Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
Teleconference.2008.03.19/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
Contents
- Present
- Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Michael Smith, Ian Horrocks, Boris Motik, Rinke Hoekstra, Sandro Hawke, Jie Bao, Evan Wallace, Doug Lenat, Michael Schneider, Alan Ruttenberg, Ivan Herman, Peter Patel-Schneider, Achille Fokoue
- Regrets
- Evan Wallace will have to leave early, Bijan Parsia, Jeff Z. Pan, Markus Krötzsch
- Chair
- Ian Horrocks
- Scribe
- Peter Patel-Schneider
Admin
Ian Horrocks: agenda amendments?
Jie Bao: jim and deb don't want to vote on publishing today
Ian Horrocks: opinions on this?
Doug Lenat: this is a bad precedent
Sandro Hawke: chair to email says - not on agenda therefore not vote
Ian Horrocks: was on agenda
Ian Horrocks: unhappy with delay
Alan Ruttenberg: delay until face-to-face
Peter Patel-Schneider: neither jim nor debora indicated regrets on the Wiki
Michael Schneider: I thought that the agenda item was to discuss a vote, I have not discussed the issues with my colleagues
Ian Horrocks: let's continue and see if the issue arises
Minutes
PROPOSED: accept previous minutes
RESOLVED: accept previous minutes
F2F2
Ian Horrocks: face to face signup - lots of unknowns remain
Ian Horrocks: registration for F2F - fees for uncovered expenses
Action Item Status
Pending Actions
Ian Horrocks: done - 103, 106, 107, 110
Ian Horrocks: should we close now or close when done?
Boris Motik: prefer closing when performed
Sandro Hawke: pending review allows the group to check that the action was done
Boris Motik: issues serve to keep track of what happened
Ian Horrocks: process needs to be refined
Due and Overdue Actions Actions
Sandro Hawke: not done, move date two weeks
Alan Ruttenberg: continue for a week
Ian Horrocks: no jeremy so continue for a week
Ian Horrocks: Action 86 - similar Ian Horrocks: Action 90 - similar
Ian Horrocks: Action 100 - no jim
Jie Bao: no information so continue
Ian Horrocks: Action 101 alan - continue
Michael Schneider: email today but is it adequate? review again next week
Achille Fokoue: started but still ongoing, done by end of this week
Ian Horrocks: please adjust due date
Ian Horrocks: Action 104 - deb not here
Doug Lenat: I did a review for this action
Ian Horrocks: is the action done
Doug Lenat: new action to look at comments
Jie Bao: I did a review as well
Jie Bao: deb will finish her review soon
Ian Horrocks: leave open
Sandro Hawke: started, not finished, continue
Ian Horrocks: Action 109 on bijan, no bijan, so continue
Proposals To Resolve Issues
Issue 102
Peter Patel-Schneider: proposal is to add a new kind of entity to functional syntax
PROPOSED: resolve issue 102 as in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Mar/0149.html
Michael Schneider: there were several emails on the issue
Alan Ruttenberg: most of the conversation was about a different issue - isolated typing triples
Boris Motik: what is the process?
Ian Horrocks: this is to resolve -
Peter Patel-Schneider: my recollection is that we are going to resolve / close. there may be an action generated or the action may be implicit
Sandro Hawke: let's have a short process
Ian Horrocks: agreed
Ian Horrocks: let's vote to close and give boris an action
RESOLVED: resolve issue 102 as in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Mar/0149.html
ACTION: bmotik2 to Update the spec to resolve ISSUE-102 as per Peter's e-mail
Sandro Hawke: who will update tracker
Ian Horrocks: I'll do it
Issue 79
Ian Horrocks: Issue 79, proposal from carsten
PROPOSED: resolve issue 79 as in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Mar/0191.html
RESOLVED: resolve issue 79 as in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Mar/0191.htm
Issue 78
PROPOSED: resolve issue 78 as in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Mar/0194.html
The above are actually votes in favour, see below as well.
RESOLVED: reject issue 78 as in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Mar/0194.html
Issue 75
PROPOSED: new name for fragments document solves issue 75 so it can be resolved
RESOLVED: new name for fragments document solves issue 75 so it can be resolved (closed)
Issue 16
PROPOSED: resolve issue 16 as in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Mar/0168.html
Boris Motik: the resolution is to change the functional syntax to move annotations outside of axioms
Michael Smith: does this make axioms inside annotations be virtual
Boris Motik: yes
Boris Motik: we may reconsider when we do a larger view of annotations
Peter Patel-Schneider: boris please reiterate answer
Boris Motik: axioms inside annotations are not necessary in the ontology
Peter Patel-Schneider: if this is case I vote against
Peter Patel-Schneider: I want axioms in the ontology to be part of the ontology
Ian Horrocks: this is supposed to be a short discussion
Michael Schneider: what is the difference between Issue 16 and Issue 102?
Alan Ruttenberg: can axioms be the object of an annotation
Ian Horrocks: defer to discussion list
Issue 86
Alan Ruttenberg: what about Issue 86
Ian Horrocks: no notice so put on next week's agenda
General Discussion - Publication of Documents
Primer
Doug Lenat: i made edits in the primer, and put in a few reviewer boxes, please look at them
Ian Horrocks: is the primer close to publishable?
Doug Lenat: not exactly, there are missing sections, I would like them to be at least outlined
Doug Lenat: no harm to release it, but we should have something done
Jie Bao: i reviewed the primer
Jie Bao: who will be the reader? web end users may need an easier-to-read document
Jie Bao: separate section for discussion on incomplete modeling and open world semantics
XML Syntax
Achille Fokoue: xml is OK, I have only minor comments
Fragments
Achille Fokoue: fragments I have a lot of issues wrt OWL-R especially OWL-R Full
Achille Fokoue: OWL-R Full semantics hard to read
Achille Fokoue: maybe move some semantics stuff to appendix
Michael Smith: fragment doc is publishable pending some editorial changes from Achille and my review
Boris Motik: purpose of OWL-R semantics section is to provide meaning of vocabulary and show the weakenings
Boris Motik: if there are just rules then there is no connection to regular semantics
Boris Motik: an appendix does not have the same impact - may as well delete then
Achille Fokoue: I had a different impression - independent formal presentation
Boris Motik: the section is not for precision but instead is for guidance
Achille Fokoue: difficult to read because of dependence on OWL Full semantics
Boris Motik: could provide guidance on what the section is for
Ian Horrocks: achille - can you help to revise section?
Achille Fokoue: OK, also part of my action item on the document
Boris Motik: I can help as well
Ian Horrocks: OK, achille will do this as part of his revision action
ACTION: Alan and Ian to review the reviews
Ian Horrocks: agenda item on fragments document, but we've already been discussing it
Formal Votes
Ian Horrocks: formal votes?
Ian Horrocks: no document has full suite of clean reviews so defer?
Quick Changes to XML Document
Sandro Hawke: xml document - only small fixes - will they be addressed quickly?
Ian Horrocks: boris?, bernardo?, peter?
Peter Patel-Schneider: I can do a quick pass to see what can be done
Ian Horrocks: how is the process going to work - an issue for each change?
Sandro Hawke: editors should collaborate with reviewers
Ian Horrocks: peter will address issues
Alan Ruttenberg: next week let's look at the documents again, and do formal votes at F2F
Ian Horrocks: no particular problem with that
Peter Patel-Schneider: what editors / authors
Sandro Hawke: editor = author
Ian Horrocks: de facto editors = those who are working on the documents
Sandro Hawke: w3c documents have editors
Peter Patel-Schneider: who is going to interact with the reviewers?
Alan Ruttenberg: what is in the scope of editorship - things seem to be going OK
Peter Patel-Schneider: i disagree
Ian Horrocks: I can see both sides
Ian Horrocks: we have reviews and demands from the reviews
Ian Horrocks: and no one assigned to respond
Sandro Hawke: my understanding was that authors was editors
Alan Ruttenberg: sometimes, but people have stepped up independently
Alan Ruttenberg: no decision on what editors do
PROPOSED: WG members should edit the wiki pages as they like, if they are confident everyone will be happy with the change.
Alan Ruttenberg: good idea to encourage spontaneous fixes
Ian Horrocks: discuss at F2F
Alan Ruttenberg: good idea to have F2F discussion
Peter Patel-Schneider: there was such a discussion at the last F2F
Sandro Hawke: didn't we resolve on current situation?
Ian Horrocks: let's discuss at F2F
Ian Horrocks: no votes to publish today
Issue Discussion
Issue 100
Alan Ruttenberg: issue has not been firmly addressed, and it needs to be
Alan Ruttenberg: can OWL 1.1 be completely embedded in RDF?
Alan Ruttenberg: some valid OWL 1.0 DL ontologies are not completely embeddable in RDF
Alan Ruttenberg: is RDF adequate for representing OWL
Peter Patel-Schneider: RDF was never adequate, it is not adequate, it never will be adequate
Peter Patel-Schneider: if you want complete round tripping, then you have to mirror everything in the DL in RDF, which interferes with the RDF semantics
Boris Motik: I agree with peter
Boris Motik: RDF is a straightjacket, everything is a triple
Boris Motik: you can reify and encode and thus retain the entirety of the syntax, but this has other consequences
Alan Ruttenberg: I don't understand the issues
Alan Ruttenberg: I was surprised with the situation in 1.0
Alan Ruttenberg: entailment is a separate issue - it may not be accomplishable
Alan Ruttenberg: the RDF serialization should retain all of OWL
Ian Horrocks: peter said that everything in OWL 1.0 is serializable into RDF
Alan Ruttenberg: but the meaning may be changed - e.g., punning
Alan Ruttenberg: with punning being more important this is now important
Boris Motik: do you care about the semantics or not?
Boris Motik: do you want syntactic equivalence, semantic equivalence, or what?
Alan Ruttenberg: want roundtripping (modulo ordering that doesn't matter)
Boris Motik: situation in 1.1 allows roundtripping
Boris Motik: I would prefer to sacrifice RDF compatability instead of limiting OWL
Ian Horrocks: more time on this issue next week