- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 18:19:52 +0000
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Minutes of WebOntology Working Group Teleconf 19th December 2002
================================================================
Amended 21st December (Marwan -> M_Hori)
========================================
Role Call:
Ian, JimH, Leo, Herman, John_Stanton, Jerome., MikeD, Ziv, DanC, JeffH, TimF, Peter_PS, McGuinness, Jos, Jeremy (late), Chris Welty (late), M_Hori (late)
Regrets: Schreiber (others reported in WG archive)
Resolution and Action Summary
=============================
PROPOSAL to close datatype issue as per email
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0196.html (amended M. Dean)
Opposed: none
Abstain: DanC, JeffH, Dean, Hendler, Stanton, Hori
PROPOSAL to close XML presentation syntax (with action on Jerome to produce XSLT)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0204.html
PeterPS's new mapping document (attachment):
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0220.html
Opposed: none
Abstentions: none
PROPOSAL to close Unique names assumption issue by postponing it and accepting
DanC's language feature proposal
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0124.html
Opposed: none
Abstain: Ian, PeterPS, JeffH
ACTION (cont): Jonathon Borden to update media types document and pass to M Dean
for use in editing Reference Document.
ACTION (cont): Dan C take media type registration request to IETF.
ACTION (cont): DebMcG/Change feature doc in accordance with 5.19 resolution
(using MikeD's text)
ACTION (cont): DebMcG/Change features for three sublanguages
ACTION on MikeD to say why RDF datatype proposal is problematical for
us. To be done by Jan 9th F2f.
ACTION on PeterPS to bring XML presentation syntax up to date and forward to MikeD
ACTION on Jeff to update requirements doc to make Unique Names an
objective rather than a requirement.
ACTIONS on all other editors to amend their documents as appropriate.
ACTION on MikeD to write detailed proposal on Mime Type issue for Jan 2.
ACTION on JeffH: check postponed issues don't affect requirements doc
and that all requirements now met
Detailed Minutes
================
1.2 Approval of Minutes of Dec 5 call
PROPOSED to accept the following as a true record of the Dec 5
telecon:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0106.html
This should be:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0205.html
Plus: regrets added for Leo Orbst
Proposed: JimH
Seconded: Dan C.
Objections: none
1.3 Agenda Amendments
MikeD: Discuss closing of Versioning issue
1.4 Telecon Schedule
No telecon 26th Dec.
Next telecon after that is: January 2
Scribe: TBD
DebMcG volunteered for Jan 16
1.5 F2F Meeting Manchester
Registration page:
http://cgi.w3.org/Register/selectUser.pl?_w3c_meetingName=WebontManchester
Local arrangements page:
http://wonderweb.semanticweb.org/mcr-f2f.shtml
Ian: now additional local arrangements info on page
DanC: Agenda for f2f?
JimH: will arrange next week with Guus
JimH: needs to hear immediately about any input
JimH: reviews to eds by Jan 2nd; frozen release for f2f by that date;
small final changes at f2f (except for any late additions); f2f will
focus on implementation and testing, and will involve other people
active in those areas.
1.6 ACTION Review (10 min)
ACTION: Mike Smith to add Postponed Justification issue to issue list.
DONE
ACTION: Jeremy to create text to use in place of PPS item 3 in resolution to
Issue 5.8 on datatypes.
DONE
ACTION: Dan C to to communicate with XML schema group about URIs for
XML datatypes.
DONE
ACTION: Jonathon Borden to update media types document and pass to M Dean
for use in editing Reference Document.
Continued - MikeD waiting for updates from JB
ACTION: Dan C take media type registration request to IETF.
Continued
ACTION: Ian to write up an explanation of known characteristics
for decision procedures for OWL Lite and OWL DL.
DONE
ACTION: ChrisW will work on getting "The meaning of
owl:ontology" explained better in Guide, other editors will see
if their documents need changing (not obvious they do).
DONE
ACTION: Jeremy to generate test Cases for 5.5. List Syntax or Semantics
DONE
ACTION: DebMcG/Change feature doc in accordance with 5.19 resolution
(using MikeD's text)
Continued
ACTION: MikeDean/update reference appropriately for three
sublanguages
DONE - added overview and reference to Guide.
ACTION: DebMcG/Change features for three sublanguages
Continued
2. OPEN ISSUES (20 min)
Link to issues list:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html
[We have three open issues left]
2.1 Issue 5.8 - Datatypes
Proposal to close datatypes
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0196.html
JimH: proposal to close but DanC uncomfortable.
DanC: RDF datatype mech interaction with collection problem - doesn't
want users to have to write "cardinality 5 decimal" - works OK with
just "5".
Jos: Why not - its only to be written by machines
DanC: unacceptable complexity
MikeD: doing it once in ontology is least of problem
DanC: problem is in writing instance form
MikeD: agreed - people creating millions of instances
Jos: mixed feelings about using both at same time - nothing
conceptually wrong with typed literals
Ian: but users wont be typing in millions of instances.
JimH: specific issue is w.r.t. cardinalities. Feedback is that we will
get flawed ontologies. Will get so many errors we might as well accept
it in advance. PeterPS - problems?
PeterPS: In semantics for OWL need to specify mapping from literal to
integer - difficult and problematic.
DanC: Not consistent, but doesn't expect users to use RDF datatypes
JimH,PeterPS,DanC; problem is due to decisions of RDF core
JimH: Didn't understand problem
PeterPS: Asking for string to be a cardinality value. I.e, unicode
sequence for "1", possibly plus language tags.
DanC/JimH: Don't use language tags!
PeterPS: Semantics will need mapping from string!
JimH: OK - wont be formally correct without a lot of work. Can't we
use some black box like datavalues?
PeterPS: wont work
DanC: Let's not try to design it on phone - is there support for this design?
MikeD: Disingenuous to use RDF datatypes but NOT for one bit of our
languages where data values occur.
JimH: Straw poll
Oppose current proposal?: DanC, JeffH, Helman
Abstain: Leo
In favour: PeterPS, Jeremy, Ian, Jos, ChrisW
JimH: PROPOSAL to close datatype issue as per email
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0196.html (amended M. Dean)
Opposed: none
Abstain: DanC, JeffH, Dean, Hendler, Stanton, Hori
JimH: Will someone take action to write up where our problem with RDF datatypes lies?
PeterPS: For what date?
JimH: RDF asked us to review several of their documents by mid Jan, i.e., within next few weeks.
PeterPS: Yes, if pointed at official review doc.
DanC: Nothing official until last call.
Jeremy: will send pointers
DanC: Please don't do that without chairs permission.
JimH: Not clear which is relevant doc.
DanC: Scattered in several docs; if MikeD will give examples of
problems, DanC will wrap up in a document.
JimH: ACTION on MikeD to say why RDF proposal is problematical for us. To
be done by Jan 9th F2f.
2.2 Issue 5.17 - XML presentation syntax
Proposal to close XML presentation syntax
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0204.html
PeterPS's new mapping document (attachment):
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0220.html
JimH: Dec-0204 is latest proposal. Take PeterPS's proposal with
amendments and mapping to XML-RDF syntax to be produced as
non-normative appendix to reference doc.
DanC: PeterPS - any experiments on translating from XML presentation to RDF
PeterPS: should be easy - they are very close.
DanC: needs running code
JimH: you produce spec - I will produce code.
PeterPS: too busy in next couple of weeks.
DanC: should be easy in XSLT
JimH: student will do it in PERL - do we need more? (something on paper)
DanC: implementation report might do it but would prefer mapping in spec.
JimH: that would make it easier!
Jerome: any examples of ontologies in 2 forms?
PeterPS: nothing substantive
Jerome: will try it in XSLT at INRIA
JimH: note in appendix stating that implementation/mapping is required
DanC: Jerome's XSLT good enough for me
JimH: Straw poll - close as written up with action on Jerome to do
XSLT.
NO Objections.
PROPOSAL to close issue with action on Jerome to produce XSLT
Opposed: none
Abstentions: none
MikeD: what to write in reference doc?
DanC: put PeterPS's schema in doc with brief intro
PeterPS: may need a bit of fixing, e.g., re imports
JimH: ACTION on PeterPS to bring up to date and forward to MikeD
M_Hori: Do we have XMLS for DL and Lite?
DanC: good idea
Jeremy: support - need to exercise DL and Lite
Dog: woof!, woof!
DanC,PeterPS: presentation syntax is only for DL/Lite
DanC: doesn't capture OWL full
JimH: let's move on - doc's must clarify what they cover and what they
don't; Jerome can look out for this in his work.
Jerome: should be 3 schemas
DanC: should be something in XSLT that picks up errors re Lite/DL/full
Jerome: start with single schema and then refine
M_Hori: will also try to write schemas
2.3 Issue 5.18 - Unique names assumption
Proposal to close issue 5.18
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0225.html
- based on DanC's message:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0124.html
-and Jos' second and test cases
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0229.html
JimH: propose to close by accepting
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0124.html
DanC: Anyone read yet? ChrisW? (no), PeterPS(?)
PeterPS: asking for oneOf with disjointness.
DanC: yes - called distinct.
PeterPS: same as covering constructor - combines multiple things (axioms
and constructors)
JimH: doesn't believe proposal undoes earlier decisions
MikeD: understands.
DebMcG: understands; action to add to documents
DanC: doesn't solve UN assumption
Jos: made namespace proposal but was rejected; this is simpler and
could be accepted.
JimH: problems? - can we close issue with this
DebMcG: doesn't solve problem
DanC: proposing to postpone UN issue.
ChrisW: why talk about it in guide?
DanC: this is the best we can do in response to user requirements.
JimH: move UN to objective and state that it is partly addressed by this.
JimH: Straw Poll - any opposed to this?
PeterPS: objects but wont vote against - it is same as disjoint covering.
Ian: still don't like it.
JimH: PROPOSAL to close issue by postponing it and accepting DanC's
language feature proposal
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0124.html
Opposed: none
Abstain: Ian, PeterPS, JeffH
DebMcG: Actions as result? Update ref, features, requirements, guide,
semantics and test docs.
ACTION on Jeff to update requirements doc to make UN an objective.
ACTIONS on all other editors to amend their documents as appropriate.
3. Proposal to amend closing of issue 5.13 - Mime type (10 min)
Chair will entertain a motion to append closing of issue 5.13 with
Mike Dean's proposal to have 3 subclasses of owl:ontology for the
language types:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0224.html
JimH: possibility of accepting MikeD's solution as amendment to issue closure.
MikeD: add subClasses of owl:ontology to allow users to indicate level
that they are using: DL, full and Lite ontology
JimH: clean solution
DanC: why full?
MikeD: better to explicitly state and for later compatibility
DanC: objects - Lite subclass of DL subclass of full
ChrisW: why not just tags on ontology
DanC: needs to show up in RDF graph
JeffH: use properties?
MikeD: more writing
DanC: is a subclass relationship
PeterPS, ChrisW: it isn't a subclass relationship
DanC: every DL ontology is a full ontology!
PeterPS: no - didn't make ontologies classes of figure out what individuals are.
DanC: yes - ontology docs are instances of owl ontology
.... big argument about what it all means which I can't keep up with
JimH: purpose is that I want my reasoner to know if it can handle ontology
MikeD: would like to ask how many "full" ontologies are out there
JimH: could do it by asking for all those not Lite or DL
JeffH: With no tag, are they Lite DL or full?
Jeremy: Quite hard to be in DL space even if not using constructors
Ian: what about imports and mixing of docs?
Jeremy: could also get case where two Lite docs became full
JimH: no consensus. Go back to email discussion and come back with proposal on Jan 2.
ACTION on MikeD to write detailed proposal on this issue for Jan 2.
4) DOCUMENT STATUS (30 min)
Status update and discussion of any major changes pending for every document
4.1 Requirements (Jeff)
JimH: Any changes
JeffH: Only minor changes; did we postpone R15 complex datatypes?
JimH/DanC: no - need to review
JimH: check all requirements to see they have been satisfied
JeffH: OK
ACTION on JeffH: check postponed issued don't affect requirements
4.2 Guide (Chris for Mike S)
JimH: anything to do?
MS: Nothing to do
4.3 Features (Deb and/or Frank)
JimH: anything to do?
DebMcG: Nothing major
4.4 Reference (Mike D.)
JimH: anything to do?
MikeD: knows what needs doing. needs work re datatypes. still didn't
discuss version info.
JimH: do we have consensus to remove version info?
DanC: prefer to leave in
Jos: prefer to leave in
JimH: probably have to leave in
JeffH: anyone else want to leave out?
silence
4.5 Semantics (PeterPS)
Discussion of Jeremy's questions re: Semantics of Lite and DL
JimH: anything to do?
PeterPS: addition of disjoint individual is major change
JimH/DanC: actions on all editors
PeterPS: stable modulo Jeremy's comments which were not understood
JimH: proposal for PeterPS and Jeremy to discuss after end of teleconf
Agreed
4.6 Test (Jeremy)
Plan to release Test later than other documents
JimH: Haven't really given time to test. In OK shape, but maybe need
more checking before last call. Could use beginning of LC period to
work on test
Jeremy: coverage isn't adequate
JimH: need to go through test at f2f with invited experts
Jeremy: could use at least a day on that; hopes there will be more tests for f2f
5) AOB (0-5 min.)
Ian: review of docs by ontoweb - will forward to list;
All: excellent
Ian: but it is work for us!
All: OK.
JimH: non editors will be expected to review docs
JimH: Adjourned - happy whatever to one and all.
Jos: Make sure you get your beer from TBL for closing all issues before Xmas!
JimH: Will push hard!
Received on Saturday, 21 December 2002 13:20:11 UTC