Last modified on 13 June 2008, at 18:57
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
00:00:00 <> PRESENT: vipul, Elisa, IanH, ewallace, pfps, Christine 14:04:19 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #owl 14:04:19 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/06/09-owl-irc 14:04:20 <Zakim> On the phone I see +2, Vipul_Kashyap, Elisa_Kendall, +46.7.41.aabb, Evan_Wallace 14:04:30 <Zakim> On IRC I see vipul, ewallace, Elisa, IanH, sandro, trackbot 14:04:53 <vipul> Zakim, aabb is Christine 14:05:06 <Zakim> +Christine; got it 14:06:08 <vipul> rrsagent, make logs world-visible 14:06:41 <IanH> zakim, hang up aabb 14:06:41 <Zakim> I don't understand 'hang up aabb', IanH 14:09:21 <IanH> zakim, who is here? 14:09:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see +2, Vipul_Kashyap, Elisa_Kendall, Christine, Evan_Wallace 14:09:24 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, vipul, ewallace, Elisa, IanH, sandro, trackbot 14:09:31 <pfps> pfps has joined #owl 14:09:47 <IanH> q? 14:09:53 <IanH> ack Christine 14:10:07 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider 14:10:23 <IanH> zakim, +2 is me 14:10:25 <vipul> Zakim, who's here? 14:10:26 <Zakim> +IanH; got it 14:10:32 <Zakim> On the phone I see IanH, Vipul_Kashyap, Elisa_Kendall, Christine, Evan_Wallace, Peter_Patel-Schneider 14:10:39 <Zakim> On IRC I see pfps, RRSAgent, Zakim, vipul, ewallace, Elisa, IanH, sandro, trackbot 14:12:53 <ewallace> scribeNick:Elisa_Kendall 14:13:04 <Elisa> scribenick: Elisa 14:13:39 <Elisa> Evan: last week we met and basically talked about how we were going to work on the requirements doc 14:13:54 <Elisa> ... some people familiarized themselves with the work page Evan created 14:14:15 <Elisa> ... talked about how to org document - whether by domain, use cases, features added in OWL 1.1 14:14:27 <Elisa> ... really the entrypoint was the issue rather than the basic components 14:14:47 <Elisa> Vipul: I started to arrange things in a sort of a table 14:14:58 <vipul> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/TraceabilityMatrix 14:15:16 <Elisa> I've been filling out this table, and the table is just a generalization of that proposed by Michael and Christine 14:15:26 <ewallace> Requirements workspace page: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Requirements_work_space 14:15:43 <Elisa> and just started filling it out, to look across domains 14:16:14 <Elisa> Ian: as I understand it, there was some disagreement as to whether the basic structure should start from OWL 2, or the other way around 14:16:27 <Elisa> Vipul: yes, that is one of the disagreements 14:16:46 <Elisa> I would like to propose that we go from the domain to the new features, but others want to go the other way around 14:17:08 <Elisa> Ian: looking at your features in the new table, there are very few places where OWL 2 doesn't meet the requirements 14:17:39 <Elisa> as it stands, starting from requirements and use cases, using this matrix, you would say that what we needed was OWL 2 14:18:03 <Elisa> if we don't end up with a large number of unsatisfied requirements, it doesn't make that much difference 14:18:27 <Elisa> Vipul: there was a question of scope brought up at the last telecon, looking at requirements that were 14:18:36 <Elisa> relevant for OWL 2 14:19:17 <Elisa> Ian: yes, without that you could go on and on ... without that we might feel obliged to identify all of the features we don't have in the language and then say why not 14:19:24 <Elisa> Vipul: would that be useful 14:19:46 <Elisa> Ian: it could take quite a bit of time, slow us down saying why we didn't include those features 14:20:03 <Elisa> Vipul: yes, I'm focusing on the use cases where we do have those features 14:20:35 <Elisa> Ian: this is really how we started, which led to OWL 1.1 and subsequently morfed into OWL2, so what you've done really reflects the design process 14:21:18 <Elisa> Christine: I am not sure that I understand correctly the end of our discussion last Monday - I understood that we wanted to have a doc composed of 3 parts: use cases, requirements, and design rationale 14:21:56 <Elisa> my thought was that we were going to organize according to the new OWL features, but some people suggested that we should not be redundant or overlapping with the older documents 14:22:14 <Elisa> Bijan said that it should not be redundant with the primer or reference docs, and I agree 14:22:58 <ewallace> Christine's input doc:http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/images/8/83/TdM-UserReqTF.pdf 14:23:11 <Elisa> but I have been thinking that we should review the document I put online regarding the features, but highlighting based on questions, but focused on requirements and then discussing the features 14:23:40 <Elisa> summarizing - 3 parts, starting with use cases, then requirements stressing rationale and motivation, and 3rd part talking about the design 14:24:18 <IanH> q? 14:24:20 <Elisa> I didn't have time to finish this, but we might keep this along similar lines ... 14:24:37 <Elisa> reorganizing along the lines of features 14:24:51 <ewallace> She was quoting me 14:25:05 <Elisa> vipul: the syntactic sugar is one of the most useful things introduced - we've been discussing this on email 14:25:15 <pfps> not surprising - there are an infinite number of ways of representing anything 14:25:21 <ewallace> The issue was with describing the feature as syntactic sugar, not the features in that category 14:25:54 <Elisa> Ian: so - from what I understand, you (Vipul) and Christine are not that far apart, so can we hear from someone who disagrees ... 14:26:49 <Elisa> Evan: I just put in what Vipul was clarifying ... my issue last week - I didn't think the way it was organized was particularly user friendly 14:26:59 <Elisa> Ian: so this was mainly editorial 14:27:03 <Elisa> Evan: indeed 14:27:43 <Elisa> Ian: so there will be quite a bit of editorial polishing ... the only thing I wasn't 100% clear about was the third section - so what's in the design section 14:28:02 <Elisa> Christine: I said use cases, requirements, and design 14:28:10 <Elisa> Ian: so what is design? 14:28:43 <Elisa> Christine: to explain the motivation - why these features were implemented, now the -- document is very nice, lots of progress 14:28:59 <vipul> q 14:29:13 <vipul> q+ 14:29:15 <IanH> q? 14:29:20 <Elisa> if you take a specific feature, and summarize discussion regarding why certain design choices were made 14:29:55 <Elisa> Ian: I can understand now why Bijan was worried about overlap - I would have expected use cases leading to requirements, and then describe how those requirements were satisfied, 14:30:09 <Elisa> rather than potentially unconnected features, such as profiles, were selected 14:30:53 <IanH> q? 14:30:57 <Elisa> so for example, for the OWL lite profile, there is a requirement for access to databases, and then the solution would be that the OWL lite profile is the subset of the language that allows you to do this 14:30:58 <IanH> ack vipul 14:31:33 <Elisa> Vipul: the third section should say how the features map to the requirements, but I would like to add something about what is better in OWL 2 over what was in OWL 1 14:31:43 <IanH> q? 14:31:50 <Elisa> Ian: ok - I can imaging doing something about that, taking care about overlap 14:32:46 <Elisa> Vipul: so take syntactic sugar -- there were lots of ways of saying things in OWL 1, but there are lots of people who don't know very much about logic, so features such as the syntactic sugar are very helpful 14:33:19 <Elisa> Ian: we're all in close enough agreement to produce a document ... 14:33:52 <Elisa> Christine: for the design section, it is not the same if the objective is to map requirements to features, than to say why a feature was designed or accepted 14:34:22 <Elisa> so for example, the easy key example, it is not clear why it might be implemented with DL-safe rules, or functional-inverse functional 14:34:41 <Elisa> for each feature, it is important to say how to use the feature based on the underlying design 14:34:57 <ewallace> Really? 14:34:58 <Elisa> Ian: in this area you are getting close to problems with the primer 14:35:38 <Elisa> what I suggest is that you are close enough to top level design of the structure to try doing a few examples, and then come back to the working group with a draft 14:35:48 <Elisa> if people like what's there you can produce more 14:36:43 <Elisa> Christine: it is too difficult to summarize all of the discussion, and even if there are explanations in the profile and primer documents, it is hard to grasp the underlying reasons for these things 14:37:09 <Elisa> Ian: so pick and example and produce some text - it's difficult to understand what you want to do without seeing something concrete 14:37:39 <Elisa> Christine: this is reasonable, but the 3rd part is difficult, because the information is missing 14:37:41 <ewallace> q+ 14:37:59 <Elisa> Ian: so you might choose something that you do understand, so that you can write it 14:38:02 <IanH> ack ewallace 14:38:21 <Elisa> Evan: I think it would be good to build what we can and then say what's missing, what we need help with 14:38:26 <vipul> q+ 14:38:45 <IanH> ack vipul 14:38:51 <Elisa> Ian: do you think you can go ahead and come up with a draft 14:39:20 <Elisa> Vipul: I have a request from Evan and Peter - it would be nice to beef up the document with examples from telecommunications and manufacturing 14:39:54 <Elisa> Evan: I have some examples from manufacturing, but it will be a little challenging to match them to features of OWL 2 14:40:07 <Elisa> Christine: so who will take a crack at the first draft? 14:40:37 <Elisa> Evan: I could just start building the framework for this, so that you have some places to start filling in the content -- I did talk to Sandro about how we could do this on the wiki 14:40:56 <Elisa> Ian: as soon as you've filled in the framework we can get multiple people working on different sections 14:41:19 <vipul> ACTION: Evan to create first draft of requirements document 14:41:19 <trackbot> Created ACTION-158 - Create first draft of requirements document [on Evan Wallace - due 2008-06-16]. 14:41:47 <Elisa> Christine: would it be possible for you to draft an example for the design section? 14:42:04 <Elisa> Ian: I'm a little baffled, as you know what you want in the section ... 14:42:43 <Elisa> Let's see what you come up with, and if you have a section that says "we need an explanation of why this does what it does" I can help out if its needed' 14:43:06 <Elisa> Ian: is there anything else that we needed to cover today 14:44:10 <Elisa> Evan: on the quick start - we had some questions about the vocabulary, have we had any discussion with Boris? 14:44:40 <Elisa> We were trying to figure out exactly what parts of the syntax should be part of it, and it wasn't obvious 14:45:01 <pfps> why not look in the document set for the terminals of the language? 14:45:03 <Elisa> we were going to ask to see if he had generated anything with just the terminals, and start working from that 14:45:44 <Elisa> Ian: looking in the document is one way, but if it could be done automatically that would be quicker 14:45:47 <Elisa> Evan: exactly 14:45:59 <Elisa> Ian: Peter is there any way to do that? 14:46:25 <Elisa> Peter: if you want a reasonably recent set, there are indexes in the document that could get you most of the way 14:46:40 <Elisa> Evan: we were just asking if it had been done, not to create work 14:47:01 <Elisa> Ian: it seems like the answer is yes, it has already been done - we just need to find out where this index is and use that 14:47:07 <Elisa> Evan: yes 14:47:26 <Elisa> Ian: can you point us at the index? 14:47:42 <Elisa> Peter: Im getting server errors in the moment, so I can't 14:47:52 <Elisa> you might want to try the primer 14:48:18 <Elisa> Ian: index, owl feature -- there is a list of owl features ... is that the kind of thing you were thinking of? 14:48:25 <Elisa> Peter: I think so, 14:48:33 <Elisa> Ian: so that's a good starting point 14:48:37 <pfps> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Primer#Appendix:_OWL_Features 14:49:33 <Elisa> Ian: ok, so anything more on the quick start? we'll hopefully have something to discuss next week? 14:49:42 <Elisa> Elisa: hopefully the first week of July 14:49:51 <Elisa> Ian: anything else we should discuss this week? 14:50:16 <Elisa> Christine: what is the quick start guide supposed to be? 14:51:07 <Elisa> Ian: it's supposed to be like a reference card at the back of a manual that helps refresh your memory on syntax, a card that can sit on your desk rather than a book that would sit on your bookshelf 14:51:36 <Elisa> Ian: if we're not expecting progress on the quick start until the beginning of July, when should we schedule our next meeting? 14:53:51 <IanH> q? 14:53:56 <Elisa> Ian: realistically, it sounds like you might not have anything until the week of the 7th of July;do we want another meeting between now and then to discuss the use case and requirements document 14:54:34 <Elisa> On the use case and requirements document, do we meet next week or the 30th? 14:55:06 <Elisa> Vipul: it depends on whether or not Evan can get something done by then 14:55:28 <Elisa> Evan: Let's meet on the 30th, and I'll have at least a draft of the structure of the use case document we can discuss 14:55:54 <vipul> rrsagent, make minutes 14:55:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/09-owl-minutes.html vipul 14:55:54 <pfps> documenting the schedule would be useful 14:56:07 <Elisa> meeting adjourned 14:56:46 <Zakim> -Vipul_Kashyap 14:56:48 <Zakim> -Elisa_Kendall 14:56:50 <Zakim> -Christine 14:56:51 <ewallace> next meeting will be on 30 June to discuss progress on Requirements 14:56:52 <Zakim> -IanH 14:57:00 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace 14:57:05 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider 14:57:07 <Zakim> SW_OWL()10:00AM has ended 14:57:08 <Zakim> Attendees were Vipul_Kashyap, Elisa_Kendall, +46.7.41.aabb, Evan_Wallace, Christine, Peter_Patel-Schneider, IanH 14:57:23 <ewallace> will meet on 7 July to discuss Quickstart 14:57:47 <ewallace> rrsagent, draft minutes 14:57:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/09-owl-minutes.html ewallace 14:58:03 <ewallace> rrsagent, make log world-readable 14:58:45 <ewallace> RRSAgent, make records public 17:02:15 <Zakim> Zakim has left #owl