijan Parsia: We are thought as XML hostile

Jeremy Carroll: +1 to bijan

Bijan Parsia: Have a transformation to RDF (not document)

Bijan Parsia: Opens OWL to people who might be turned off by RDF/XML syntax

Zakim: pfps, you wanted to talk about RDF/XML problems
James Hendler: +1 to Bijan - and I agree w/him that the GRDDL thing is very important
Jeremy Carroll: +1 to peter
Jeff Pan: +1 to Bijan

Peter Patel-Schneider: Task for XML to RDF is impossible

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ to respond to peter
Bijan Parsia: +1 to peter
Markus Krötzsch: +1 to peter

Peter Patel-Schneider: cannot transform everything

Bijan Parsia: hendler, RDF/XML can't represent all rdf graphs
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ to answer Ian too

Ian Horrocks: GRDDL transformation to check if we can go from XML to RDF.

James Hendler: yes, I got that - but we're talking about OWL, I thought
Alan Ruttenberg: Sandro, can you chair reminder of this discussion

Ian Horrocks: Can map from structural syntax to RDF

Alan Ruttenberg: sandro, please chair the rest of the session

Zakim: jeremy, you wanted to note known limitations

Jeremy Carroll: Agree with Peter

Zakim: alanr, you wanted to respond to peter and to answer Ian too
Bijan Parsia: hendler, if OWL/XML can express properties ending with a % then you cannot translate to RDF/XML
Bijan Parsia: This is true for Turtle

Alan Ruttenberg: If I get OWL-XML which my OWL tools can grok, then I will have to retool. XML document should remain in track with them

Alan Ruttenberg: as a user I want to have the two formats be in sync. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Alan Ruttenberg: GRDDL transformation to keep in track and promote interoperability

Ivan Herman: Gosh, we have a lot of syntaxes! [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Peter Patel-Schneider: in alan's comment s/can/can't/ I think
Alan Ruttenberg: btw, I *do* think the xml syntax is a win (provided interoperability is maintained)
James Hendler: bijan, thanks, but it seems to me we're talking border cases, not major problems - is that right?
Bijan Parsia: Yes

Ivan Herman: understand the argument, Many things? N3, RDF/XML, OWL/XML, Functional synta

Zhe Wu: n-triple with predicate URI ending with slash -- can't be in RDF/XML. what other limitations? [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Bijan Parsia: I think if we're as good as Turtle to RDF/ one will effectively notice
Alan Ruttenberg: predicates have to be qnames

Zhe Wu: Conditions of some triples not convertable into RDF

Alan Ruttenberg: so is invalid predicate

Peter Patel-Schneider: WG has list of issues related to transformations into RDF/XML

Bijan Parsia: The last character of the URI must be a NCName legal character
James Hendler: q+ to respond to Peter - no WG decisions yet with respect to whether the final OWL 1.1 DL will have anything that cannot map to RDF
Jeremy Carroll: i don't think i have any others ...
Michael Schneider: I would say we have just *two* syntaxes: RDF and Functional. The rest are all serializations of either RDF or Functional. Just my point of view.

Alan Ruttenberg: Predicates => Qnames => Start with digit character.... URL...

Ivan Herman: http://a.b.c/?afe=pqr&lo=pi is also an invalid URI for a predicate...

Alan Ruttenberg: Minor restrictions and do not get in the way

Bijan Parsia: ivan, really? I don't think so
Jeremy Carroll: i will leave too
Ian Horrocks: Nothing from me
Alan Ruttenberg: if the other syntax were more tollerant, then the not-serializable stuff would be a real problem. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Bijan Parsia: xmlns:d=http://a.b.c/?afe=pqr&lo= and d:pi
Zakim: hendler, you wanted to respond to Peter - no WG decisions yet with respect to whether the final OWL 1.1 DL will have anything that cannot map to RDF

(Scribe changed to Rinke Hoekstra)

Jeremy Carroll: In RDF core, we considered the predicate problem Zhe was alluding to. It's an RDF problem, not an OWL problem...

Jeremy Carroll: we decided not to fix it

Zakim: alanr, you wanted to remind jeremy about interoperability issue

Jeremy Carroll: I understand alan, but am against it. But that wasn't what RDF core decided

Alan Ruttenberg: we have to live with the fact that RDF/XML might not be able to live with OWL/XML syntax

Alan Ruttenberg: don't want anything in the OWL/XML syntax that would not be compatible with RDF/XML

James Hendler: +1 to Alan - if maximally interoperable, then I'm in favor; if not so (and it is a judgment call) then I'm against it

Bijan Parsia: is it bad to ask for new features?

Bijan Parsia: but you can use turtle *now*. and thus exclude rdf/xml-only folks. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
James Hendler: q+ to agree w/Alan
Alan Ruttenberg: situation on the ground is that rdf/xml is lingua franca

Bijan Parsia: it is perfectly possible to push out some RDF that cannot be serialised into rdf/xml, but is valid RDF (turtle)

Alan Ruttenberg: so in theory Bijan is correct, but in practice this will screw people
Alan Ruttenberg: if not interoperable
Alan Ruttenberg: choice shouldn't be on provider.
Zakim: bijan, you wanted to suggest a solution

Bijan Parsia: it wouldn't be so difficult to provide a schema that would be able to check for compatibility with RDF/XML

Bijan Parsia: people should be allowed to write these things, and people already do this

Sandro Hawke: chairs will have to think about this next week

Issues discussions

Alan Ruttenberg: We might consider Issue 69 as a 'larger' issue, and spend some more time on it.

Alan Ruttenberg: if we have more time

James Hendler: what happened to discussion of the other docs?

Issue 91

Alan Ruttenberg: ontology properties, Issue 91

Peter Patel-Schneider: what happened to the other docs?

Alan Ruttenberg: boris added the ontology properties to the docs... but ontology properties have Ontologies as their range

Alan Ruttenberg: and domain

Alan Ruttenberg: that's where we are right now

Evan Wallace: We should be on Publication Schedule

Jeremy Carroll: I am still suffering HP overload. Domain and range can be specified in OWL full, but don't know how this works out in the FS

Jeremy Carroll: it's a finite list, so we could add them to the mapping rules (if necessary)

Jeremy Carroll: if someone could take this up, I'd be happy (busy until easter)

Michael Schneider: I assume here that the ontology properties will be in the RDF syntax, but in OWL DL they will be interpreted as annotations

Ivan Herman: (easter monday = march 24)
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ to note link to versioning issues

Michael Schneider: but if they are in the RDF syntax they have automatically a domain and range in OWL Full

Michael Schneider: I wouldn't change anything in comparison to OWL-1.0-Full, where ontology properties have domain and range owl:Ontology

Peter Patel-Schneider: it's not really the case that they have a domain and range in OWL DL

Peter Patel-Schneider: (1.0) it was not something you could talk about in OWL DL

Peter Patel-Schneider: in a certain sense, historically this discussion is incorrect... don't think that anything extra needs to be done on these properties that is any different from annotation properties

Zakim: alanr, you wanted to note link to versioning issues

Alan Ruttenberg: there have been various discussions on versioning issues. It would be desirable to have versions have more actual impact than be rather advisory

Michael Schneider: peter, I don't know whether this was an answer to me: Anyway, I only talked about OWL-1.0-Full, not DL

Alan Ruttenberg: have a proposal that I will bring up when we have our versioning discussion.... for the moment what I'm hearing is ok, but would like to at least discuss whether they could in some sense 'signal' something when something is 'bad'

Jeremy Carroll: answer to pfps, if I recall correctly, at least syntactically the range and domain have to be there, could be an issue with punning

Alan Ruttenberg: propose to leave it as is for OWL DL except to the extent that we have to say something about how it relates to Full.... for full we could followup on Michaels' issues

Michael Schneider: +1 to alan
James Hendler: -1 to close and then open different later - let's just leave it open
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to dispatch the actual issue

Alan Ruttenberg: suggest to close the issue with the note that the 'issue' (or similar) will re-arise in the future

Alan Ruttenberg: +1

Peter Patel-Schneider: to respond to jim in advance, the issue

Peter Patel-Schneider: under consideration says the spec lacks ontology properties. It doesn't anymore... that is different from the domain and range of said ontology properties

James Hendler: I disagree with you peter, but we're up to close to a 100 issues, just closing this to open up another one doesn't seem to help

James Hendler: we can put the issue off for a long time

Alan Ruttenberg: don't see any harm in doing as peter suggest, with the blabla to at least send an email about why and how

Alan Ruttenberg: strong objections?

Doug Lenat: in that case +1

Alan Ruttenberg: no reason not to keep it open, just send an email so that we know where we are

James Hendler: -1 => 0 with Alan's action

ACTION: Alan to summarize current state of issue 91

trackbot-ng: Created Action 101 - Summarize current state of Issue 91 [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-03-12].
Alan Ruttenberg: we will keep 91 open

Issue 16

Alan Ruttenberg: Issue 16

Alan Ruttenberg: entity annotations status

Alan Ruttenberg: raised by jeremy

Michael Schneider: jeremy isn't there anymore
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to defer

Alan Ruttenberg: defer?

Michael Schneider: +1 to peter

Alan Ruttenberg: ok, let's defer Issue 16

Issue 90

Alan Ruttenberg: Issue 90, spec lacks deprecated marker

Peter Patel-Schneider: no change, specs have not changed...

Peter Patel-Schneider: proposed myself to deprecate deprecation

Bijan Parsia: Deprecation doesn't eliminate yes?

Alan Ruttenberg: heard some objections related to backwards compatibility

Peter Patel-Schneider: deprecation in the sense 'simply not say anything about it'

Alan Ruttenberg: <DeprecatedClass rdf:resource

Alan Ruttenberg: wouldn't that lead to syntax errors?

Alan Ruttenberg: deprecation would mean 'we keep it here as a courtesy, but expect it to be gone in owl 2.0'

Michael Schneider: we have precedence: usage of owl:DataRange is deprecated, but it's not dropped from the vocabulary!

James Hendler: I sort of like to see a package on the whole issue of 'non-semantic' elements properties classes

James Hendler: have a confusion on the status of things we don't comment on

James Hendler: do these still apply or not?

Alan Ruttenberg: meta comment... the authoritative wording on any of this are the specifications. To the extent that you are concerned about this... read the specs and bring up the issues one at a time

Alan Ruttenberg: stop reading the emails (to this purpose)... only look at the spec

Bijan Parsia: I think I support the 'deprecation' in the sense that we say that they are deprecated (i.e. they were not sufficiently defined for the purpose of implementation in applications, we leave them in the notes and will probably come up with something that superseeds them)

Michael Schneider: +1 to bijan ... to write this note

James Hendler: object to any such resolution, see them as valuable in many applications.

James Hendler: leave them as is

Bijan Parsia: if I want to do deprecation, I cannot resort to the specs, because they don't specify it properly. We won't achieve compatibility across applications

James Hendler: there's a big difference between saying what this does, and specifying what it does. For humans2humans it works

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ to ask if there is a problem with including it
Peter Patel-Schneider: that's not my understanding of DeprecatedClass

Bijan Parsia: I'm not talking about formalization, only specification. would you expect it to affect the class tree?

James Hendler: no, don't expect it to, but in a future version

Bijan Parsia: Where is this specced?

Alan Ruttenberg: you can simply read it as owlClass... the person reading it may take note that the class may be removed

James Hendler: I like
Bijan Parsia: I don't want an action that is likely to produce an objection
Peter Patel-Schneider: I do

Alan Ruttenberg: what would the harm be in leaving them in there, and provide better documentation

Alan Ruttenberg: deprecatedclass sameas class?

Peter Patel-Schneider: I would not see a problem if such declarations did not carry semantic weight in RDF. Unfortunately they do, and therefore I strongly believe that they need to specced much better than wishy washy human consumption only stuff

Bijan Parsia: Here, a specific identifier is said to be of type owl:DeprecatedClass or owl:DeprecatedProperty, where owl:DeprecatedClass is a subclass of rdfs:Class and owl:DeprecatedProperty is a subclass of rdf:Property.
Zakim: alanr, you wanted to ask if there is a problem with including it

Peter Patel-Schneider: If one augmented the owl spec with that, then everything becomes hunky dory

Michael Schneider: they don't have specific semantics in OWL full apart from being classes

Alan Ruttenberg: might be a reasonable and not incompatible repair to add in the owl full semantics that owlDeprecatedClass sameAs Class

James Hendler: have a separate fix... would want them to be some kind of annotation

Michael Smith: the problem with annotation is rdf:type predicate right?

Alan Ruttenberg: could you work with michael on the owl full semantics to see how this would work out

Rinke Hoekstra: msmith, I think so too
Peter Patel-Schneider: fine by me

Alan Ruttenberg: and see how this works out wrt peter's proposal

Alan Ruttenberg: meeting can be considered closed

ACTION: Hendler to work with Michael to clarify semantics of deprecatedclass so that peter becomes happy

trackbot-ng: Created Action 102 - Work with Michael to clarify semantics of deprecatedclass so that peter becomes happy [on James Hendler - due 2008-03-12].