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 Achille Fokoue)

Alan Ruttenberg: Agenda amendments?

Alan Ruttenberg: no agenda amendments

PROPOSED: accept previous minutes

Peter Patel-Schneider: minutes are *minimally* acceptable
Doug Lenat: +1
Michael Smith: +1 to previous minutes
Michael Schneider: +1 to previous minutes
Sandro Hawke: sandro has joined #owl

RESOLVED: previous minutes accepted

Registration fees and signup f2f

Peter Patel-Schneider: please register as soon as possible for the next f2f

Alan Ruttenberg: it is fine by me to have few observers at the next f2f meeting

Action item status

Alan Ruttenberg: Progress on Action 93

Alan Ruttenberg: Michael has started working on the OWL Full semantics, and commentts and feedback are welcomed

Michael Schneider: I don't want to force anyone to look at the OWL Full Semantics at this point

PROPOSED: Action 97 completed

Deborah McGuinness: Just joined - Deborah McGuinness - i tried to find the minutes from the last user facing documents meeting and failed. is that posted?

Due and overdue actions

Alan Ruttenberg: 3 out of the 5 due and overdue actions are Jeremy's actions, who is not here today, and 2 are Alan's

Alan Ruttenberg: So they will still be pending

raised issues

Alan Ruttenberg: Issue 96

Michael Schneider: there has already been some discussions on it. It is only an editorial issue

Zakim: pfps, you wanted to say that there is no inconsistency

Alan Ruttenberg: is Issue 96 an valid issue?

Peter Patel-Schneider: it is not an issue

Rinke Hoekstra: I don't think there is an issue, but if michael thinks there is, then that's an issue

Alan Ruttenberg: Should issue 96 be accepted?

Ratnesh Sahay: Ratnesh has joined #owl
Carsten Lutz: -0
Michael Smith: +0.1 on accept, it is a minor issue in RDF, but would change serialization for cosmetic reason (some tools already use the syntax)
Doug Lenat: 0
Doug Lenat: (not a lot of strong sentiment on this one)

Alan Ruttenberg: I'll talk to Ian about it. I am inclined to accept it tough

Bijan Parsia: Is it subsumable in other issues with RDF mapping? I'd rather all such issues were clustered

Alan Ruttenberg: Issue 100

Alan Ruttenberg: it is not about last week discussion on RDF/XML serialization

Alan Ruttenberg: it came up on discussion related to punning with Boris

Bijan Parsia: Examples?

Alan Ruttenberg: In OWL 1.1 there seems to be ontologies that cannot be coverted to RDF

Bijan Parsia: does the issue come from the fact that some ontologies cannot be serialized or is it just an OWL DL serialization issue?

Bijan Parsia: let's not decide in the abstract but rather on a case by case basis

Michael Smith: -1 to accept Issue 100 b/c drawing abstract lines in the sand doesn't seem necessary at this point

Boris Motik: -1 (i.e., I think we should *not* consider this issue; rather, we should reject it)
Michael Schneider: there *are* owl-1.0-dl ontologies, which are *not* expressible in rdf (I *don't* talk about rdf/xml!)
Deborah McGuinness: sorry - i am not sure of the definition of a non-separated vocabulary
Rinke Hoekstra: me neither

Peter Patel-Schneider: I will have to look carefully to find if it is really a problem

Ivan Herman: I think it should be accepted
Bijan Parsia: separated vocabulary means e.g., no class is an instance
Peter Patel-Schneider: -1 to accepting, as it is too general
PROPOSE (guest): accept this issue [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

ACTION: Peter to look more carefully at Issue 100

Bijan Parsia: non-separated vocbualry means that there is some term that is used in more than one syntactic category
Sandro Hawke: achille, I don't think the chair has agreed to this action.

Michael Schneider: it should be accepted

Rinke Hoekstra: -1 think that case-by-case is probably the best way to deal with this "issue"

Boris Motik: +1 to bijan

Alan Ruttenberg: I would accept it for discussion

Boris Motik: Four people voted against accepting the issue; why should we accept it? Nobody voted for it!

Alan Ruttenberg: there is no concensus. So we will accept it

Boris Motik: Who is in favor of accepting this issue?
Michael Smith: to bmotik, ivan, m_schneider, alanr were for
Bijan Parsia: None of those votes were registered qua votes
Boris Motik: OK, I was looking for +1s.

Alan Ruttenberg: Ivan, michael and alan want to accept it

Alan Ruttenberg: Issue 101

Peter Patel-Schneider: q+ to say that this is a bug and the fix is trivial
Boris Motik: Michael, I was not for accepting the issue; I was for rejecting it.

Michael Smith: covered by statement in semantics doc, b/c such literals are "well formed constants from NV"
Michael Smith: These datatypes, as well as the well-formed constants from NV, are interpreted as specified in [XML Schema Datatypes].
Michael Schneider: meta - what exactly has to happen in order to reject a raised issue? I would say that it should be *strongly* rejected (many -1)
Michael Smith: q+ to respond not a bug
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 to editorial
Bijan Parsia: +1 to editorial

Peter Patel-Schneider: it is just a bug. I will fix it

Alan Ruttenberg: accept the issue as editorial

Alan Ruttenberg: Issue 102

Alan Ruttenberg: what happen to annotations on annotation property

Peter Patel-Schneider: q+ to argue that this is also a bug (but Boris may not agree) and the fix is easy

Alan Ruttenberg: Should it be accepted?

Alan Ruttenberg: ack bmotik
Michael Smith: i.e., you can't create an annotation property without using it in an annotation

Boris Motik: the source of the problem is that annotation properties are not entities

Boris Motik: I don't think we need a seperate issue for this

Boris Motik: reject this issue, but take in the comment

Alan Ruttenberg: ack pfps
Zakim: pfps, you wanted to argue that this is also a bug (but Boris may not agree) and the fix is easy

Peter Patel-Schneider: disagree with Boris

Bijan Parsia: +1 to peter

Alan Ruttenberg: to be decided on email

Deborah McGuinness: +1 to any reasonable solution that allows annotations on annotations - it sounds like peters current solution does this

Alan Ruttenberg: peter's solution seems reasonable to me

General discussions

Alan Ruttenberg: formal vote to publish documents is needed

Deborah McGuinness: do we have the minutes for the meeting with the primer discussion?
Carsten Lutz: +1 for some more reviewing time for fragments document

Alan Ruttenberg: on the fragments, it is not clear that it should be published by the next f2f

Alan Ruttenberg: reviewers needed for the documents to be published

Alan Ruttenberg: let's start with the fragment document

Alan Ruttenberg: I want to make a distinction between must publish documents as opposed to documents that would be nice to publish

Bijan Parsia: The fragment spec should be published as is

Boris Motik: +1 to bijan

Bijan Parsia: i don't see any showstopper

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1 as well (not surprisingly)

Alan Ruttenberg: the naming of the fragments is still an open issue

Ivan Herman: there is nothing wrong to ask explicit questions in the published documents

Bijan Parsia: I have no problem with including such questions, I just don't think they are showstoppers
Bijan Parsia: I think they are a good idea

Ivan Herman: it's ok to openly request feedback on open issues

PROPOSED: publish fragments document as is, asap

Achille Fokoue: I feel like it has to be made more accessible. One point raised by Jim, there is an assumption that you are already familiar with the full vocabulary of OWL DL [Scribe assist by Rinke Hoekstra]
Achille Fokoue: although I think the document is well-written, I think it needs to be more accessible. The production rules assume you're already familiar with the full details of OWL DL. It will not really help get feedback from the people who are only interested in their one fragment. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Alan Ruttenberg: So, we should reference the appropriate semantics document? [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Bijan Parsia: How about an appendix with a complete grammar for each fragment
Michael Smith: q+ to respond to achille
Alan Ruttenberg: ack alanr
Alan Ruttenberg: Or are you suggesting the document should recapitulate the semantics? [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Achille Fokoue: My assumption is that people who might usefully review parts of the fragments document, might not be ready to understand all our documents. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Boris Motik: Achille, this document is a specification for three fragments. IMHO it should not be a *guide* for three fragments.
Sandro Hawke: +1 achille's point.
Alan Ruttenberg: Achille, would you be willing to try to fix this? [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Bijan Parsia: Does having a complete grammar for each fragment move things at all to address this issue?
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: I am with Boris: it is not intended to be a user-faced document
Alan Ruttenberg: Could you do this in the next week, Achille? [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Achille Fokoue: That would be difficult. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Achille Fokoue: end of next week. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Bijan Parsia: Is this "nice to have" or "must have"?

Achille Fokoue: What I'd like is for this fragments document to be as self-contained as possible. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Michael Smith: we can publish want we want now, and make them self contained later

Ivan Herman: we can publish want we want now, and make them self contained later

Sandro Hawke: Not tutorial, Boris -- Just written in the jargon of the dialect, instead of your jargon.
Alan Ruttenberg: ack bijan
Deborah McGuinness: at one point, we discussed having a statement about a description of a class of users that each fragment is aimed at

Bijan Parsia: how about an appendix?

ACTION: ppatelsc to check whether all OWL 1.0 ontologies are representable in RDF

trackbot-ng: Created Action 103 - Check whether all OWL 1.0 ontologies are representable in RDF [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2008-03-19].

Bijan Parsia: some example ontologies might also be useful

Bijan Parsia: maybe a little more about the design

Michael Schneider: The fragment document has not been published since the recent important changes

Alan Ruttenberg: There are a number of reasons why we make fragments. I don't think we can say from here what people should be looking for in fragments. I think the sentiment is toward publishing it. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Bijan Parsia: I think boris's overstates...there are many possible fragments with good comptuational properties (e.g., FL family) which are expressively horrid and thus aren't proposed
Alan Ruttenberg: I think Achille should go ahead and draft what he has in mind. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

ACTION: achille start editing the document by the end of next week

trackbot-ng: Created Action 104 - Start editing the document by the end of next week [on Achille Fokoue - due 2008-03-19].

Deborah McGuinness: While some fragments are computation-oriented, some are not. Some populations which are not DL-literate could benefit from the fragments document. It would be nice if, reading the document, you could see which audience each fragment is aimed at -- and Bijan's idea of identifying which KBs are in which fragments. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Bijan Parsia: I'll note that there is also a fragment intro, then a feature overview...
Alan Ruttenberg: I don't hear any objections to Achille trying to trying to draft some changes. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Sandro Hawke: I don't see how to handle this without a branch [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Alan Ruttenberg: Achille's changes ARE targetted for this publication round. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Alan Ruttenberg: all versions are in the wiki
Achille Fokoue: I want people to be able to read the section on a fragment and understand what it's about, without understanding the rest of OWL. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Sandro Hawke: +1 to that goal.
Alan Ruttenberg: Achille, I'm comfortable with you editing the document in that direction, with the edits being reviewed in 10 days. Alternatively, we can publish more like what we have now, and let your edits wait. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Achille Fokoue: In that case, I will try. But my schedule is very tight, so I might not make it. So I'm going to try the edits on a copied wiki page, in case they do not get done. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Sandro Hawke: okay./ [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Boris Motik: Sometimes you want to make a speculative change to a document. I am in favor of making such copy-and-modify documents often. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Achille Fokoue: +1 for boris

Bijan Parsia: we agree that the current design is ok for publication

Bijan Parsia: It seems like we agree that the current design is okay for publishing; the concerns have been editorial. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Bijan Parsia: I suggest we publish the current draft, pretty much as-is, and note that we are working on the editorial reason. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Alan Ruttenberg: next week, we will have a formal vote on publication

Alan Ruttenberg: more or less. next week we'll vote on whether to publish. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Deborah McGuinness: where are we going to make the statement about planned updates?

Alan Ruttenberg: reviewrs will be needed for the documents to publish

Michael Schneider: Question - is it possible to compare the differences between two *different* pages in the wiki? This would help when creating speculative copies to see the differences

Michael Smith: what is expected output from reviewer?
Doug Lenat: Willing to review primer

Alan Ruttenberg: volunteers?

Deborah McGuinness: repeating email offer to review primer
Achille Fokoue: sign me on for the fragment document
Michael Smith: I will be a reviewer for any of the 3 documents. At present, I am most familiar with fragments.

ACTION: dm to review primer

trackbot-ng: Created Action 105 - to review primer [on Deborah McGuinness - due 2008-03-19].
Bijan Parsia: I'll review fragment or xml

Achille Fokoue: sign me on for the XML doc
Bijan Parsia: I'm happy to not review as well
Bijan Parsia: I've nothing to do with either

ACTION: achille to review the XML doc and the fragment

trackbot-ng: Created Action 106 - Review the XML doc and the fragment [on Achille Fokoue - due 2008-03-19].
Doug Lenat: Deb, coordinate with me if you want so we can produce a joint review.

Deborah McGuinness: i do not have enough time to review more than one but on the fragment document, can we include a request to describe a class of users for whom each fragment is targetted?
Jeff Pan: (I am only available on IRC today)

ACTION: bijan to review the XML document

trackbot-ng: Created Action 107 - Review the XML document [on Bijan Parsia - due 2008-03-19].

ACTION: Sandro to review XML document

trackbot-ng: Created Action 108 - Review XML document [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-03-19].

ACTION: boajie to review the fragment

Alan Ruttenberg: ack bijan
Bijan Parsia: ack bijan
Michael Smith: can you summarize?

ACTION: bijan to review just the fragment document

trackbot-ng: Created Action 109 - Review just the fragment [on Bijan Parsia - due 2008-03-19].
Doug Lenat: I will be reviewing the Primer
Bijan Parsia: I will review the fragments document
Sandro Hawke: I am to review XML

Achille Fokoue: {{{what}}}
Deborah McGuinness: I have taken on reviewing the primer with Jie Bao helping as well.
Jie Bao: my user name is "baojie" on the wiki
Michael Schneider: I will review nothing :)
Michael Smith: for which?
Michael Smith: sure :)
Michael Smith: fragments it is!

ACTION: DougL to review the primer

ACTION: dlm to review the primer

ACTION: msmith to review the fragments document

Sandro Hawke: jiebao, I don't suppose you'd be willing to pick one form of your name and stick to it, for us? (using the name you want to be called first.)
Jie Bao: i will stick to baojie to be consistent to my ids everywhere

ACTION: smith to review the fragments document

trackbot-ng: Created Action 110 - Review the fragments document [on Michael Smith - due 2008-03-19].

Alan Ruttenberg: which syntax should be used for the primer?

Alan Ruttenberg: should it be addressed before the submit the draft?

Bijan Parsia: "We also recognize Bijan's email about the syntax issues and his very good suggestion of having an automated hookup to the owl api (or similar translator) so for the moment will not address the syntax issue."

Jeremy Carroll: +1 to sotd fix

Ivan Herman: we have to be careful that any language we use should have a clear and stable description

Peter Patel-Schneider: q+ to ask why an informative document cannot reference non-W3 stuff
Bijan Parsia: I'll note that it's the "Sandro Approach"

Alan Ruttenberg: for the short term, can we simply voice Ivan's concern in the status of the document

Peter Patel-Schneider: q+ to say that the Manchester syntax could be turned into a WG note in short order

Peter Patel-Schneider: in RDF semantics [Conen&Klapsing]
Peter Patel-Schneider: A Logical Interpretation of RDF, Conen, W., Klapsing, R..Circulated to RDF Interest Group, August 2000.

Ivan Herman: not sure. the issue is for the long term (once the primer becomes a standard)

Peter Patel-Schneider: let's publish it in its current version

Alan Ruttenberg: ack pfps
Zakim: pfps, you wanted to ask why an informative document cannot reference non-W3 stuff and to say that the Manchester syntax could be turned into a WG note in short order
Bijan Parsia: FPWD of that would be fine by me
Bijan Parsia: Turtle is on the list

Ivan Herman: turtle addition will be very valuable for people from RDF background

Jeremy Carroll: (silently) i agree with peter

Rinke Hoekstra: +1 to turtle
Bijan Parsia: has been from the beginning
Peter Patel-Schneider: q+ to say turtle only if there was a spec that showed how turtle maps to RDF

Zakim: pfps, you wanted to say turtle only if there was a spec that showed how turtle maps to RDF
Deborah McGuinness: could we include an action to include the minutes from the task force where this document was discussed
Bijan Parsia: Manchester syntax was there first partly as a historical reason...we found it easier to compose in that

Jeremy Carroll: i would like to see suvch minutes too
Deborah McGuinness: *action on alan - include minutes from user facing group discussion of documents on the wiki page for the task force
Bijan Parsia: Translation and incorporation of more syntax is at the moment tedious so we've not done any more than the three we started with
Michael Schneider: but isn't there a "natural" mapping from turtle to ntriples? and a mapping from ntriples to RDF graphs?
Boris Motik: Yes, there are
Alan Ruttenberg: ack bmotik
Peter Patel-Schneider: not really - there are subtleties

Issue Discussions

Alan Ruttenberg: I did not undestand Issue 16

Boris Motik: it has to do with asymmetry

Boris Motik: suggestion: annotations should be external to what is annotated

Bijan Parsia: I'm unsure about this proposal

Alan Ruttenberg: why do we need a new desgin for annotation?

Michael Schneider: if someone would propose a solution to the problem, then I would perhaps understand the problem :)
Bijan Parsia: There was a semantic change...entailments are different
Alan Ruttenberg: ok, so I'm not the only one

Boris Motik: annotation should be some kind of comments (without any semantics)

Alan Ruttenberg: me by rinke

Jeremy Carroll: From the rdf point of view, annotations are the substance of their concerns (e.g. Dublin Core)

Alan Ruttenberg: we should continue this discussion on email

Jeremy Carroll: (only some rdf subcommunities - some rdf-ers have same view as hcls)

Boris Motik: An annotation from its very name is something unimportant

Alan Ruttenberg: ack bijan
Michael Schneider: I understand an "annotation" to *not* inherently belong to the annotated thing. For the case of ontologies: Annotations for parts of an ontology should not add to the semantics of the ontology itself

Bijan Parsia: both parts (annotation and axioms) are important

Jeremy Carroll: thank you ...
Boris Motik: +1 to bijan (even though he disagrees with me :-)

Alan Ruttenberg: the current design of annotations breaks some use of ontologies

Michael Schneider: important, but under different aspects

Alan Ruttenberg: three issues with annotations

Alan Ruttenberg: Clarifying 3 aspects of annotation properties 1) Not being in the same domain of discourse 2) Able to have both individuals and literals as values 3) being able to create associations to classes and properties [Scribe assist by Alan Ruttenberg]
Sandro Hawke: I've got it, Alan.
Bijan Parsia: I think fixing the current backward compatibility point does not affect any o ther design consideration, IMHO
Bijan Parsia: AnnotationProperties puns data and object properties :)
Alan Ruttenberg: ack alanr
Sandro Hawke: ADJOURNED

Last modified on 19 March 2008, at 17:07