W3C * Semantic Web Activity * WebOnt WG * Member Events
See roll call below.
Also:3 Jan attendee list
Peter F. Patel-Schneider, is the local host; see local info, details
thanks to OpenProjects for #webont and to ILRT for IRC/log facilities.
In addition, it is recommended to review the Working Group Charter and the various background references from the working group web page.
per 31 Dec msg from the chair. Note the local logistics details, which call for meeting at "Stair 9" entrance at 8:30am.
| 9:00 - 9:15 | Welcome - Logistics overview, etc. Patel-Schneider/Hendler |
| 9:15 - 10:00 | Charter Review Hendler/Connolly
Discussion of WOWG Goals, what is projected to be produced what is out of charter, etc. Discussion of what to call the language (WOL, SWOL, OWL) |
| 10:00 - 10:30 | BREAK |
| 10:30 - 12:00 | DAML+OIL Technical Detail Ian
Horrocks Detailed review of DAML+OIL language; presentation of advanced features not discussed in walkthru |
| 12:00 - 13:00 | Lunch |
| 13:00 - 15:00 | Use Case Discussion I Schreiber, Obrst,
Decker, Heflin/McGuinness Presentation/Discussion of use cases |
| 15:00 - 15:30 | break |
| 15:30 - 17:00 | SWOL Discussion Peter Patel-Schneider Presentation of suggested changes |
| EVENING: | Dinner and/or Social gathering (TBD) Relaxed opportunity to meet/mingle |
| 9:00 - 10:00 | DAML+OIL Use Review TDB
Presentation/Discussion of how D+O has been used in the past, and potential impacts on our Web Ontology langauge |
| 10:00 - 10:30 | break |
| 10:30 - 12:00 | Break-out Session I
Use case focus - meet in groups to discuss the use case areas and on document |
| 12:00 - 13:00 | Lunch |
| 13:00 - 14:30 | Break-out Session II
Hot topics (Swol, Daml use, etc.) |
| 14:30 - 15:00 | break |
| 15:00 - 17:00 | Discussion/Planning Hendler
Discussion of next steps for group Determination of calendar for next f2fs Review of Action Items assigned during f2f |
@@note to self: during charter review, note that the format of publications is part of W3C process. @@also be sure to talk about related groups: TAG, RDF Core, XML Query, ... @@also: introduce the group to Web Architecture: URIs etc.
in progress; to follow within 2 weeks of the meeting.
based on IRC log: Mon, 14 Jan, Tue, 15Jan
The host welcomed the participants. The 27 participants representing @@ W3C member organizations introduced themselves:
see also:wg membership
jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com, jeremy_carroll@hp.com (intro)connolly@w3.orgjdale@fla.fujitsu.com (intro)jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com (intro)mdean@bbn.com (invited
expert; intro)stefan@db.stanford.edu (intro)dieter@cs.vu.nl (intro)finin@cs.umbc.edu (intro)nmg@ecs.soton.ac.uk (intro)heflin@cse.lehigh.edu
(invited expert; intro)hendler@cs.umd.edu (chair; intro)ziv@unicorn.com>,
Unicorn Solutions Inc. (intro)horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk (intro)dlm@ksl.stanford.edu (intro)libby.miller@bristol.ac.uk (intro)lobrst@mitre.org (intro)Laurent.Olivry@edf.frpfps@research.bell-labs.com (intro)ms@mitre.org (intro)schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl (intro)michael.smith@eds.com (intro)lynn.stein@olin.edu
(invited expert; intro)
(1st day only)Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl (intro)volz@fzi.de>,
Forschungszentrum Informatik (FZI) (intro)regrets: Trastour (08 Jan 2002 10:30:41 +0000)
Hendler reviewed the charter as well as the history of the formation of the group, including the director's decision, and the context: other related groups, etc.
Connolly breifly reviewed W3C process, noting that in the end, it's a tool toward the goal of getting new technologies deployed.
The group confirmed its earlier (3 Jan 2002) decision to name its language OWL. Hendler noted some history of the name, which we agreed to acknowledge.
Ian Horrocks presented DAML+OIL
Techinical Detail (cf msg
of 14 Jan) @@PDF -- sufficiently accessible? and briefly
demonstrated oiled, which does reasoning from DAML+OIL knowledge bases.
@@notes from Frank vH???
Hendler suggested that our goal is a W3C working draft with roughly the following outline:
later it was suggested, and generally agreed, that high-level design goals should be included as well. @@when was that?
Connolly suggested that we use "requirement" in the sense of "if we don't have this, we're not done"; things that we generally agree are desireable but not essential should be called "goals".
Guus Schreiber presented Use cases: collection management.
ACTION Stein: explain "many systems, including frame and oo systems in which metaclasses are used in this way" (18:20Z)
ACTION guus: to provide slides
We took a straw poll around several of the requirements:
Stefan Decker presented requirements arising from Web Services use cases (19:26Z).
ACTION on Stefan's group to discuss further tomorrow
ACTION pfps: determine status of IP on this issue
Jeff Heflin presented OWL General Requirements. (20:15Z)
ACTION jeffh: to bring implications of this use of subClassOf to attn of RDF Core WG (in context)
Peter Patel-Schneider presented:
This led to techincal discussion of desirable properties of formal systems etc. No actions/decisions.
Adjourn 'till tuesday...
Mike Dean presented DAML+OIL Issues and Experiences.
Mention of frame-based system sparked a discussion of user communities. Hendler observed that there are at least two different user communities, and we should be aware of the needs (including documentation, ...) of the various communities.
Hendler clarified our charter w.r.t. rules: it's recognized that rules are needed in the Semantic Web, but ontologies are speparable, and there's more consensus on the technical design at the ontology level
A break-out session followed, with groups forming around each of the use-case areas.
Hendler compiled requirements from the 4 groups.
ACTION JimH: send table of requirements. Done: requirements poll results.
See also:
ACTION Hefflin, Jonathan D., Rafael V.: to draft a requirements document by end of jan.
ACTION danc Ian and mike Dean: will work on a document which evaluates how well daml+oil meets the owl requirements as identified at this f2f meeting
@@I think Hendler summarized the discussion, but I don't see it in the logs. Help, Jim?
ACTION ian and frank are delegated the task to come up with the descriptive adj for the reasoner.
We reviewed some terms:
Three or four possibilities emerged:
OWL : RDF :: RDF : XML
Syntax: Every OWL document is syntactically an RDF document.
Semantics: some RDF-entailment conclusions contradict OWL-entailment conclusions. OWL is not sound nor complete w.r.t. RDF(S).
OWL : RDF :: FOPL : propositional calculus
Syntax: some OWL documents aren't RDF documents.
Semantics: OWL is complete w.r.t. RDF but (of course) not sound.
This leads to paradoxes, as noted earlier.
a fourth possibility is peter's owl', in which owl' is a semantic restriction of a syntactic restriction of rdfs
DanC does a staw poll on the three suggestions: which is your favorite? which can you not live with?
Frank vH observed that perhaps the most significant conclusion to be drawn from these data is that many participants have not arrived at any position on these issues.
ACTION PeterPS, Dieter, Mike Smith: write up layering issues (21:08Z)
14:30 - 15:00 break
Hendler
Discussion of next steps for group Determination of calendar for next f2fs
(also: next meeting discussion of 14:09Z, 18:15Z)
ACTION JimH: send ftf schedule proposal