Teleconference.2008.01.02/Minutes

Admin

Agenda amendment: Discussion of short name issues

Meeting: OWL Working Group Teleconference

Alan Ruttenberg: I closed Issue 13 so can be removed from the agenda

Ian Horrocks: We're going to be much stricter about enforcing the time limits for discussion listed in the agenda. If you think more time is needed for some item, propose so during the agenda amendments portion of the Admin topics. Ian Horrocks: Otherwise, if we run over, it'll go to email.

Previous minutes

Peter Patel-Schneider: The irc log wasn't public, so we can't accept yet.

Sandro Hawke: we'll take it off line

Rinke Hoekstra: What about F2F minutes?

Some discussion between Peter and Ian about F2F minutes.

Ian Horrocks: We'll ask people to review them again and put them on the agenda for next week

ACTION: Ian to send email reminding people to review the F2F minutes for next week and to put an item on next week's agenda

Action item review

ACTION-47 declared accomplished by Jeremy

ACTION-38 continued until next week

ACTION-39 continued until imports task force

ACTION-42 continued until next week

ACTION-44 pretty much done; close when docs are published

ACTION-45 dependant on Sandro's Test related action

ACTION 51 continued until next week

ACTION-53 progress has been made

Sandro Hawke: I have an internal target of next Tues.

Alan Ruttenberg: We have a procedure wherein the chairs take a week

Sandro Hawke: Why not parallelize the review?

general acclaim and agreement from IanH and alanr

Alan Ruttenberg: some issues with status

Sandro Hawke: some issues with abstract

James Hendler: I don't like the abstracts

Alan Ruttenberg: We shouldn't touch the abstracts now. Jim can file an issue and then we'll link to the issue.

James Hendler: it's a document review issue not a content issue.

Ian Horrocks: We're just acting on the resolution of the F2F and the current text is already agreed to.

Sandro Hawke: whoops, I was sorta out of order

Jeremy Carroll: review after publication, but yes, we're off order

James Hendler: I withdraw on abstract, but I have qualms about status.

Ian Horrocks: Status is not done.

James Hendler: We've approved a document without knowing what it is? Don't we need to review that text?

Ian Horrocks: No..as jeremey pointed out, status is a team contact thing not a wg thing

Alan Ruttenberg: though feedback is welcome

ACTION-56 continued until next week

ACTION-55 is closed

Proposals to resolve issues

PROPOSED: close (as REJECTED) Issue 20 and absorb it into Issue 16

PROPOSED: close (as REJECTED) Issue 20 and absorb it into Issue 16

RESOLVED: close (as REJECTED) Issue 20 and absorb it into Issue 16

PROPOSED: close (as RESOLVED) Issue 43 as per email http://www.w3.org/mid/BDC59251-1FB7-4F70-8900-E7E38FC86BA4%2540comlab.ox.ac.uk

RESOLVED: close (as RESOLVED) Issue 43 as per email http://www.w3.org/mid/BDC59251-1FB7-4F70-8900-E7E38FC86BA4%2540comlab.ox.ac.uk issue is already addressed by OWL 1.1

PROPOSED: close (as REJECTED) Issue 55 as per email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Dec/0188.html

Alan Ruttenberg: Reiterating what I posted in IRC. We agreed that some sort of effort by the working group to allow more RDF into OWL is a good idea, but I don't want the specific solution of Peter to be part of the resolution since this is an ongoing thing.

James Hendler: RPI will official object to rejecting but will abstain to postponed.

Ian Horrocks: I believe I saw that email but I wanted more detail.

James Hendler: I don't want to say that this will never be fixed.

Ian Horrocks: pretty clear that we won't resolve this as it is proposed to be resolved, so we should put it back to the email

Alan Ruttenberg: and will go to issue discussion for next week

PROPOSED: close (as RESOLVED) Issue 83 as per email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Dec/0028.html

Amended item: Short name issue

Sandro Hawke: [reluctantly] There is a uri for each document with a date embedded, but there is also a "short name" or "latest uri". Problem: does the owl (1.1) semantics override the old one? Where will people want to end up 5 years from now

Ian Horrocks: That's clear, but it would be strange if people wanted to go to the older semantics.

Alan Ruttenberg: but isn't this exactly why we went for the owl11 short name? So that we wouldn't shadow?

Ian Horrocks: How irrevocable is the current decision wrt recommendation?

Sandro Hawke: [still reluctantly] The current drafts will contain a latest draft url and we need to do right by that. But it's still flexible.

Ian Horrocks: well, we can't shadow recs with our current *drafts*

James Hendler: There are different documents. Syntax and semantics seem intended to shadow S&AS, but other documents may be additive.

Ian Horrocks: We can weasal like minks and avoid committing now.

Sandro Hawke: It's not clear that we can. Whatever draft we publish will have urls that change overtime but we need to make sure we manage that change sensibly

Alan Ruttenberg: isn't this what we resolved in the f2f

Sandro Hawke: But there's new information. We can't use owl-semantics since that would make our drafts shadow recs (BAD WEASAL). "owl-semantics-latest-draft" is very future proof and handy

Ian Horrocks: Yet another chair complaining about IRC comments with preference for people going to speaker queue

Jeremy Carroll: Once sandro has the solution can he give us 24 hours review?

Alan Ruttenberg: can we make it only if short name owl11

Jeremy Carroll: yes

Raised Issues

Issue 90 class and property deprecation

Rinke Hoekstra: These are in OWL 1.0 but not in OWL 1.1 docs, so we should deal with it.

Ian Horrocks: we'll open Issue 90

Issue 91 ontology properties

Rinke Hoekstra: Boris and I talked about this and some properties are now annotation properties but what do they mean?

Boris Motik: What do you mean by meaning? In the old spec they didn't have meaning either.

Rinke Hoekstra: I'm ok with that but the documentation says something informal about it. We should proprogate (or at least discuss) these issues

Ian Horrocks: Seems like there is some issue to discuss

Ian Horrocks: so we should take it up. Issue 91 is open

Resolved Editorial Issues

Boris Motik: the change was in the diagrams. How do I diff diagrams? Ian Horrocks: Peter do you object to *this* diff requriment or any requirement for diffs

Jeremy Carroll: I support Peter. The key audit point is publication, not editors draft. So there is no need for this extra fine grained diff requirements.

Alan Ruttenberg: I'd like to resolve this issue but not to accept rejection of the procedure. I think it's not hard (in principle) but needs to be better documented

ACTION: Alan to document how to diff images.

Peter Patel-Schneider: I'm not convinced that alan is the person should be made happy. The WG needs to be made happy.

Sandro Hawke: Is anyone else supportive of alanr technique?

James Hendler: yes, probably will be helpful later

Jeremy Carroll: sometimes it is easy to provide a diff. Boris's point was that it was hard in this case. When it is easy, we should encourage (not require) them to do it.

Bijan Parsia: Are we providing change logs?

Ian Horrocks: we don't need them now, right? First draft?

Sandro Hawke: might be nice to have one from the submission

Alan Ruttenberg: I think that the change log could be most easily generated from issues whose resolution has a diff pointer

Alan Ruttenberg: This is a chairs issue not a wg issue

PROPOSED: close issue 49

RESOLVED: close issue 49