OWL WG Teleconference 10 Oct 2007
See also: IRC log
- Achille Fokoue, Anne Cregan, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Bijan Parsia, Carsten Lutz, Conrad Bock, Conrad Bock, Doug Lenat, Elisa Kendall, Evan Wallace, Giorgos Stoilos, Ian Horrocks, Ivan Herman, Jeff Pan, Joanne Luciano, Markus Krötzsch, Rinke Hoekstra, Sandro Hawke, Tommie Meyer, Uli Sattler, Vipul Kashyap, Alan Ruttenberg, Boris Motik, Peter Patel-Schneider
- Deborah McGuinness, James Hendler, Michael Sintek
- Alan Ruttenberg, Ian Horrocks
- Bijan Parsia
ADMIN (20 min)
Ian Horrocks: Procedural preliminaries; everyone should get better at getting connected so as to not take up telecon time with us getting connected
... Please check the using zakim and the ettiquette page.
...and importantly, help the scribe!
PROPOSED regular telecon time Wednesday 1300 East US
Ian Horrocks: Anyone have a problem with this time? No, let's move on.
Ian Horrocks: no amendments
Telecons and IRC
Sandro Hawke: Normally irc logs are public. So we need to decide that
Lots of agreement both on and off IRC.
Ian Horrocks: For scribing, please check the list and let chairs know if you can't make your turn
Regrets to be posted on meeting wiki
Alan Ruttenberg: if someone doesn't want to use the wiki for regrets, send email *directly* to Alan Ruttenberg (not to the list)
Peter Patel-Schneider: Problem with the wiki involving colons and usernames
Markus Krötzsch: tools like showing all-contributions-of-user require using User: namespace
discussion about names in wiki names
Alan Ruttenberg: if you have issues with your wikiname, contact alanr or sandro *off list*
Sandro Hawke: everyone should create a wiki account in the next few days
Ian Horrocks: Accounts are important because much of the work of the group will be done via the wiki
Alan Ruttenberg: Wiki authorship policy: Every page is editable by all users. If you want to protect a page from arbitrary edits *say so on the page*. Default is that all users are free to edit.
Alan Ruttenberg: question about who gets write access (e.g., out side of group
Sandro Hawke: If the edits are friendly, just do it. If you expect disputation, try the talk page first
Alan Ruttenberg: alanr has ambitious plans for using the wiki; e.g., doing the specs there; test cases; etc.
Alan Ruttenberg: keep an eye on the recent changes
Peter Patel-Schneider: Is the wiki support full html?
Charter review (scope, deliverables, timeline)
Ian Horrocks: We're not going to do the charter review on the phone -- good homework. Participants shoudl read the charter very carefully and review the input documents for next week
Ian Horrocks: and the issues list, etc.
Alan Ruttenberg: we need to transistion the various issue lists
Bijan:This was my question/point
Ian Horrocks: The timeline is aggressive. Need first draft of the deliverables soon. So we need to identify potential land minds. Please review documents with an eye to these landmines.
Vipul Kashyap: Combined issues list is a great idea, but many issues from the origianl list are closed. What should deal with it?
Vipul Kashyap: Some closed issues weren't *accommodated* but deferred. How do we reopen?
Ian Horrocks: Prefer to make a new issue for that
Vipul Kashyap: Could the issue transfer person add all the resolutions and rationales?
Ian Horrocks: prefer that the burden is on participants who want to champion an old closed issue should propose it fresh
Sandro Hawke: Note about issues: chairs have discrestion about actually raising issues. Participants propose issues.
Ian Horrocks: We must recall the timeline. So issues are better raised as early as possible.
Sub-groups to work on deliverables
Ian Horrocks: A proposal for organization: We should have subgroups for the deliverables.
... And we would use the wiki heavily for the collab document editing/authoring.
Vipul Kashyap: How to create the subgroups? Divide by technology or by application.
Ian Horrocks: We'd divide by *documents*.
Ian Horrocks: i.e., each subgroup is "in charge" of a corresponding document
Ian Horrocks: That's a point. If you look at the owl, there's a lot of overlap. Might be good.
Bijan Parsia: I meant more that e.g., syntax changes affect the semantics document
Joanne Luciano: Useful for getting crosschecks
Bijan Parsia: I agree, but this is orthogonal to my point that the *language* decisions are separate
Vipul Kashyap: Can we have an overarching example or use case to drive the documents.
Ian Horrocks: We do have a requirements document deliverable
Ian Horrocks: but requirements can eat up a lot of time so we can't presume that the other documents can wait on them.
... any objections?
Alan Ruttenberg: I agree with Ian that we have a clear set of goals for the language extensions (originally motivated from OWLED), but don't want to close off new use cases. Given the timeline, if you think there's something missing based on a use case
Alan Ruttenberg: please bring it to group attention
Bijan:Can we defer some of these discussion to the mailing list?
Vipul Kashyap: Perhaps a table mapping constructs to use cases? I.e., how each cosntruct meet the use cases
Alan Ruttenberg: A user guide could incorporate that. It would be a good idea to have this connectability in the guide.
Bijan Parsia: Are subgroups "merely" editors or do they advance the technical work
Ian Horrocks: function as traditional editors
Bijan Parsia: So, we use the traditional proposal mechanism via email?
Bijan Parsia: I think that only an hour is hopeless
Relationships to other W3C groups
Choose contact persons
Ian Horrocks: There are a bunch of WG to coordinate with. People should look at the related groups in the charter and people should see if they are interested to be the contact person for select group
Alan Ruttenberg: The role of the contact person is to monitor the target group activity for things which might affect owl and informing them about things from owl that might affect them.
Review of the RIF document
Alan Ruttenberg: Reviewing the RIF BLD should be an activity of owlwg. Peter would be a good person to do that.
Sandro Hawke: Whenever we do a review as a group, we generally delegate but they can publish that individually or as a group. A group decision is needed for the latter
Ian Horrocks: Everyone is personally welcome to review RIF
Sandro Hawke: It's a lot of wg work to do a group review
Ian Horrocks: but given the importance of the relationahip it's worth doing a group review
RESOLVED there will be WG review of RIF BLD
Sandro Hawke: publishing morotoriam meants that the BLD will not formally published for a few weeks
Manchester F2F: Estimate attendance
Manchester F2F: Outline objectives
Ian Horrocks: Objectives of the f2f: Time is pressing (again). F2F can get a lot of work done.
Alan Ruttenberg: A big concern is getting everyone up to speed technically on all aspects of the documents.
... so we should find out how much tutorialness is needed
... an example, I didn't understand declarations until talking to people. How many issues are like that? How much prep should we do
Ian Horrocks: People should feel free to ask questions on the mailing list, esp. if there's something they don't understand.
Bijan Parsia: Are we aiming for FWD before the f2f or decide there? what's the publication schedule.
Ian Horrocks: we'll take that up next week. I'll add it on the agenda.
Ivan Herman: have the local arrangements page been updated?
Ian Horrocks: Yes. There is a new la page linked from the wiki
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Alan to clean up User: prefix on wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/10-owl-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: alanr to check for HTML support in mediawiki, esp. to support the semantics document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/10-owl-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Peter to Review the RIF BLD draft and report back to OWL-WG for discussion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/10-owl-minutes.html#action03]
[End of minutes]
Further processing done to convert that wiki-text into template calls, and canonicalize user names to those used by tracker, in customer software by Sandro Hawke.