Meeting Record

There are some format problems with the chatlog. Please correct them and reload this page. They are labeled on this page in a red box, like this message.

It may be helpful to

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, alanr, hendler, ewallace, MarkusK, Rinke, Carsten, uli, msmith, bijan, MartinD, sandro, trackbot-ng ←

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, m_schnei, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you ←

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see bijan (muted), alanr, bmotik (muted), uli (muted), Rinke, MarkusK (muted), msmith, Jim, ??P4 ←

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Achille, Ratnesh, pfps, m_schnei, bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, alanr, hendler, ewallace, MarkusK, Rinke, Carsten, uli, msmith, bijan, MartinD, sandro, trackbot-ng ←

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see bijan (muted), alanr, bmotik (muted), uli (muted), Rinke, MarkusK (muted), msmith, jhendler, m_schnei (muted), Achille, Ratnesh, Carsten (muted), +7.955.aadd, ←

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see jeremy, Achille, Ratnesh, pfps, m_schnei, bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, alanr, hendler, ewallace, MarkusK, Rinke, Carsten, uli, msmith, bijan, MartinD, sandro, trackbot-ng ←

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see bijan (muted), alanr, bmotik (muted), uli (muted), Rinke, MarkusK (muted), msmith, jhendler, m_schnei (muted), Achille, Ratnesh, Carsten (muted), jeremy (muted), ←

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Zhe, bcuencag, ivan, jeremy, Achille, Ratnesh, pfps, m_schnei, bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, alanr, hendler, ewallace, MarkusK, Rinke, Carsten, uli, msmith, bijan, MartinD, ←

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see bijan (muted), alanr, bmotik (muted), uli (muted), Rinke, MarkusK (muted), msmith, jhendler, m_schnei (muted), Achille, Ratnesh, Carsten (muted), jeremy (muted), ←

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Elisa, Zhe, bcuencag, ivan, jeremy, Achille, Ratnesh, pfps, m_schnei, bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, alanr, hendler, ewallace, MarkusK, Rinke, Carsten, uli, msmith, bijan, ←

Bijan Parsia: I'll note that the charter doesn't quite require it...so rechartering probably isn't required but could be good for extra clarity ←

Bijan Parsia: There's two questions: 1) Why *an* owl full and 2) why *this* owl full ←

Unknown Jim: OWL Full was the result of a major consensus-reaching compromise. One group wanted OWL DL, another group didn't. Inverse datatype properties were a key issue -- one group would object to including it, one group would object to not including it. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←

Unknown Jim: The key thing WebOnt decided, which is perhaps open to discussion, vocabulary terms like owl:X would be in both languages, although perhaps with restrictions on each. Each side had exactly the same vocabulary terms covered. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←

James Hendler: a key feature in the design of OWL Full was that the same vocabulary terms as in OWL DL were covered ←

Jeremy Carroll: owl full was due to two groups with very different background coming together ←

Jeremy Carroll: I felt what happened with OWL DL and Full, had to do with two different groups coming together. Peter represents the DL academic community, which had a strong idea where it was coming from. Meanwhile, there was an RDF community. Both communities can gain real insights from each other, but there are arguments and difference. Like any marriage, both sides have some good points and some bad points. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←

Bijan Parsia: classes as instances / properties as instances were a big deal, very different use cases ←

Bijan Parsia: It's a conceptual error to regard OWL Full as a unitary phenomenon. There are a lot of different parts to it, and they each have their own story. EG classes as instances. Very different uses cases. EG annotations. ("my property was made by me, and modified on some date" -- different from modeling.) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←

Bijan Parsia: I think there is an OWL Full is because there was too be a gap between what some people wanted and what some implementors (doing complete implemtnations) could do. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←

Sandro Hawke: No, Carsten -- I'm just scribe-assisting on things I find particularly important. ←

Zakim IRC Bot: jhendler, you wanted to mention "temporal" aspect of decision ←

Unknown Jim: The path to the split was important. A lot of the design on the DL and Full sides were influenced by what happened when. We have the option to rationalize it now. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←

Bijan Parsia: I'll note that the RDF semantics were also being designed (in a sort of death march) and "fitting" with that was seens as a requirement ←

James Hendler: a lot depended on the temporal ordering of events. We now have the option to rationalize it ←

Scribe problem: the name 'peter' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Peter Patel-Schneider Peter Haase . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown peter: compatibility with RDF was an important issue, but semantics hasn't been designed back then ←

Scribe problem: the name 'peter' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Peter Patel-Schneider Peter Haase . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown peter: after rdf semanic was decided, there was a split between the FO view of the world and the triple view of the world ←

Peter Patel-Schneider: Compatibility with RDF was requirement, and yet RDF Semantics weren't designed yet. If the ordering had happened differently, then the semantics of RDF might have been different. The FOL view of the world and the Triple view of the world were split. Once RDF settled on the Tripple view, we had to live with it. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←

Bijan Parsia: "applications" using owl full really requires teasing apart the parts of owl full ←

James Hendler: 60+ percent of all the semantic web data is not compliant with the OWL DL semantics ←

Unknown Jim: (60% of RDF data is FOAF, which is is not in DL) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←

Bijan Parsia: But here's a good example...primarily the lack of DLnessin foaf is use of inverseFunctionalDatatype properties which is perfectly first order. ←

James Hendler: under the definition "using OWL vocabulary, but not being inside OWL DL" ←

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ to ask is there an OWL Full, or are there just OWL Full features ←

Zakim IRC Bot: alanr, you wanted to talk briefly about foaf and to ask if we want OWL-FULL to mean not OWL-DL and to ask is there an OWL Full, or are there just OWL Full features ←

Jeremy Carroll: People inside HP and out find great use for "reasonable" use of OWL-Full, eg subclass list vocabulary, but NOT "messing with the furniture". Having a rule engine as an underlying engine is important. [??] [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←

Jeremy Carroll: many applications do not use heavy-duty features of OWL Full, a lightweight rule engine suffices to address this [??] ←

Alan Ruttenberg: FOAF deviates from OWL DL in a few places. Inverse-functional-property on strings (eg mailbox hashes), and annotations on properties. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←

Alan Ruttenberg: heard different descriptions of OWL full: Everything not in OWL DL. Or in terms of features. ←

Alan Ruttenberg: people don't often talk about OWL Full as a language with this and that features. Mostly they say they are in OWL full because they are not in OWL DL ←

Alan Ruttenberg: many people just want to use one or two features, does OWL full have to be a "whole" language? ←

Bijan Parsia: think of OWL full as having for categories of addition: 1. notational variants of FO-constructs not in OWL DL ←

Alan Ruttenberg: uli thinks also of non-simple roles in cardinality restrictions (good one for the record) ←

Bijan Parsia: 2.: rules; 3.: metamodelling; 4: arbitrary graphs of b-nodes 5. non-simple riles in cardinality restrictions ←

Bijan Parsia: four types of things in OWL Full: things-in-spirit-of-OWL-DL (IFP on datatypes), metamodeling (syntactic freedom class/instance etc) -- hilog semantics, arbitrary-graphs-of-bnodes, reflection on builtin vocabulary [shadow builtins -- RDF List vs what you say about builtins should change meaning of ontologyes eg domain/range on rdf:type] [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←

Bijan Parsia: 8. what you change about your vocabularity changes the builtin logic (which is impossible) ←

Bijan Parsia: main use: push the bounds of OWL DL a bit to make their applications / tools fit ←

Bijan Parsia: semantics flexibility is nice, helps interoperability, but don't formalize this [?] ←

Michael Schneider: great point of OWL full: accepts every RDF graph; people can have standard RDF data as used by SPARQL and incrementally add semantics to certain but not all properties ←

Jeremy Carroll: one of the reasons d'etre of OWL Full isn't architectural, but there is a view from the RDF community that the various ways of putting semantics on top of triples needs support, and this is what OWL Full gives them ←

James Hendler: my users don't care about the semantics; they work operationally; they don't want to use OWL per se; they find OWL useful for some things they are doing; this applies to many people from the web 3.0 community ←

Jeremy Carroll: my recent comments on public owl dev suggest that use of 'not' to define primary categories can be a statement of power ←

Unknown handler: using OWL DL forces them to use things they don't care about ←

Alan Ruttenberg: alanr asks, loop constructs with enumerated data types ok in java? ←

James Hendler: owl full is a misnomer; OWL Full is a vocabulary; OWL DL uses it ←

Jeremy Carroll: e.g craft = art that is not fine art, is a statement about the economic interests in fine art ←

Uli Sattler: I like Jim's "loop" metaphore, but I have seen people happily *not* using certain language features to ensure good performance/no stack overflow... ←

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: do we only want an RDF syntax in OWL 1.1, or do we want also a semantics for the triples? ←

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: if people only want syntax, they don't care about the semantics of the triples ←

Jeremy Carroll: note my last comment was misscribed - i will correct in minutes ←

Bijan Parsia: if users don't care in the semantics, do you see harm in assigning a semantics that is .... = ←

James Hendler: it's not that users don't care about the semantics; they care about the semantics of, say, same-as. But they don't care about provably getting their reasoners right. An axiomatic semantics may serve that community better than a model-theoretic semantics ←

Bijan Parsia: this is a presentational issue; I was asking for the actual semantics ←

James Hendler: it is important to get the semantics right, but people do it at their own risk; a good example is linking to another ontology without declaring the type. ←

Zhe Wu: some users are using OWL full features such as same as; they care about the semantics, have an intuitive understanding; ←

Bijan Parsia: I don't think we have time on the telecon, but I'll add that I'd like to have correct and complete implementations of the language. If people write custom subset reasoners, we need to spec some level of interop between the ad hoc ones and the ones aiming to be complete. People move between the two types of systems quite a bit. ←

Alan Ruttenberg: we need to define a vocabulary, and a minimal operational semantics; a DL + feature semantics was proposed, without saying how all work together ←

Alan Ruttenberg: is an OWL Full semantics along the lines of 1.0 something we want in this working group? ←

Unknown howabout: we will develop owl full 1.1 semantics as a delta on owl 1.0 full? [ Scribe Assist by Jeremy Carroll ] ←

Bijan Parsia: I want to change the semantics of OWL full, and would like to stick with model theory for presentation ←

Jeremy Carroll: Do we want an Owl Full semantics as a delta of the OWL 1.0 full semantics? ←

Rinke Hoekstra: I like the delta approach of Jeremy, but don't immediately understand in what ways a Full 1.1 semantics would differ from Full 1.0... ←

James Hendler: -1 (propose we explore other options then a feature by feature model semantics) ←

STRAWPOLL: Do we want an Owl Full semantics as a delta of the OWL 1.0 full semantics? ←

James Hendler: -1 again (so it is in right place - but to explore other options) ←

James Hendler: q+ to suggest we go a couple more minutes to get some actions defined, but then move this to email ←

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Michael ←

Trackbot IRC Bot: Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. msmith9, mschneid, msintek) ←

Michael Schneider: people didn't understand what delta means here; we should explain before we can vote ←

Zakim IRC Bot: jhendler, you wanted to suggest we go a couple more minutes to get some actions defined, but then move this to email ←

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-78 - Explain what delta to 1.0 semantics means [on Michael Schneider - due 2008-02-13]. ←

Ivan Herman: I think we need to have a clear view of what the alternatives are before voting. We need a feeling what it costs in terms of time/energy. What would an operational semantics mean? We need this before making decisions. ←

James Hendler: I believe that if long term (maybe not out of this WG we see a path that takes us to "one OWL" it would be a big win ←

ACTION: Alan to describe what he means by a "feature at a time" semantics ←

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-79 - Describe what he means by a \"feature at a time\" semantics [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-02-13]. ←

ACTION: hendler will describe an approach to a "operationall semantics" approach to OWL Full ←

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-80 - Will describe an approach to a \"operationall semantics\" approach to OWL Full [on James Hendler - due 2008-02-13]. ←

Zakim IRC Bot: pfps, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: alanr (67%), Sandro (67%) ←

Zakim IRC Bot: JeffP, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: alanr (46%), pfps (30%) ←

Alan Ruttenberg: peter is suggesting that we restore anonymous individuals as they existed; existential semantics. If we adopt skolemization, then go back and change it again ←

Scribe problem: the name 'peter' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Peter Patel-Schneider Peter Haase . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown peter: owl 1.0 was existential semantics; whether people implemented or not is separate issue ←

Trackbot IRC Bot: Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. ppatelsc, phaase) ←

ACTION: patel-schneider send out proposal for minimal change for ISSUE-3 ←

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-81 - Send out proposal for minimal change for ISSUE-3 [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2008-02-13]. ←

James Hendler: fwiw, since we've put off the Use Cases document it would help us non-logicians (or old fashioned logic types) if proposals for things like this could include some common sense use cases ←

Zakim IRC Bot: pfps, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: alanr (85%), Sandro (40%) ←

Zakim IRC Bot: pfps, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: bcuencag (4%) ←

Bijan Parsia: If we have p rdf:type DataProperty and p rdf:type ObjectProperty ←

Bijan Parsia: (can't we solve this by *adding* the more specific domain as well as the rdfs:domain?) ←

Boris Motik: when you say there are no ontology, do you mean there is no well-known ontology property, or there is no ontology property as such? ←

Boris Motik: we can easily mention this list of various anotation properties in the current documents ←

ACTION: bmotik2 to Edit the secification to mention the well-known ontology properties in the spirit of OWL 1.0 and thus possibly resolve ISSUE-91 ←

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-82 - Edit the secification to mention the well-known ontology properties in the spirit of OWL 1.0 and thus possibly resolve ISSUE-91 [on Boris Motik - due 2008-02-13]. ←

Scribe problem: the name 'peter' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Peter Patel-Schneider Peter Haase . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown peter: simple way forward: state that the only facets allowable are those in XML schema datatypes; tiny change to the syntax ←

Scribe problem: the name 'peter' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Peter Patel-Schneider Peter Haase . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown peter: user-defined datatypes should have in the spec which facets make sense for them ←

Bijan Parsia: New *base* types must spec what facets (new or old) are possible ←

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ to ask boris about datatype restrictions such as pattern matching ←

Boris Motik: you can currently put a datarange restriction on non-integers; difficult to implement; this should be changed; argument of datatype restriction should be a datatype ←

Zakim IRC Bot: alanr, you wanted to ask boris about datatype restrictions such as pattern matching ←

Boris Motik: issues with compatibility; is non-integer compatible with min-inclusive? Facets only on datatypes, not datatype expressions ←

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ to get clarification from boris - What about Mike's proposal re: Value space. Also, what about saying no facets allowed for expressions ←

Jeff Pan: one solution about the negation issue is to specify the groups of datatypes intended to be used with the ontolgoy ←

Peter Patel-Schneider: '[' datatypeFacet restrictionValue { , datatypeFacet restrictionValue } ']' ←

Unknown Note: If the datatypeURI involved is an XML Schema datatype then the [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←

Peter Patel-Schneider: datatypeFacets and restrictionValues have to be valid for that datatype. ←

James Hendler: we are formalizing things that are maybe better not formalized; lets go for a minimal solution and not fix how to handle the other cases at this point of time ←

Zakim IRC Bot: alanr, you wanted to get clarification from boris - What about Mike's proposal re: Value space. Also, what about saying no facets allowed for expressions ←

Bijan Parsia: some facets are always applicable; things that restrict the lexical form. Not very interesting to spec, though. ←

Michael Smith: I don't think any of the facets we have now work on lexical forms ←

Jeff Pan: in a datatype group, only the allowed facets are allowed to be used ←

Bijan Parsia: I think that a simple syntactic restriction is the best way forward ←

James Hendler: boy I wish we had a use case or two to anchor this description to real world cases... ←

Michael Schneider: we could allow application to datatype expressions, as long as they are "compatible" with the facet ←

Ian Horrocks: let's do something simple; hard to imagine that in application we need more than basic facets on basic datatypes; solution like in OWL 1.0: this is what we support, people can go beyond that but we don't spec it ←

Michael Schneider: I meant: table with fixed set of datatypes and fixed set of facets which described applicability ←

Ian Horrocks: Although I would prefer to simply defer to XML as far as possible ←

Michael Smith: ACTION on smith to send email describing what may be lost if facets are only applied to datatypeURI ←

Michael Schneider: my counter example for *not* having facet definitions on complex dataranges: oneOf("2"^^xsd:int, "3.14"^^xsd:float, "hello world"^^xsd:string) ←

James Hendler: +1 to making complex dataranges "unspecified" from this version of OWL ←

ACTION: smith to send email describing what may be lost if facets are only applied to datatypeURI ←

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-83 - Send email describing what may be lost if facets are only applied to datatypeURI [on Michael Smith - due 2008-02-13]. ←

ACTION: bmotik2 to Change the spec to add a table with facet-datatype compatibility ←

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-84 - Change the spec to add a table with facet-datatype compatibility [on Boris Motik - due 2008-02-13]. ←

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes world-readable', alanr. Try /msg RRSAgent help ←

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were +1.301.527.aaaa, bijan, alanr, bmotik, uli, +31.20.525.aabb, Rinke, MarkusK, msmith, m_schnei, Achille, jhendler, +49.351.463.3.aacc, Carsten, Ratnesh, +7.955.aadd, ←

Zakim IRC Bot: ... pfps, jeremy, Ivan, Sandro, Zhe, bcuencag, Elisa_Kendall, Evan_Wallace, Vipul_Kashyap, MartinD, ianh ←

Sandro Hawke: Not yet, I'll put them up on the wiki in a few minutes, and then you can edit them there. ←

ok, thanks. I suppose I can use the link on the meetings page to reach them then? ←

OWL Working Group

Minutes of 06 February 2008

1. OWL-Full