W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > February 2002

minutes: WebOnt Telecon Feb 21 (for review)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 21 Feb 2002 13:26:37 -0600
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1014319597.14054.3.camel@dirk>
[This record has not been reviewed by the participants nor
approved by the chair.]

On Tue, 2002-02-19 at 21:13, Jim Hendler wrote:
> WEB ONTOLOGY WORKING GROUP
> Feb 21, 2001

er... 21 Feb 2002, that is.

> Scribe: volunteer needed

Connolly.

see also: chat notes
http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/webont/2002-02-21

record of previous (7 Feb) meeting
(for reference; not explicitly reviewed in the meeting):
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Feb/0045.html


Adminstrative note re chat services:
Finin: btw, in case anyone should have a simiar problem -- I was banned
from this server because openprojects discovered that our campus
webproxy was configured in a way that left it open to ppl using it in
bad ways to launch DOS attacks. I was able to get a password from
openprojects.net to allow me to come in from the cold and to connect to
the server.

> 1) Join call/attendance/admin (10 min; Hendler)

~26 Present:
Jonathan Borden,
Dan Connolly,
Jos De Roo,
Mike Dean,
Nicholas Gibbins,
Jeff Heflin,
James Hendler,
Ziv Hellman,
Ian Horrocks,
Ora Lassila,
Libby Miller,
Leo Obrst,
Peter Patel-Schneider,
Marwan Sabbouh,
Michael Smith,
John Stanton,
Lynne R. Thompson,
David Trastour,
Frank van Harmelen,
Said Tabet,
Lynn Andrea Stein, 
Tim Finin,
Pat Hayes,
Guus Schreiber,
Jeremy Carroll,
Herman ter Horst

regrets from McGuinness, Volz, francesco iannuzzelli


>     - Update on f2f in A'dam (van Harmelen)

2nd ftf is 8-9 Apr. in Amsterdam

Frank: all set. there will be wireless. Folks are expected to fund their
own hotel [as usual]

JimH: what airport? pls send details.

ACTION Frank: send hosting details.

Frank: two full days. early start Monday evening. there will be a social
event Sunday evening.

ACTION DanC: discussion registration with Frank [right after the
meeting]

Frank: there's been a request for dial-in facilities; we looked into
that; it looks expensive
... maybe DanC could help?

(Pat Hayes joined at this point)


>     - Update on f2f in SF (McGuinness, Dale)

3rd ftf SFO 1-2 Jul 2002.

JonD: we're looking at facilities: hotel or something... palo alto or
whatever

>     - Dates for Oct f2f (Schreiber)

JimH: Guus has the ball on some details on this, so stay tuned for more
when he joins

JimH: 7-8 Oct in Bristol, hosted by HP is the current proposal.
... we assume that if we don't hear from you, that's OK with you.
we heard from several about a constraint the previous week.


JimH: so our ftf schedule looks complete

ACTION JimH: update ftf schedule on group home page.


> 2) Action item review (10 min; Hendler)

[some of these were reviewed last time, but the
chair wasn't sure from the record]

> Actions Jan 31:
 
DONE: Finin to complete use case on ubiq. comp (Due ASAP)
DONE: Buswell to complete design Use case (Due ASAP)
DONE: - Obrst to help find ontology partitioning - review and refine
 req
 (Due ASAP)
DONE: - Pat Hayes to send Jeff a couple of sentences on referring to
 vs.
 commiting to ontologies (Due ASAP)
DONE: Tim Finin to send Jeff a paointer to the FIPA langauge req.
 document (due ASAP)
WITHDRAWN: Use Case group will have one more week to get a draft to group
 as a
 strawman.
WITHDRAWN: - have unwritten parts in the D+O vs OWL document done as soon
 as
 possible (Mike, Dan, Ian) -- follow on...
DONE: Mike D. to document what OWL
reqs not covered by D+O, and what D+O features currently not used in
addressing our reqs -  Due: Feb 7

ACTION CONTINUES: Jim/Guus will send to mailing list a proposed list of
 documents/outputs expected of the working group (tied to calendar if
 possible) and ask people to express interests in particular w/respect to
 those issues

3) Requirements Document (30 min. Heflin, Dale, Volz)

cf * REQDOC: New Draft Jeff Heflin (Wed, Feb 20 2002)
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Feb/0193.html

We discussed issues identified by the editor...

1) "Referencing with URIs" as raised by Peter Patel-Schneider.


JimH: one point you raised was with the term "URI" in particular [as
opposed to "URI reference"]

JimH: another was the general architectual principle of using URIs for
terms

Pfps: due to "brokenness", URIs aren't sufficient to reference
everything I'm interested in [ e.g. schema components]

(move on while we hunt the archive...)


-- 3) "Ability to state closed worlds.

Jeff: it was suggested to demote this to an objective, but PatH argued
for it as a requirement.

IanH: seems too vague in the requirements document.

JeffH: demoting it to an objective doesn't mean "we won't touch it"

PatH: OK.

IanH: "certain topics" in particular isn't sufficiently precise

?: complete elements of a class seems easier.

RESOLVED: to make it an objective, incorprating editorial suggestions
[e.g. from Frank]

-- 4) "Properties for statements / Reification / Tagging"

Jeff: Peter objected to this as a requirement, but other folks
disagreed.

JimH: at the ftf, this got an A, no? e.g. where a statement came from
...

in the draft, "Associating properties with statements", section 4.
http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/owl/


connolly agrees with demoting this to an objective.

Frankv: this is about the "lightweight version"; ala rdfs:label...

borden thinks this should go for further discussion, agrees with as
objective

PatH: [... think I missed it... if it was important, please
	clarify, Pat]

MikeDean: "statements about statments"? hmm... maybe not...

PROPOSED: make it an objective.

some objection.

DanCon: I don't intend to argue for something as a requirement until
I've seen a design for it -- not a design that the whole WG
necessarily agrees to, but one that tells me we can meet the
requirement this year. Have folks in favor of this seen designs
they like?

[several] yes.

At this point, we preempted the discussion of issues
to discuss the schedule...

====== REQDOC schedule


JimH: I'd like to get finished soon
... I think we're already late

Ian: several of these seem too vague...

JimH: it would be better if you had sent suggested replacement text

DanCon: we can refine the wording in a subsequent draft; we can also
demote requirements in the light of design experience.

[detailed schedule...]

Lynn: the document changed substantively yesterday


JimH: it seems very useful to get our use cases out to the community
I don't see issues with the use cases... are we OK with that?


LynnS: much of my comments are about the use cases

JimH: how about this as a schedule... a new draft monday, with diff
marks... [...]

Lynn: what about publishing it as is?

DanC: who has issues with draft but is willing to publish?
PPS: unpublishable as is.

PatH: what are requirements to publish?

DanC: I wouldn't having the editor sprinkle 7-8
"no consensus here" notes and publish.

JonB agrees on publication next week

JimH: I think there are editorial issues where we're happy for the
editor to make those changes...

JimH: I'd like to release a document [a week?]
  [oops.. scribe got lost here]

LynnS: Dissents, wishes to release WD now, extra week won't be enough to
substantially improve

[agenda check: postpone implementation discussion? OK.]

JimH: we'll take a shot at resolving the issues identified by the editor
during this telcon, then we'll go.

NOTE WELL:
JimH: at this point, folks who want changes, include replacement text.

RESOLVED: new draft monday (incorpriating editorial comments at editor's
discretion). WG folks are to read the document Tue, Wed; we'll decide
next thu whether to publish.

ACTION Jeff: new draft monday
ACTION JimH: put decision to publish on next week's agenda.

---- back to 4) "Properties for statements / Reification / Tagging"

PatH volunteers to propose wording for this item

PFPS: where did this come from?

Jeff: from mail from Mike Dean, and from editorial work
	toward overall consistency

JimH: from ftf record:  A Annotation/tagging of ontologies (some
particular properties)

ACTION PatH: propose wording for this item

------- 5) "Lexical representations"

under "Lexical representations" in section 4.

Jeremey: I think this came from a proposal I made...

ACTION Jeremy: suggest wording.

Jeremy: yes, 'lexical' is misleading.


------ 6) Removing "Integration of digital signatures."

ACTION DanC: suggest wording ala "just check 
that our language doesn't conflict with W3C XML Sig stuff"

------- 7) Mike Dean's new requirements (dated Feb. 19).

JimH: can we postpone to next draft?

MikeD: ok

----- 1) "Referencing with URIs" (redux)

PFPS: cf
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Feb/0085.html

PFPS: "we need to be able to reference what we're interested in [...]"

JonB: pls s/URI/URI reference/
2nded

PatH: be aware of #fragment issues in RDFCore

PFPS: I guess the wording, as stated is ok.

RESOLVED: with the s/URI/URI reference/, it stays.

[At this point, the meeting was extended; LibbyM was excused.]

-------- 2) "Ontologies as resources"

Jeff: PFPS argued against, DanC, Frank, etc. argued in favor.

PFPS: how about "ontologies as distinct objects; ontologies must have
their own unique identifiers"

DanC: ok by me

JonB: "object" seems just as problematic as "resource", but [I guess I
could live]

?: "ontologies as distinct objects; ontologies must have their own
unique identifiers, i.e. URI reference"

PROPOSED:"ontologies as distinct objects; ontologies must have their own
unique identifiers, e.g. URI reference"
so RESOLVED, by consensus.


Jeff: so that's it for the stuff as of 10:40ET last night.
I'm happy to take wording (editorial) suggestions thru Fri.

JimH: I'll be sure the motion to publish is in the agenda next weds.


> 4) DAML+OIL comparison w/Requirements (15 min, Dean)
>   Report on email from Dean
>   How to follow up discussion (Hendler)


postponed.
 
> 5) Implementations (20 min; Connolly)
>   WG are expected to produce implementations as well as document.
>   Chairs want this activity to get started - Dan C. to discuss, solicit
>    volunteers.

postponed.

> 
> *** discussion postponed - Layering, Future Document List.
> 

----- Other business, adjournment, next meeting

RESOLVED: to meet again one week hence, Thu 28 Feb 2002,
per regular schedule.

agenda next time: yes, MikeD's DAML eval stuff

Frank vH volunteers to scribe next week.

tentative regrets from DanC;
regrets from PatH

ADJOURNED. Feb 21 12:37:08 U.S. Central time.



-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2002 14:25:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:47 GMT