W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > October 2007

Re: minutes for 17 October

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:52:01 -0400
Message-Id: <702093D8-662E-4787-B479-34016D0AAE23@gmail.com>
Cc: W3C OWL Chairs <team-owl-chairs@w3.org>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>

Hi Jim,

It's important that your views on this be taking into account, so we  
will make sure that happens. BTW, for my education, could you point  
me to the relevant process documents. I'll point out that the only  
decision made was to publish some version of these documents in time  
to meet the heartbeat requirement. We postponed as a second issue  
whether to do that any sooner. Do you object to the actual decision  
that was made? I don't know exactly the date of heartbeat timeout.  
Sandro, could you figure out the exact date?

Going forward, the problem I would like us to solve will be to figure  
out how to make sure your input is considered when making decisions,  
while at the same time avoiding a situation where members who are  
attending the meetings don't feel like they can't make decisions  
during the designated time.

I think it would be safe to bring concerns about process to Ian and I  
rather than to the group as a whole, with the assurance that we take  
this issue quite seriously and will figure out a way that works for  
everyone. Actual discussion of the issue, of course, belongs on the  
public list.

Regards,
Alan



On Oct 19, 2007, at 9:28 AM, Jim Hendler wrote:

> i see the following in the log:
> RESOLVED: Our first working drafts, to be published before the 3- 
> month heartbeat, will be one: (1) Structural Specification, (2)  
> Semantics. We may include (3) RDF Mapping in this list. These are  
> based on the text for each of these at http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/
>
> we should be clear - this resolution is not an actual resolution to  
> publish as such a thing would be a process violation at this time -  
> i can point to the charter issues, but suffice to say an actual  
> decision to publish has to be announced in advance, there's some  
> other issues as well (usually the decision to publish is via a  
> formal vote so as to meet all these needs)
>
> however, a resolution saying we are considering a proposal to do  
> this (that some people still object to) is fine - so that's what i  
> assume this is - right?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 19, 2007, at 5:39 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>
>> I sent these minutes shortly after the Wed meeting to the chairs and
>> contacts from my personal email, but it may have been lost.  The  
>> minutes
>> need the fixing that Sandro was going to do, so they will be changed
>> somehow before going up on the wiki.
>>
>> Comments back to me and the group, I guess, but hopefully the minutes
>> will soon go through the required post processing and be put up on  
>> the
>> wiki.
>>
>> peter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> - DRAFT - OWL WG Teleconference Minutes 17 Oct 2007
>> See also: IRC log
>>
>> Attendees
>> Present Sandro, Bijan, bmotik, Achille, Fabien, MikeSmith,  
>> Elisa_Kendall, Ian, pfps, Vipul_Kashyap, Alan_Ruttenberg, jjc,  
>> JeffP, MarkusK, Evan_Wallace Regrets Deborah McGuinness, James  
>> Hendler, Michael Sintek, Ivan Herman, Rinke Hoekstra, Joanne  
>> Luciano, Fabian Gandon Chair Alan Ruttenberg, Ian Horrocks Scribe  
>> Peter Patel-Schneider
>> Contents
>> Topics
>> Roll Call
>> Agenda amendments
>> Accept Minutes
>> Action items status
>> Charter Review
>> Deliverables
>> Publication Schedule
>> General Discussion
>> Relationships to other W3C Groups
>> Additional other business
>> Summary of Action Items
>> <jjc> Note: I have not completed paperwork to join WG yet,  
>> technically I guess I am observer or something.
>>
>> <bijan> Scribe information is at http://dev.w3.org/2002/scribe/ 
>> scribedoc.htm
>>
>> Topics Roll Call
>> <Zakim> jjc, you wanted to note I am here before joining WG
>>
>> jjc: not a member of the WG
>>
>> sandro: jjc is invited
>>
>> <sandro> jjc is Jeremy Carroll of HP
>>
>> Agenda amendments
>> ianh: no amendments
>>
>> Accept Minutes
>> ianh: any corrections to minutes?
>>
>> <sandro> PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes: http://www.w3.org/2007/ 
>> OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2007.10.10/Minutes
>>
>> <sandro> RESOLVED: Accept Previous Minutes: http://www.w3.org/2007/ 
>> OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2007.10.10/Minutes
>>
>> Action items status
>> alan: action1 (login alignment) still in progress
>>
>> vipul: multiple wikis (W3C and ESW) mean multiple logins, can they  
>> be aligned?
>>
>> sandro: no
>>
>> ianh: action item 2 html is possible
>> ... action item 3 comments on RIF BLD done
>>
>> <sandro> Peter's comments <http://www.w3.org/mid/ 
>> 20071016.102615.212787570.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
>>
>> Charter Review
>> ianh: Assumption is that everyone has read all the documents  
>> (including the charter).
>> ... Quick run-through of charter followed by discussion.
>> ... Scope of WG is extensions to OWL (logic, datatypes, expressive  
>> power),
>> ... plus language fragment definition.
>> ... OWL 1.1 submission is starting point.
>> ... Starting issue list is OWL 1.1. issue list plus postponed  
>> issues from WebOnt.
>> ... Backwards compatability is important.
>> ... Feature addition is to be conservative.
>>
>> ianh: deliverables (not necessary documents) - overview,  
>> requirements, formal spec (3 docs), outreach (...), test suite,  
>> language fragments.
>> ... XML exchange syntax also possible deliverable.
>> ... Timeline is quite tight, first documents beginning of Feb.
>> ... Last call august 2008, ..., done in 18 months.
>> ... First F2F is December.
>> ... Dependencies from other workings groups (on agenda [postposed  
>> to next week]).
>>
>> <alanr> Questions, or discussion points?
>>
>> bijan: Backwards compability is good but not absolute.
>>
>> ianh: Let's not make a decision on overall status of backwards  
>> compatability, but make it a case by case basis.
>>
>> alanr: Questions on charter need resolution in the future, e.g.,  
>> backwards compatability.
>>
>> <alanr> It's [backward compatability] in the charter already.
>>
>> <alanr> no need to put it on the queue
>>
>> <bijan> +1 to ianh saying "wait until backwards compt comes up to  
>> discuss it"
>>
>> <achille> +1 to ianh
>>
>> <sandro> Ian: Let's not talk about Backward Compatibility until we  
>> come up with a specific instance of a question about it? Any  
>> objections? No.....
>>
>> <bijan> I just wanted to make sure it was *open* so that we *will*  
>> have that discussion rather
>>
>> Deliverables
>> sandro: W3C has software for tracking issues and action items  
>> (TRACKER).
>>
>> <sandro> trackbot-ng, help
>>
>> <trackbot-ng> See http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/ for help (use  
>> the IRC bot link)
>>
>> <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/OWL_Working_Group
>>
>> <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/
>>
>> sandro: Trackbot-ng sits on the IRC and records things.
>> ... The owl wg home page has a pointer to the information gathered.
>> ... The web page allows management of actions and issues, changes  
>> result in email.
>> ... Products (documents or tasks) are linked to issues and actions.
>>
>> <bijan> I got an email [about an issue change]
>>
>> <bijan> With: Subject: ISSUE-1 (test): Test Issue
>>
>> <bijan> I see the webpage too
>>
>> sandro: Using the names of issues, (actions, etc) verbatim  
>> (ALLCAPS-#) in email links them in.
>> ... Wiki integration is not yet available (but might be coming).
>>
>> ianh: Are we going to use this?
>>
>> alan: PROPOSED: move all current issues to trackbot
>>
>> <alanr> PROPOSED Move current issues to tracker
>>
>> sandro: There was discussion of this offline.
>>
>> bijan: Let's discuss this on email.
>>
>> sandro: One issue is that it would be nice to have proposed issues  
>> and accepted issues.
>>
>> <alanr> ok. wait one week. withdraw proposed
>>
>> alanr: will there be an open-to-the-world issues list?
>>
>> <bijan> Isn't that what I'm sending email about?
>>
>> <alanr> yes
>>
>> <alanr> +1
>>
>> sandro: Interest but no decision yet.
>>
>> ianh: For next week's agenda: discuss this with some email  
>> discussion in the meantime.
>>
>> Publication Schedule
>> sandro: Process requirements for WGs.
>>
>> <sandro> Very roughly, our job, as a W3C Working Group, is to  
>> create specifications which everyone in the world regards as "good  
>> enough". ("Good enough", perhaps to by not worthwhile to produce a  
>> competing spec.)
>>
>> <sandro> The W3C process has evolved over the past ~13 years to  
>> help us achieve this goal.
>>
>> <sandro> Step 1 - we come up with a design that's a starting  
>> point; ask the world for input. (First Public Working Draft - WD1)
>>
>> <trackbot-ng> Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/ 
>> 2007/OWL/tracker/
>>
>> <sandro> Step 2 - we iterate the design until we think it's good  
>> enough (more Working Drafts, Last Call Working Draft - LC)
>>
>> <sandro> Step 3 - we incorporate any LC feedback to produce an  
>> even better spec, and ask for people to implement it. (Candidate  
>> Recommendation - CR)
>>
>> <sandro> Step 5 - once there is proof of interoperability, we  
>> incorporate feedback into another draft (Proposed Recommendation -  
>> PR)
>>
>> <sandro> Step 6 - the PR is evaluated by W3C members; if they  
>> approve, it becomes a Recommendation (REC).
>>
>> <sandro> If a problem comes up in the later stages, we may have to  
>> go back to step 2, iterating the design some more.
>>
>> <Zakim> jjc, you wanted to comment on step 6
>>
>> jjc: step 6 is not a vote, but something different involving the  
>> director
>>
>> sandro: No observable differences yet.
>> ... There is internal consultation and delegation within the W3C  
>> staff on decisions, so director decisions are not make by the  
>> director alone.
>>
>> PROPOSED: Our first working drafts are: Structural Specification,  
>> Semantics, RDF Mapping
>>
>> alanr: this means focussing on the core documents, not to say that  
>> the current versions are what the first working draft would be
>>
>> <jjc> Comment: it would be more usual to publish requirements  
>> before the answers ...
>>
>> <Zakim> bijan, you wanted to say we should publish earlier than F2F
>>
>> bijan: Working drafts are not commitments.
>> ... We should publish working drafts before the F2F.
>> ... This makes transition from webont.org to W3C space.
>> ... PROPOSE making the three documents as WDs ASAP.
>>
>> alanr: Two steps in resolution: 1/ Are these docs OK for WDs? 2/  
>> When to publish.
>>
>> PROPOSED: Existing webont documents are first WDs (appropriately  
>> edited).
>>
>> <IanH> PROPOSED: Our first working drafts are: Structural  
>> Specification, Semantics, RDF Mapping
>>
>> <sandro> this is as-per http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/ ?
>>
>> <sandro> ie http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/owl_specification.html  
>> http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/semantics.html and http:// 
>> www.webont.org/owl/1.1/rdf_mapping.html
>>
>> jjc: Deliverables have a requirements document, which logically  
>> should preceed the technical documents.
>>
>> <jjc> Requirements:
>>
>> <jjc> A description of the goals and requirements that have  
>> motivated the design of OWL 1.1.
>>
>> bijan: There was requirements work going into owl 1.1, but no doc  
>> was made.
>> ... Putting a requirements doc first would significantly delay  
>> technical work.
>>
>> alanr: Jeremy, would doing things with requirements later damage  
>> our process?
>>
>> <IanH> Note: charter says that requirements are "A description of  
>> the goals and requirements that have motivated the design of OWL 1.1"
>>
>> <JeffP> +1 IanH
>>
>> vipul: Shouldn't there be an internal review before the WDs are  
>> published?
>> ... My votes on other issues depend on this issue.
>>
>> <bijan> -1 to internal review
>>
>> bijan: First WD is first *public* WD.
>>
>> ianh: Can we move the documents to editor's drafts to have the  
>> same transitioning effect?
>>
>> alanr: Q1/ Are the three documents the ones to target for first WDs?
>>
>> alanr: Q2/ When should we make the three documents be WDs?
>>
>> <sandro> PROPOSED-1 :Our first working drafts, to be published  
>> before the 3-month heartbeat, will be: Structural Specification,  
>> Semantics, RDF Mapping, based closely on http://www.webont.org/owl/ 
>> 1.1/
>>
>> <sandro> PROPOSED: Our first working drafts, to be published  
>> before the 3-month heartbeat, will be: Structural Specification,  
>> Semantics, RDF Mapping, based on the text for each of these at  
>> http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/
>>
>> <sandro> PROPOSED: Our first working drafts, to be published  
>> before the 3-month heartbeat, will be: (1) Structural  
>> Specification, (2) Semantics, (3) RDF Mapping, based on the text  
>> for each of these at http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/
>>
>> <bijan> No
>>
>> evan: Are we implying that SS fills the role of the descriptive spec?
>>
>> <bijan> I do think we might evolve the structural specification  
>> toward a descriptive as well a formal specification, but that's a  
>> distinct decision.
>>
>> Ian: No -- we're implying that these three document form the  
>> technical spec.
>>
>> <Zakim> jjc, you wanted to suggest s/will be:/will be one or more  
>> of:/
>>
>> PROPOSED: Our first working drafts, to be published before the 3- 
>> month heartbeat, will be one or more of: (1) Structural  
>> Specification, (2) Semantics, (3) RDF Mapping, based on the text  
>> for each of these at http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/
>>
>> <sandro> jjc: HP may object to (3), so let's make it optional.
>>
>> PROPOSED: Our first working drafts, to be published before the 3- 
>> month heartbeat, will be one: (1) Structural Specification, (2)  
>> Semantics. We    may include (3) RDF Mapping in this list. These  
>> are based on the text for each of these at http://www.webont.org/ 
>> owl/1.1/
>>
>> <bijan> The current documents are already hugely public.  
>> Publishing as WD does not endorse the current design. We know it  
>> will changed. We know all three will be changed. Many times.
>>
>> RESOLVED: Our first working drafts, to be published before the 3- 
>> month heartbeat, will be one: (1) Structural Specification, (2)  
>> Semantics. We    may include (3) RDF Mapping in this list. These  
>> are based on the text for each of these at http://www.webont.org/ 
>> owl/1.1/
>>
>> <bijan> Which discussion?
>>
>> General Discussion
>> Alan: Next topic was to be authors/editors role, task areas.... I  
>> propose we put these off until next week.
>>
>> <bijan> +1 to [postponing] discussion of document roles and task  
>> forces to next week
>>
>> <IanH> +1
>>
>> <Elisa> +1
>>
>> Bijan: When we postpone things, let's talk about it on the mailing  
>> list.
>>
>> <ekw> +1 on Bijan's suggestion for email discussion of postponed  
>> items
>>
>> Alan: I can create the draft of the next agenda early, and send  
>> that out, to help start discussion.
>>
>> Bijan: It doesn't need to be the whole agenda, although that's fine.
>>
>> <bmotik> E-mail discussions can be tedious, though.
>>
>> <IanH> +1
>>
>> <JeffP> +1 bye
>>
>> <MarkusK> bye
>>
>> <sandro> decision to adjourn, as per Alan's proposal.
>>
>> <sandro> ADJOURN
>>
>> Postponed to next meeting. Relationships to other W3C Groups  
>> Postponed to next meeting. Additional other business
>> <bijan> There's a second proposal
>>
>> <bijan> So we postpone the second decision as well?
>>
>> <sandro> I guess so, Bijan! Oops.
>>
>> Summary of Action Items [End of minutes]
>> Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.128 (CVS  
>> log)
>> $Date: 2007/10/17 18:02:14 $
>
> "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research,  
> would it?." - Albert Einstein
>
> Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
> Tetherless World Constellation Chair
> Computer Science Dept
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 19 October 2007 13:52:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:26 GMT