Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.

Teleconference.2007.11.07/Minutes

From OWL

Jump to: navigation, search

Previous Minutes

PROPOSED: Accept the previous minutes

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to accept minutes

Ivan Herman: +1

Achille Fokoue: +1

Rinke Hoekstra: +1

Ratnesh Sahay: +1

RESOLUTION: minutes accepted

Action item status

Action 4: Send email reminding people to make wiki account (Continued)

Action 5: Sandro to migration of documents [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/07-owl-minutes.html#action01]

Rinke Hoekstra: except for the images

Peter Patel-Schneider: sandro sent out a message concerning where to put the images

Continued, because the figures from the syntax document still need to be moved over

Peter Patel-Schneider: there are *two* documents

Peter Patel-Schneider: both http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Issues and http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/HowIssuesAreProcessed tell how issues are processed

Peter Patel-Schneider: should the link to the duplicate page be removed?

Rinke Hoekstra: +1 to removing the (link to the) duplicate page

Rinke Hoekstra: perhaps turn HowIssuesAreProcessed into a redirect to Issues

Achille Fokoue: DONE (maybe after the meeting)

Jeremy Carroll: alan said about reminder email that the naming conventions were unclear, and Sandro is clarifying

Issues

Issue 2 No syntax for AllDisjoint in RDF mapping

Evan Wallace: +1 to Bijan's viewpoint on this

Ian Horrocks: do new properties affect backward compatibility

Evan Wallace: Cardinality Q was also turned down

Bijan Parsia: ooo, excellent point ew

Bijan Parsia: Does peter actually object? Can't we just disagree with the old group?

Carsten Lutz: I disagree. There are usually *many* disjoint classes. Only ontology designers overlook that and

Carsten Lutz: usually fail to state it.

Bijan Parsia: I see peter's point...this is a owl full thing

Peter Patel-Schneider: many large disjointness sets (a disjointness set with thousands of elements)

Peter Patel-Schneider: there can be lots of small disjointness sets

Alan Ruttenberg: the assumption that there will not be a lot of disjoint is not correct

Bijan Parsia: +1 to alan

Carsten Lutz: peter: if you have thousands of classes, why not?

Peter Patel-Schneider: if your disjointness sets are small then you don't get many extra triples

Bijan Parsia: we get this request all the time

Bijan Parsia: NO NO NO NO

Boris Motik: It is not just the disjointness. In the functional spec, you can have equivalences between n classes, but in RDF you can have only pair-wise equivalences. This is inherited from OWL 1.0 RDF mapping.

Peter Patel-Schneider: but it is easy and direct to put a large equivalence set into RDF with no size increase

Boris Motik: The same thing also holds for properties (disjointness and equivalences). It is probably a good idea to come up with the same solution for all of these constructs, not just for disjointness.

Bijan Parsia: +1 to bmotik

Jeremy Carroll: disagree with bmotik

Boris Motik: And there are also sameAs and differentFrom on individuals.

Peter Patel-Schneider: Alan's case seems to be quite compelling

Ian Horrocks: AllDisjoint does not necessary have a negative impact on implementations

Boris Motik: OK, I'll just add this to the issue.

Peter Patel-Schneider: i never had an objection, just a caution

Zakim (Teleconferencing System): jjc, you wanted to mention back chat

Alan Ruttenberg: +1

Peter Patel-Schneider: ok by me

Evan Wallace: +1

Doug Lenat: sounds good to me

Ian Horrocks: should we make the change in the docs for AllDisjoint

Jeremy Carroll: +1

Ivan Herman: not against

Achille Fokoue: +1

Rinke Hoekstra: +1

Zhe Wu: +1

Carsten Lutz: +1

Fabian Neuhaus: +1

Uli Sattler: +1

Michael Smith: +1 for AllDisjoint

Bijan Parsia: +1 for AllDisjoint

RESOLUTION: Issue 2 AllDisjoint will be added in the docs (modified later)

Peter Patel-Schneider: do it the same way that allDifferent is handled in OWL 1.0

Alan Ruttenberg: presume that the rdf mapping will be O(n)

Peter Patel-Schneider: it is in the FS already, right?

Bijan Parsia: pfps, no! it seems!

Bijan Parsia: ah it is

Bijan Parsia: disjointClasses

Bijan Parsia: Here: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#Class_or_Description_Axioms

Peter Patel-Schneider: how about: treat DisjointClasses like DifferentIndividuals?

Bijan Parsia: """The disjointClasses axiom takes a set of descriptions and states that all descriptions from the set are pair-wise disjoint."""

Bijan Parsia: It is in

Alan Ruttenberg: RESOLVED: Issue 2 A O(n) rdf mapping of disjointClasses will be added

Peter Patel-Schneider: votes?

Peter Patel-Schneider: we changed the resolution, so it is probably best to confirm the change

Alan Ruttenberg: +1

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1

Bijan Parsia: +1 for current resolution

Achille Fokoue: +1

Doug Lenat: +1

Rinke Hoekstra: +1

Michael Smith: +1 for current resolution

Ratnesh Sahay: +1

Martin Dzbor: +1

Uli Sattler: +1

Jeremy Carroll: +1

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1

Ivan Herman: +1

Bijan Parsia: it taeks an arbitrary number

Bijan Parsia: disjointClassesï¿½:= 'DisjointClasses' '(' { annotation } description description { description } ')'

Bijan Parsia: Brackets!

RESOLUTION: AllDisjoint will be added to the functional syntax and the RDF mapping

Issue 3 (anonymous individuals)

Alan Ruttenberg: Individual(type(owl:Thing)) legal in 1.0

Uli Sattler: but this doesn't help us to refer to it?

Alan Ruttenberg: "overzealous"

Jeremy Carroll: Jeremy: was the lack of this a bug? or deliberate?

Jeremy Carroll: no anonymous individual in owl 1.1. Is it a bug?

Peter Patel-Schneider: is a bug

Alan Ruttenberg: tree-like

Alan Ruttenberg: also see http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/23

Peter Patel-Schneider: I would like to see a proposal

Bijan Parsia: Ooo, interesting!

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: we don't have the universal role in Owl 1.1

Carsten Lutz: related to having a universal property. should we consider adding universal property?

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: but, it was included in SROIQ

Uli Sattler: which is why we mention this here

Carsten Lutz: it will allow anonymous individuals

Jeremy Carroll: [I would like non-tree like stuff, as well as tree stuff, and this issue is only the first step but ...]

Carsten Lutz: Universal property is more general. It will make anonymous individuals a special case

Carsten Lutz: correct

Uli Sattler: yes

Alan Ruttenberg: in above we are talking about "tree-like" networks of anonymous individuals

Boris Motik: arbitrary anonymous individuals could yield to undecideability

Bijan Parsia: How about close this with tree ones and opening a new issue

Uli Sattler: but there aren't any anon. inds. in the owl1.1? Can you clarify, Boris?

Boris Motik: To be more precise: nontree like anonymous individuals (in an ABox) easily make ontology entailment undecidable

Alan Ruttenberg: Ian and I had a discussion about this a while ago concerning when we could distinguish skolems from bnodes

??: jjc, you wanted to propose resolution Issue 3 is a bug report. Action pfps to fix

Alan Ruttenberg: I will look it up

Jeremy Carroll: jeremy bows to the chair

Alan Ruttenberg: negated property values 1 issue

Bijan Parsia: Action to boris to start the discussion?

Bijan Parsia: Or someone?

Ian Horrocks: we will not be able to resolve it now ... we should continue on emails

Peter Patel-Schneider: make sure the emails include Issue 3 or Issue 23

Jeremy Carroll: +1 to bijan

Carsten Lutz: I am not on the mailinglist

Carsten Lutz: But working on it :)

Jeremy Carroll: (neither am I, but can participate nevertheless

Bijan Parsia: Yes!

Boris Motik: Sire

Bijan Parsia: +1 to boris starting it

Boris Motik: Sure

Action 11: Boris to send an email on issue 3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/07-owl-minutes.html#action03]

Issue 11 and Issue 28 (datatype facets)

Bijan Parsia: Is this only for the XML sytnax?

Bijan Parsia: If so, shouldn't we defer until we've decided about the XML sytnax?

Evan Wallace: Its part of the structural spec

Bijan Parsia: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2007JanMar/0127.html

Boris Motik: The reason why we have no several facts is rather arbitrary: we just didn't think of it. I believe we can easily extend the language to be more practicable.

Bijan Parsia: I don't undersatnd this issue ;)

Jeremy Carroll: Why can't we use user names in this syntax ?

Peter Patel-Schneider: I thought the issue was about the XML serialization

Bijan Parsia: We could ask Evren to come on

Bijan Parsia: next week

Ian Horrocks: let's move on since we do not understand it

Boris Motik: The XML schema is now different from what is reporeted in the issue. It was likely a bug that I just fixed later.

Boris Motik: I was talking about issue 11

Bijan Parsia: They both go back to evren's email

Bijan Parsia: Both 28 and 11

Ian Horrocks: Let's nominate someone to start an email discussion

Boris Motik: it is about having multiple facets.

Bijan Parsia: That sounds promising!

Peter Patel-Schneider: suggest sending a message to Evrin to ask him if he thinks 11 is resolved

Jeremy Carroll: move to email

Boris Motik: we should add them it was a bug in the XML Schema ... no problem either for issue 28

Bijan Parsia: close 11 and resolut 28 with action to liberalize the syntax

Action 10: Boris to send an email about issue 11 fixed and how to fix issue 28 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/07-owl-minutes.html#action04]

Ivan Herman: see Issue 28 notes

Issue 13 and 14 (quotation and CURIES)

Bijan Parsia: This relates to whether we can use the XML Schema syntax

Boris Motik: Where is the XML Schema stored in the working drafts? I see the XML Ser. document, but it has no pointer to the actual schema.

Boris Motik: I tried uploading the XML schema, but the system said that .xsd is not a supported extension

Bijan Parsia: Ok, send an email to sandro

Peter Patel-Schneider: jeremy is probably the closest thing we have to an expert here

Bijan Parsia: I propose to reuse the Turtle string quoting conventions

Peter Patel-Schneider: which are?

Bijan Parsia: Common, comprehensive, easy to lift

Markus Krötzsch: http://www.dajobe.org/2004/01/turtle/#sec-strings

Bijan Parsia: I feel pretty sure that the Turtle spec covers everything RDF can handle

Peter Patel-Schneider: these are roughly the same as RDF quoting

Bijan Parsia: Wait! are we resolving on that?

Peter Patel-Schneider: Yes, wait.

Bijan Parsia: Yes, alanr, curies can represent properites that rdf/xml cannot

Alan Ruttenberg: so can abstract syntax

Bijan Parsia: So can turtle

Peter Patel-Schneider: pointer to rdfa?

Rinke Hoekstra: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-rdfa-primer/

Ian Horrocks: Sorry, but I have to run off

Rinke Hoekstra: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/

Bijan Parsia: We'd need that for more arbitrary patterns of bnodes

Bijan Parsia: But that's delegated to email discussion

Alan Ruttenberg: PROPOSED: Resolved issue 13 by adopting quotation from turtle (\). Resolve 14 by adopting SPARQL syntax for extended qnames.

Markus Krötzsch: +1

Alan Ruttenberg: +1

Bijan Parsia: +1

Ivan Herman: +1

Elisa Kendall: +1

Rinke Hoekstra: +1

Michael Smith: +1 resolution for issue 13

Uli Sattler: +1

Michael Smith: +1 to resolution for issue 14

Giorgos Stoilos: +1

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 on the straw poll, but I would like to take a look to finalize

Ratnesh Sahay: +1

Martin Dzbor: +1

Peter Patel-Schneider: I guess that we can invoke the one week rule if necessary

RESOLVED: Resolved issue 13 by adopting quotation from turtle (\). Resolve 14 by adopting SPARQL syntax for extended qnames. (with checkin one written into the spec)

Second F2F

Ian Horrocks: let's talk about the second f2f

Jeremy Carroll: peter: the second f2f seems a long way away but it's not - Jeremy wonders whether it's on the moon.

Peter Patel-Schneider: collocate the 2nd f2f with OWLED

Bijan Parsia: +1

Carsten Lutz: is OWLED collocated with any conference?

Bijan Parsia: Carsten, no

Jeremy Carroll: dates of OWLED again?

Jeremy Carroll: dates: 1-4 April 2 days

Peter Patel-Schneider: Proposed date 1,2,3,4 of April 2008

Peter Patel-Schneider: this is "interim" OWLED which will not be colocated

Ian Horrocks: online poll should be done

Peter Patel-Schneider: any objections for the date?

Bijan Parsia: Who would host?

Ivan Herman: for info: april 21-25 are the dates for WWW2008

Uli Sattler: possibly

Ivan Herman: i will be in china

Alan Ruttenberg: +1

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: possibly

Markus Krötzsch: possibly

Carsten Lutz: -1

Jeremy Carroll: possibly

Peter Patel-Schneider: maybe me, but not too likely

Bijan Parsia: possibly

Fabian Neuhaus: -1

Achille Fokoue: -1

Giorgos Stoilos: possible

Elisa Kendall: -1

Evan Wallace: -1

Ratnesh Sahay: maybe

Rinke Hoekstra: -1

Michael Smith: -1 to www2008

Zhe Wu: -1

Bijan Parsia: So, w3c would host?

Jeremy Carroll: ivan: w3c china could help host

Ivan Herman: would be happy to help with hosting it in China
... if the group decides to do it in China, we can do it

Peter Patel-Schneider: we also need time to do publicity

Ivan Herman: f2f meeting page

Peter Patel-Schneider: have Ian send out an email about this

Bijan Parsia: please add your name in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Manchester_F2F f2f if you are coming to the first f2f

Action 12: pfps to send an email about your proposal collocated with OWLED [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/07-owl-minutes.html#action05]

Action 13: ianh to send an email about your proposal collocated with OWLED [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/07-owl-minutes.html#action06]

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Boris to send an email about issue 11 fixed and how to fix issue 28 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/07-owl-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Boris to send an email on issue 3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/07-owl-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: ianh to send an email about your proposal collocated with OWLED [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/07-owl-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: pfps to send an email about your proposal collocated with OWLED [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/07-owl-minutes.html#action05]
[DONE] ACTION: 6 to [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/07-owl-minutes.html#action02]

[End of minutes]

Retrieved from "https://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Teleconference.2007.11.07/Minutes&oldid=2528"

Teleconference.2007.11.07/Minutes

Contents

Previous Minutes

Action item status

Issues

Issue 2 No syntax for AllDisjoint in RDF mapping

Issue 3 (anonymous individuals)

Issue 11 and Issue 28 (datatype facets)

Issue 13 and 14 (quotation and CURIES)

Second F2F

Summary of Action Items

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

More

OWL Working Group

Tools