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


Ian Horrocks: agenda amendments?

Jie Bao: jim and deb don't want to vote on publishing today

Ian Horrocks: opinions on this?

Doug Lenat: this is a bad precedent

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1

Alan Ruttenberg: We can vote at the f2f, no?
Alan Ruttenberg: Is a vote pressing? I know I said we would, last week, but I'm not sure that it is necessary.

Sandro Hawke: chair to email says - not on agenda therefore not vote

Ian Horrocks: was on agenda

Michael Smith: agenda says " Formal votes to publish"
Michael Schneider: I understood "Formal votes to publish" as a discussion *about* voting
Michael Schneider: -1 to vote today: I must not vote, because FZI has not yet come to a conclusion

Ian Horrocks: unhappy with delay

Alan Ruttenberg: delay until face-to-face

Doug Lenat: (My other point was that the net effect will be the same as they want, namely very unlikely we will vote to accept it as is)

Peter Patel-Schneider: neither jim nor debora indicated regrets on the Wiki

Alan Ruttenberg: they did to chair
Sandro Hawke: they did send details to chairs, though. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Michael Schneider: I thought that the agenda item was to discuss a vote, I have not discussed the issues with my colleagues

Michael Schneider: I thought the agenda item was about TALKING ABOUT VOTING, not that we would vote to publish/not-publish. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Ian Horrocks: let's continue and see if the issue arises


PROPOSED: accept previous minutes

Doug Lenat: +1 for minutes
Michael Smith: +1 for minutes
Boris Motik: +1
Achille Fokoue: +1
Michael Schneider: +1

RESOLVED: accept previous minutes


Ian Horrocks: face to face signup - lots of unknowns remain

Michael Smith:
Michael Smith:
Michael Schneider: PayPal works too

Ian Horrocks: registration for F2F - fees for uncovered expenses

Michael Schneider: in EUR: about 60 EUR

Action Item Status

Pending Actions

Ian Horrocks: done - 103, 106, 107, 110

Alan Ruttenberg: my due actions need to be continued - been sick this week :(
Alan Ruttenberg: please do
Boris Motik: We used to close the action once people have done them.
Boris Motik: I'd prefer closing actions once people have done them.

Ian Horrocks: should we close now or close when done?

Alan Ruttenberg: +1 to boris. Add an issue for things that need to be worked on by the group

Boris Motik: prefer closing when performed

Sandro Hawke: pending review allows the group to check that the action was done

Alan Ruttenberg: for peter's action, we have an actual issue that the action was for

Boris Motik: issues serve to keep track of what happened

Alan Ruttenberg: we should have an issue: Decide on second set of drafts for publishing.

Ian Horrocks: process needs to be refined

Alan Ruttenberg: ok
Evan Wallace: Document reviews are the new wrinkle to action reviews

Due and Overdue Actions Actions

Ian Horrocks: Action 43

Sandro Hawke: not done, move date two weeks

Ian Horrocks: Action 72

Alan Ruttenberg: continue for a week

Alan Ruttenberg: continue

Ian Horrocks: Action 76

Ian Horrocks: no jeremy so continue for a week

Ian Horrocks: Action 86 - similar Ian Horrocks: Action 90 - similar

Ian Horrocks: Action 100 - no jim

Jie Bao: no information so continue

Ian Horrocks: Action 101 alan - continue

Ian Horrocks: Action 102

Alan Ruttenberg: there was mail on 102
Alan Ruttenberg:

Michael Schneider: email today but is it adequate? review again next week

Alan Ruttenberg: we have an associated issue

Evan Wallace: I have to leave the meeting now. Sorry.

Achille Fokoue: started but still ongoing, done by end of this week

Ian Horrocks: please adjust due date

Ian Horrocks: Action 104

Doug Lenat: The Primer page is:

Ian Horrocks: Action 104 - deb not here

Doug Lenat: I did a review for this action

Ian Horrocks: is the action done

Doug Lenat: new action to look at comments

Alan Ruttenberg: deb was separate review

Jie Bao: I did a review as well

Jie Bao: deb will finish her review soon

Ian Horrocks: leave open

Ian Horrocks: Action 108

Sandro Hawke: started, not finished, continue

Ian Horrocks: Action 109 on bijan, no bijan, so continue

Proposals To Resolve Issues

Issue 102

Ian Horrocks: Issue 102

Michael Schneider:

Peter Patel-Schneider: proposal is to add a new kind of entity to functional syntax

Michael Smith: bmotik sent email in support

PROPOSED: resolve issue 102 as in

Alan Ruttenberg: +1 to accept
Boris Motik: +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 to accept
Michael Smith: +1 to accept as proposed

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1
Doug Lenat: +1
Boris Motik: q+ to ask a process question
Alan Ruttenberg: we need to do the PROPOSED/ RESOLVED dance

Michael Schneider: there were several emails on the issue

Alan Ruttenberg: related, but separable topic covered by another issue
Michael Smith: conversation was from the report
Ivan Herman: -> is a typical case

Alan Ruttenberg: most of the conversation was about a different issue - isolated typing triples

Alan Ruttenberg:
Boris Motik: Yes.
Alan Ruttenberg: boris is right.
Zakim: bmotik, you wanted to ask a process question

Boris Motik: what is the process?

Ian Horrocks: this is to resolve -

Peter Patel-Schneider: my recollection is that we are going to resolve / close. there may be an action generated or the action may be implicit

Sandro Hawke: let's have a short process

Ian Horrocks: agreed

Alan Ruttenberg: ok

Ian Horrocks: let's vote to close and give boris an action

RESOLVED: resolve issue 102 as in

ACTION: bmotik2 to Update the spec to resolve ISSUE-102 as per Peter's e-mail

trackbot-ng: Created Action 113 - Update the spec to resolve Issue 102 as per Peter's e-mail [on Boris Motik - due 2008-03-26].

Sandro Hawke: who will update tracker

Boris Motik: I'll do it

Ian Horrocks: I'll do it

Boris Motik: OK, Ian will do it.

Issue 79

Ian Horrocks: Issue 79, proposal from carsten

PROPOSED: resolve issue 79 as in

Boris Motik: +1
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to resolve
Alan Ruttenberg: +1
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1
Michael Smith: +1 to resolving Issue 79 as in email
Rinke Hoekstra: +1
Jie Bao: +1
Doug Lenat: +1
Sandro Hawke: +0

RESOLVED: resolve issue 79 as in

Issue 78

Ian Horrocks: Issue 78

PROPOSED: resolve issue 78 as in

Michael Schneider: -1 to call EL++ "OWL-Lite"
Ivan Herman: -1
Alan Ruttenberg: -1

The above are actually votes in favour, see below as well.

Boris Motik: +1 to close as as rejected
-1 (guest): do not call EL++ as OWL Lite [Scribe assist by Ivan Herman]
Achille Fokoue: -1
Jie Bao: -1
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to close as rejected
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 to resolve issue, -1 to the name OWL Lite for EL++, which I guess is a close as reject
Michael Smith: +1 to resolving issue as in email. i.e., -1 to renaming EL++ OWL-Lite
Doug Lenat: let's try this again
Ivan Herman: +1 to close!
Achille Fokoue: +1 to reject
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 to reject
Michael Schneider: +1 to reject
Doug Lenat: +1 to accept the rejection
Ivan Herman: +1 to close, reject, and do not call EL++ as OWL Lite

RESOLVED: reject issue 78 as in

Issue 75

Ian Horrocks: Issue 75

PROPOSED: new name for fragments document solves issue 75 so it can be resolved

Boris Motik: +1 to close as rejected
Alan Ruttenberg: close as resolved
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1
Michael Smith: +1 to resolving Issue 75
Doug Lenat: +1
Achille Fokoue: +1
Michael Schneider: +1

RESOLVED: new name for fragments document solves issue 75 so it can be resolved (closed)

Michael Schneider: Carsten proposed "My proposal is to call the document simply "Fragments of OWL"

Issue 16

Ian Horrocks: Issue 16

PROPOSED: resolve issue 16 as in

Michael Smith: q+ to ask boris this proposal

Boris Motik: the resolution is to change the functional syntax to move annotations outside of axioms

Michael Smith: does this make axioms inside annotations be virtual

Boris Motik: yes

Boris Motik: we may reconsider when we do a larger view of annotations

Peter Patel-Schneider: boris please reiterate answer

Boris Motik: axioms inside annotations are not necessary in the ontology

Peter Patel-Schneider: if this is case I vote against

Peter Patel-Schneider: I want axioms in the ontology to be part of the ontology

Boris Motik: Just for the record: I don't have a problem whatsoever with Peter's requirement

Ian Horrocks: this is supposed to be a short discussion

Michael Schneider: what is the difference between Issue 16 and Issue 102?

Alan Ruttenberg: answering: See to understand that answer is addressed by Boris' solution to Issue 16, but not spoken to by Issue 102, which addressed a general question of whether annotation properties are entities themselves.
Boris Motik: There is a big difference

Alan Ruttenberg: can axioms be the object of an annotation

Ian Horrocks: defer to discussion list

Alan Ruttenberg: in a moment

Issue 86

Alan Ruttenberg: what about Issue 86

Alan Ruttenberg:

Ian Horrocks: no notice so put on next week's agenda

Michael Schneider: 86 is not a trivial issue: I first want to think deeper about it

General Discussion - Publication of Documents


Doug Lenat: i made edits in the primer, and put in a few reviewer boxes, please look at them

Ian Horrocks: is the primer close to publishable?

Doug Lenat: not exactly, there are missing sections, I would like them to be at least outlined

Doug Lenat: no harm to release it, but we should have something done

Jie Bao: i reviewed the primer

Jie Bao: who will be the reader? web end users may need an easier-to-read document

Jie Bao: separate section for discussion on incomplete modeling and open world semantics

XML Syntax

Achille Fokoue: xml is OK, I have only minor comments


Achille Fokoue: fragments I have a lot of issues wrt OWL-R especially OWL-R Full

Achille Fokoue: OWL-R Full semantics hard to read

Achille Fokoue: maybe move some semantics stuff to appendix

Michael Smith: fragment doc is publishable pending some editorial changes from Achille and my review

Boris Motik: purpose of OWL-R semantics section is to provide meaning of vocabulary and show the weakenings

Boris Motik: if there are just rules then there is no connection to regular semantics

Boris Motik: an appendix does not have the same impact - may as well delete then

Achille Fokoue: I had a different impression - independent formal presentation

Boris Motik: the section is not for precision but instead is for guidance

Achille Fokoue: difficult to read because of dependence on OWL Full semantics

Boris Motik: could provide guidance on what the section is for

Ian Horrocks: achille - can you help to revise section?

Achille Fokoue: OK, also part of my action item on the document

Boris Motik: I can help as well

Ian Horrocks: OK, achille will do this as part of his revision action

ACTION: Alan and Ian to review the reviews

trackbot-ng: Created Action 114 - And Ian to review the reviews [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-03-26].

Ian Horrocks: agenda item on fragments document, but we've already been discussing it

Formal Votes

Ian Horrocks: formal votes?

Alan Ruttenberg: can we decide to do this at the f2f?

Ian Horrocks: no document has full suite of clean reviews so defer?

Rinke Hoekstra: I was wondering... do we need something like a quorum for voting?
Rinke Hoekstra: I mean, officially

Quick Changes to XML Document

Sandro Hawke: xml document - only small fixes - will they be addressed quickly?

Ian Horrocks: boris?, bernardo?, peter?

Peter Patel-Schneider: I can do a quick pass to see what can be done

Ian Horrocks: how is the process going to work - an issue for each change?

Sandro Hawke: editors should collaborate with reviewers

Ian Horrocks: peter will address issues

Alan Ruttenberg: next week let's look at the documents again, and do formal votes at F2F

Achille Fokoue: +1

Ian Horrocks: no particular problem with that

Peter Patel-Schneider: what editors / authors

Sandro Hawke: editor = author

Ian Horrocks: de facto editors = those who are working on the documents

Sandro Hawke: w3c documents have editors

Sandro Hawke: formally, in the W3C process, there are editors. If this WG wants to call its editors "authors", that's okay. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Michael Smith: yes

Peter Patel-Schneider: who is going to interact with the reviewers?

Alan Ruttenberg: what is in the scope of editorship - things seem to be going OK

Peter Patel-Schneider: i disagree

Ian Horrocks: I can see both sides

Ian Horrocks: we have reviews and demands from the reviews

Zakim: sandro, you wanted to ask about editors

Ian Horrocks: and no one assigned to respond

Rinke Hoekstra: I'm in favour of clarity as well, if only to formalise the current situation...

Sandro Hawke: my understanding was that authors was editors

Alan Ruttenberg: sometimes, but people have stepped up independently

Michael Schneider: may I myself fix trivial editiorial bugs such as typos?

Alan Ruttenberg: no decision on what editors do

PROPOSED: WG members should edit the wiki pages as they like, if they are confident everyone will be happy with the change.

Alan Ruttenberg: good idea to encourage spontaneous fixes

Ian Horrocks: discuss at F2F

Michael Smith: +1 to clarifying at f2f

Alan Ruttenberg: good idea to have F2F discussion

Michael Schneider: IIRC, editorial process was, those people fix, "who are working on the docs"
Peter Patel-Schneider: We had that discussion at the last face-to-face [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Peter Patel-Schneider: there was such a discussion at the last F2F

Sandro Hawke: [ scanning I see no record of talking about wikis like this.  :-( ]
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 to clarification at f2f

Sandro Hawke: didn't we resolve on current situation?

Michael Schneider: but if /I/ fix it myself, then I am working on the docs, of course ;-)
Alan Ruttenberg: yes

Ian Horrocks: let's discuss at F2F

Ian Horrocks: no votes to publish today

Issue Discussion

Issue 100

Ian Horrocks: Issue 100

Alan Ruttenberg: issue has not been firmly addressed, and it needs to be

Alan Ruttenberg: can OWL 1.1 be completely embedded in RDF?

Alan Ruttenberg: some valid OWL 1.0 DL ontologies are not completely embeddable in RDF

Alan Ruttenberg: is RDF adequate for representing OWL

Peter Patel-Schneider: RDF was never adequate, it is not adequate, it never will be adequate

Uli Sattler: Alan, what is "the same"? Syntactically identical including order?
Peter Patel-Schneider: going through RDF will lose order, of course. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Ian Horrocks: Boris?

Peter Patel-Schneider: if you want complete round tripping, then you have to mirror everything in the DL in RDF, which interferes with the RDF semantics

Boris Motik: I agree with peter

Alan Ruttenberg: I don't understand what peter is saying

Boris Motik: RDF is a straightjacket, everything is a triple

Boris Motik: you can reify and encode and thus retain the entirety of the syntax, but this has other consequences

Alan Ruttenberg: I don't understand the issues

Alan Ruttenberg: I was surprised with the situation in 1.0

Alan Ruttenberg: entailment is a separate issue - it may not be accomplishable

Alan Ruttenberg: the RDF serialization should retain all of OWL

Rinke Hoekstra: what do you lose when you translate back?
Uli Sattler: Alan, what is "the same"
Rinke Hoekstra: exactly
Uli Sattler: example?

Ian Horrocks: peter said that everything in OWL 1.0 is serializable into RDF

Alan Ruttenberg: but the meaning may be changed - e.g., punning

Alan Ruttenberg: with punning being more important this is now important

Boris Motik: do you care about the semantics or not?

Boris Motik: do you want syntactic equivalence, semantic equivalence, or what?

Uli Sattler: Alan, can you clarify in an email?

Alan Ruttenberg: want roundtripping (modulo ordering that doesn't matter)

Doug Lenat: (non on the queue but if I were I would say: "same" means same consequences (entailments)).
Alan Ruttenberg: uli - did you read the email already sent?
Uli Sattler: alan - yes, but i still didn't understand your requirements, sorry

Boris Motik: situation in 1.1 allows roundtripping

Alan Ruttenberg: I thought it was clarified

Boris Motik: I would prefer to sacrifice RDF compatability instead of limiting OWL

Boris Motik: I'd much rather sacrifice RDF syntax than throw out nice features, like negative axioms [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Alan Ruttenberg: Boris, I understand this view - I want the decision to be all of ours

Ian Horrocks: more time on this issue next week

Doug Lenat: good idea