Teleconference.2008.03.26/Minutes

Michael Smith: +1 to using annotations, but iff round-tripping is a requirement

PROPOSED: who thinks that Michael Smith's proposal is the way to go?

Peter Patel-Schneider: -1 for mike

Sandro Hawke: 0

Jeremy Carroll: +0.4

Evan Wallace: 0

Alan Ruttenberg: 0 (want to think about it first)

Zhe Wu: +0

Doug Lenat: -0.5

Achille Fokoue: 0

Uli Sattler: 0 (the same, need to think)

Achille Fokoue: -0

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: 0

Michael Smith: could we have a strawpoll on whether we wish to support ObjectProperty assertions where properties are inverses at all

Michael Smith: it might be that we do not really need that

Michael Smith: I suggested to disallow this in an email

Alan Ruttenberg: not facts

Alan Ruttenberg: only restrictions

Alan Ruttenberg: objectAllValuesFrom := 'ObjectAllValuesFrom' '(' objectPropertyExpression description ')'

Alan Ruttenberg: inverseObjectProperty := 'InverseObjectProperty' '(' objectPropertyExpression ')'

Alan Ruttenberg: objectPropertyExpression := objectPropertyURI | inverseObjectProperty

Boris Motik: support for inverse properties without explicitly naming them was requested from the DIG working group, and is used in many reasoners

Ivan Herman: What is the DIG working group?

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Ivan, Description Logics Implementors group

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: A group of people that have implemented DL reasoners. It includes the people who have developed the major DL reasoners.

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Peter is a member; I think so is Ian.

Ian Horrocks: further discussion needed, to be taken to email

Michael Smith: more email sounds good

Jeremy Carroll: can we have a strawpoll on disallowing inverses as proposed by Michael Smith?

Alan Ruttenberg: disallowing means no InverseObjectProperties inside Fact constructs

PROPOSED: disallow anonymous inverse properties in facts

Boris Motik: -1

Jeremy Carroll: +1

Uli Sattler: -1

Markus Krötzsch: -1

Peter Patel-Schneider: -1 AIPs have their place in the world

Alan Ruttenberg: 0

Zhe Wu: +0.1

Jie Bao: 0

Achille Fokoue: +1

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: -1

Evan Wallace: -1

Doug Lenat: 0 (need to think about it)

Rinke Hoekstra: 0

Issue 12 http://www.w3.org/mid/20080318.213218.171431830.pfps@research.bell-labs.com

Michael Smith: +1 to disallowing anonym in obas

Sandro Hawke: 0

Issue 12

Alan Ruttenberg: I suggested a modification for improving efficiency (see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Mar/0254.html)

Peter Patel-Schneider: Alan's proposal might be problematic, since it adds totally new different individuals

Alan Ruttenberg: But it is only an existential (a bnode)

Peter Patel-Schneider: Yes, but it still might increase the size of the domain.

Peter Patel-Schneider: this creates a burdon on round-tripping

Peter Patel-Schneider: but the creation of new individuals as such is the main problem

Alan Ruttenberg: for equivalent class and equivalent properties it should not be such a problem

Ian Horrocks: not sure without having a closer look

Ian Horrocks: it seems we cannot resolve the issue with that solution without further investigation

Alan Ruttenberg: my proposal for possible optimisation might be a separate issue

Jeremy Carroll: The issue also touches other issues related to reification, and I would currently abstain on this issue until the relations are clearer

PROPOSED: should this issue by closed according to pfps's proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Mar/0205.html?

Alan Ruttenberg: +1

Uli Sattler: 1

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (surprise)

Jeremy Carroll: +0 concur

Doug Lenat: If asked I would respond +1

Zhe Wu: 1

Jie Bao: +1

Evan Wallace: +1

Michael Smith: +1

Rinke Hoekstra: +1

Ratnesh Sahay: 0

PROPOSED: close Issue 12 as in pfps's email provided that new information does not come in and noting that this does not close the general reification issue

Alan Ruttenberg: considering http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Mar/0254.html as possible new information

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1

Doug Lenat: +1 (peter's typing might be that new info of course)

Alan Ruttenberg: +1

Michael Smith: +1

Ian Horrocks: +1

Uli Sattler: +1

Rinke Hoekstra: +1

Achille Fokoue: +1

Jeremy Carroll: +0 concur

Zhe Wu: +1

Evan Wallace: +1

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1

Ratnesh Sahay: 0

Sandro Hawke: 0

Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/draft/owl11-syntax/

RESOLVED: close Issue 12 as in pfps's email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Mar/0205.html provided that new information does not come in and noting that this does not close the general reification issue

Ian Horrocks: Time for issues is up, proceed with reviews of candidate working drafts first

ACTION: bmotik2 to Update the RDF mapping with the accepted resolution of Issue 12 as per Peter's suggestion

trackbot-ng: Created Action 115 - Update the RDF mapping with the accepted resolution of Issue 12 as per Peter's suggestion [on Boris Motik - due 2008-04-02].

Reviews of candidate FPWDs

Fragments document

Achille Fokoue: I corrected minor problems, and raised issues where needed

Michael Smith: mostly editorial comments, not put into wiki page yet

Alan Ruttenberg: uncontroversial editorial changes can be made directly in the document

Michael Smith: OK, I will shortly incorporate my comments then

Sandro Hawke: we might want to change the document title (wiki page name currently is Fragments Proposal)

Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/draft/owl11-fragments/

Alan Ruttenberg: "Fragments of OWL"

Alan Ruttenberg: "Fragments of OWL" seems to be a good name

Sandro Hawke: "Language Fragments"

Peter Patel-Schneider: owl pieces / owl bones

Ian Horrocks: I would just say "OWL Fragments"

Ian Horrocks: Actually just "Fragments" would be good

Alan Ruttenberg: "Fragments" ok by me

Zhe Wu: "OWL Fragments" sounds good

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: To be consistent with the other documents we should simply say "Fragments"

Peter Patel-Schneider: syntax is Syntax, so fragments should be ... Fragments

Rinke Hoekstra: "Fragments"

Jeremy Carroll: the abstract of the fragments doc is insufficient

Jeremy Carroll: also, the term "fragment" may have a negative connotation

Peter Patel-Schneider: -1

Uli Sattler: "species"

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: no species

Alan Ruttenberg: "profiles"?

Boris Motik: "Fragment" is a standard term from logic.

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Yes

Peter Patel-Schneider: To change the name requires moving the page, I think

Jeremy Carroll: fragment may be a term from logic, but ...

Ian Horrocks: this discussion should be continued offline

Zakim: jjc, you wanted to mention abstract

Peter Patel-Schneider: An abstract is, by definition, one paragraph. (Yes this is often violated.)

Achille Fokoue: I would like an additional review of the changes I made recently

Boris Motik: I can review Achille's changes.

Michael Smith: achille, I will review again with your edits in mind

Diego Calvanese: regarding the DL Lite fragment, I think major changes are still required in the document

Diego Calvanese: for example function properties should be there

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Diego, remember that we have role hierarchies

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Wouldn't functionality be problematic?

Diego Calvanese: several other additions could be made

Peter Patel-Schneider: we can note in the current version that the presented DL Lite fragment is a conservative fragment that is likely to be extended later on

Alan Ruttenberg: +1 to pfps

Doug Lenat: good point

Diego Calvanese: +1 to pfps

Boris Motik: I can do it

Diego Calvanese: ok

ACTION: bmotik to add a note to the fragments document regarding possible later extension of DL Lite

trackbot-ng: Created Action 116 - Add a note to the fragments document regarding possible later extension of DL Lite [on Boris Motik - due 2008-04-02].

Michael Smith: bmotik, suggest merging note about Issue 80 into it

Boris Motik: Msmith, good point about Issue 80; will do.

XML Serialisation

Achille Fokoue: my comments were already addressed by pfps

Achille Fokoue: the document is in a good shape overall

Sandro Hawke: I noticed inconsistent uses of namespaces

Sandro Hawke: maybe we should add a note that the namespaces might be changed later

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ to say s/owl11xml:/ox:/

Ian Horrocks: it would be good to have a sensible solution eaerly on, so as to prevent people using placeholders that are changed later

Peter Patel-Schneider: ox is a namespace name not a namespace

Alan Ruttenberg: minor comment to change the namespace prefix in the schema to the one used in the text

Alan Ruttenberg: there are still inconsitent namespace prefixes in the document

Alan Ruttenberg: owl11xml:EntityAnnotation

Alan Ruttenberg: ox:EntityAnnotation

Alan Ruttenberg: my second comment is about "abstract" and "concrete" classes; the use of those terms is not fully clear yet

Alan Ruttenberg: Example quote from document: "Each abstract class (i.e., a class that is not intended to be instantiated, but is used to define a class hierarchy) is mapped to a global element group."

Michael Smith: on namespaces, I've verified that we've been using http://www.w3.org/2006/12/owl11-xml , because this what is what the OWLAPI uses

Boris Motik: Yes.

Ian Horrocks: Who has implemented OWL 1.1 software? Which namespaces would users prefer?

Boris Motik: I do not think users would care much; I have not received any user comments on that

Alan Ruttenberg: We still should not change the namespace if there are already OWL 1.1 ontologies

Boris Motik: I think there are not so many OWL 1.1 ontologies that would be affected there

Michael Smith: I posted the namespaces used in the OWL API into IRC

Michael Smith: I also think that there is no problem in changing the namespace now

Sandro Hawke: I would prefer a non-dated namespace now

Rinke Hoekstra: +1 to undated namespace

Ian Horrocks: yes, I also would like to not have dates in the namespace

Sandro Hawke: yes, the dates were only used to generate unique names, the are not really needed

Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/ns/owl11-xml

Peter Patel-Schneider: OK by me

PROPOSED: use http://www.w3.org/ns/owl11-xml as a namespace

Alan Ruttenberg: +1

Ian Horrocks: +1

Zhe Wu: looks good

Doug Lenat: +1

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1

Uli Sattler: +1

Jie Bao: +1

Ivan Herman: +1

Rinke Hoekstra: looks ok, what does the rdf namespace look like?

Achille Fokoue: +1

Zhe Wu: Is the name "OWL 1.1" fixed then?

PROPOSED: use http://www.w3.org/ns/owl11-xml as the XML namespace name for OWL 1.1 XML serialization

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1

Alan Ruttenberg: http://www.w3.org/ns/2008/04/xml

Ian Horrocks: +1

Doug Lenat: +1 again

Rinke Hoekstra: +1

RESOLVED: use http://www.w3.org/ns/owl11-xml as the XML namespace name for OWL 1.1 XML serialization

Sandro Hawke: A related question is where to publish the schema, but I need to do some more research on this

Zhe Wu: Does this namespace decision imply that the new standard is called OWL 1.1?

Sandro Hawke: Yes, good point ... maybe not "owl11". just "owl"?

Alan Ruttenberg: no [Scribe assist by Ivan Herman]

Ian Horrocks: Should we rather change the namespace to drop the 11?

Peter Patel-Schneider: I prefer .../owl-xml

Jeremy Carroll: We can still change our minds on the namespace later on, since this is just a working draft

Ian Horrocks: Indeed, we can go with the current resolution for the early working draft now

Primer

Jie Bao: There is still some work to do. The main question is who will read the Primer.

Jie Bao: I think the document needs to be restructured to become accessible for users of different levels of expertise.

Jie Bao: Advanced topics like Open World Assumption should go to later sections.

Ian Horrocks: Jie, could you and Deborah cooperate with the authors to fix the perceived problems with the Primer until F2F2?

Jie Bao: I think Section 3 and 4 are mostly our problem, but fixing that might not require much time

Alan Ruttenberg: I object that OWA is considered an advanced topic. It is in fact a major point in using OWL

Alan Ruttenberg: I therefore would object to moivng that to the appendix

Uli Sattler: +1 to alanr

Rinke Hoekstra: +1 too