Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
Teleconference.2007.10.31/Minutes
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
Attendees
- Present
- Achille Fokoue, Alan Ruttenberg, Deborah McGuinness, Evan Wallace, Fabian Neuhaus, Ivan Herman, Jeremy Carroll, Martin Dzbor, Michael Smith, Ratnesh Sahay, Rinke Hoekstra, Sandro Hawke, Vipul Kashyap, Zhe Wu, Bijan Parsia, Boris Motik, Peter Patel-Schneider, Uli Sattler
- Regrets
- Jim Hendler
- Chair
- Alan Ruttenberg
- Scribe
- Vipul Kashyap
Issues List: Migrated all issues from OWLED to Tracker
Issues List: Evan couldn't find an Issue on the Issue List
Issues List: Evan asking about the completeness of the Issues List
Issues List:: Complete wrt google-code and OWL
Issues List: Alan suggests adding issues that were not transferred should be added
Issues List: Jeremy wants to migrate issues from the OWL comments list
Jeremy Carroll: Less Technical Documents (LTDs): Would like to find User Facing Documents Task Force
User-Facing Documents
Jeremy Carroll: Documents such as OWL 1.0 Overview, Reference, User Guide
Jeremy Carroll: Reuse OWL 1.0 Overview to create OWL 1.1 Overview in time for the Manchester F2F
Jeremy Carroll: Work on the relating to features to requirements - Traceability Matrix
... Form a task force and report back to the main group
Bijan Parsia: Objection: WG will consider these as publication tracks
Alan Ruttenberg: Bijan's points - WG documents should not be the only outlet for the UFDs
... What put to on XML page for OWL for instance
... Appropriate use of WG time .. making sure that this would not interfere with WG Tasks
... Parallel track
... Off WG meetings
... Further approval of documents
Jeremy Carroll: Don't want to be not responsive to you
Jeremy Carroll: Hence called "Less Technical Documents"
... Charter Section 2 specifically taks about documents which all 5 of us want to produce
Bijan Parsia: Variety of users
... Not objecting to producing variety of documents
Bijan Parsia: That is the only or the best way to meeting the requirements of the WG charter
... Would like a discussion on this
... Need to sanction whether these are WG documents
Deborah McGuinness: Something like OWL 1.1 Overivew document out
Deborah McGuinness: If disagreement about that ... we need a discussion before we put energy in it
Deborah.: OWL 1.1 Overview similar to OWL 1.0 Overview document?
Alan Ruttenberg: OWL Overview is simple presentation of features
... Goal is to produce something of that nature
Alan Ruttenberg: Goal of the traceability document is to have features related to a set of use cases in different domains
... Demonstrate the value of OWL 1.1 over OWL 1.0
Alan Ruttenberg: Issues with some features
Bijan Parsia: Overview document will be helpful
... Traceability committed to producing
... Not convinced that it is useful use of your time
... Longevity problems
Alan Ruttenberg: Have examples where documents didn't age gracefully?
Bijan Parsia: Implementation Reports
... Document like requirements document kept live would not be good
Jeremy Carroll: Traceability is a short term document
Bijan Parsia: Communicating to people now
... WD may not be the best way to do that
... Feature matrices are very useful for adoption, etc.
... That gets stale over time
... Have some commitment that they could be updated
Deborah McGuinness: Is OWL 1.0 Overview is a big risk for becoming outdated
Alan Ruttenberg: Agreement requirement on the definition of backward compatibility
... Task Force for Test Cases
Jeremy Carroll: Its still a bit early to have the test cases
Alan Ruttenberg: OWL 1.0 test cases should run and produce same results as a criteria for backward compatibility
Sandro Hawke: Good starting point
Bijan Parsia: Could be bugs in test suite
Bijan Parsia: Could be a good starting point
Jeremy Carroll: Poilicies around test cases
Jeremy Carroll: Requirement that WG only approve tests that it regarded as correct
Alan Ruttenberg: Test case per wiki page
Alan Ruttenberg: Bias to write as many test cases as possible in the functional syntax
... Cannot do a test case to check RDF mapping example
Jeremy Carroll: In OWL 1.0, tests in some database
Jeremy Carroll: Can generate all possible syntaxes for the test
Alan Ruttenberg: Wiki is programmable
Jeremy Carroll: Flexibility => Tool has a bug => Bug in your test suite
Alan Ruttenberg: Explicit tests that tool translation matches the correct answer
Alan Ruttenberg: Dependency on another group on our charter - what are expectations and why does W3C do that?
Sandro Hawke: some interaction between the specs
... Implementor needs to understand both spects
Sandro Hawke: Bad thing for two specs to contradict each other
Alan Ruttenberg: Have people to be liasions
... communicate any changes
Alan Ruttenberg: Any volunteers for liastions
I could do HCLS
Alan Ruttenberg: Liasons with other groups - Bijan with RIF, Ivan with SWEO, Elisa with SWD, Vipul with HCLS
Alan Ruttenberg: Liasons with XML Schema and Uncertainty XG to be decided
Bijan Parsia: XML Schema group did not give OWL WG defined datatypes by name
Alan Ruttenberg: Connections to the OMG
Elisa Kendall: Evan and Elisa could do the coordination... Both of them co-chair the Ontology WG there
Alan Ruttenberg: Future meeting - Elisa and Evan could speak on similarities nd dependencies
RIF Review
Sandro Hawke: Need some people to review...
... If it comes down to more substantive issues then it may make more sense to review them
Sandro Hawke: Disagrees with the Peter Re: consideration from RIF
Jeremy Carroll: If specific endorsement of Peter's technical comments is required, then communication should be sent to OWLWG
Alan Ruttenberg: Gotta go...
Can someone take over scribing?
Thanks
</div>
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Jeremy to convene the next UFD task force [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/31-owl-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]