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

Minutes of 1/31 telecon

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 13:50:08 -0500
Message-Id: <p05100302b87f40250249@[128.8.130.81]>
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
In attendance: Buswell, Dean, Decker, Fensel, Finin, Heflin, Hendler, 
Klein, McGuinness, Miller, Motta, Obrst, Patel-Schneider, Schreiber, 
M. Smith, Stein, ter Horst, Trastour ++ Hayes, Volz, Carroll, van 
Harmelen, Horrocks

Regrets: Connolly (power outage)

ACTIONS:

  ACTION: Finin to complete use case on ubiq. comp (Due ASAP)
  ACTION: Buswell to complete design Use case (Due ASAP)
  ACTION - Obrst to help find ontology partitioning - review and 
refine req (Due ASAP)
  ACTION - Pat Hayes to send Jeff a couple of sentences on referring 
to vs. commiting to ontologies (Due ASAP)
  ACTION: Tim Finin to send Jeff a paointer to the FIPA langauge req. 
document (due ASAP)

  ACTION: Use Case group will have one more week to get a draft to 
group as a strawman.
  ACTION - have unwritten parts in the D+O vs OWL document done as 
soon as possible (Mike, Dan, Ian) -- follow on ACTION - 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 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 - Due: Feb 14

Resolutions:
  RESOLVED: Jim and Guus to propose the methods (by which documents 
get created and worked on)  [Note: group did not express strong 
opinions w/respect to how to designate/coordinate/etc.]


Log:

       JimH: Announcements
       JimH: ---------------
       JimH: f2f April 8-9 Amsterdam
     *rreck* prepare for a huge gif <- sorry
       JimH: Solicit feedback on date for 3rd F2F - volunteer of place 
still needed
        las: I will likely be unable to attend either of the F2Fs as proposed.
       JimH: Europe/East Coast suggested - volunteers sought
       JimH: ----------------
       JimH: Guus Schreiber joins as WG co-chair (Jim an Guus both cochairs)
        las: If Boston is a desirable location, I could probably host 
an F2F in July (even 1-2 July if that's the time -- my restriction is 
travelling, not the dates)
       JimH: ---------------------
       JimH: 2) ==============
       JimH: Use Case / reqs document -- not completed
       JimH: Interim document available.
       JimH: http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/owl/
       JimH: 4 of 6 use cases entered, 2 are remaining to be provided
       JimH: missing: ubiq: Finin, Design: Buswell(?)
       JimH: ACTION: Finin to complete use case on ubiq. comp
       JimH: ACTION: Buswell to complete design Use case
       JimH: Gools section
       JimH: s/gools/goals
*** pfps (~pfps@135.104.37.83) has joined channel #webont.
       JimH: review of reqs - still missing
       JimH:  unicode strings (Jeremy Carroll)
       JimH:  ontology partitioning - needs review
       JimH: ACTION - Leo Obrst to help find ontology partitioning - 
review and refine req
       JimH: question: how do the reqs with respect to partitioning 
and tagging fit together.
       JimH: Mike - ability to nominally associate properties 
w/statements as well as with instances
       JimH: Mike; would be good
       JimH: Pat - difference between referring vs. commiting to it.
       JimH: ACTION - Pat Hayes to send Jeff a couple of sentences on 
referring to vs. commiting to ontologies
       JimH: Question: by layered approach, what do we mean?
       JimH: Leo: OWL lite for devices is one meaning
       JimH: Dieter: Graphical editor might want a defined sublayer 
w/respect to OWL
       JimH: Dieter: example, for decidability might want a layer
       JimH: transitivity and chaining of properties
       JimH: what is the requirement?
       JimH: req: we MUST have our language able to do this
       JimH: Goal/objective: We would like to be able to do it, or we 
can only recommend an "idiom"
       JimH: Pat: does req mean - language must have syntactic feature 
for this, or "we can do this with the langauge"
       JimH: JimH: I believe we just mean "can do w/the features we 
define" - not one to one.
       JimH: ACTION: Tim Finin to send Jeff a paointer to the FIPA 
langauge req. document
       JimH: Jeff - shoud we make the use cases "generic" or "real"
       JimH: Jeremy C.- specifity is good.
       JimH: Jeff - perhaps we should try to anonymize
--> las  btw, I noted the Boston offer -that would work well for me. 
       JimH: Jeff: do we want "project name" to show this is real?
       JimH: Jeremy: no, but saying someone is doing this is good
       *las* it would require my scurrying around a bit, and it might 
well be out here at Olin, but I think that I could probably swing it 
(and certainly Boston would be easier for me)
       JimH: JimH: suggest something that says "these are representative"
       JimH: JimH - when can we get this done??
       JimH: ACTION: Use Case group will have one more week to get a 
draft to group as a strawman.
       JimH: ---------------2b - D+O vs. OWL reqs
     mdean_: requirements/DAML+OIL mapping is at 
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/reqdo.html
       JimH: recording issues as f2f and then saying how much of each 
DAML covers
       JimH: Mike: should this be appendix to Jeff document or a 
standalone internal document.
       JimH: Jeff: would prefer this to be separate
       JimH: Mike: structure of document - issue followed by y/n and 
brief discussion
       JimH: more depth in A reqs than B, also still work in progress
       JimH: Mike - encourage further discussion on mailing list
       JimH: Important that WOWG members review this document and send 
comments to the mailing list ASAP
       JimH: ACTION - have unwritten parts in this document done as 
soon as possible (Mike, Dan, Ian)
       JimH: -------------------2c Layering document
       JimH: pfps: A version of this document has been sent to WG (today)
       JimH: describes the 4 options w/respect to their key commitments
       JimH: a "more windy" version is in process, due Feb 15.
       JimH: Document helps outline the key differences among the approaches
       JimH: Important that WOWG members review this document and send 
comments to the mailing list ASAP
       JimH: Eric M. - hard to discuss this as batch mail on this one. 
       JimH: JimH - please suggest these as agenda items...
       JimH: 4==============4 - next for us
       JimH: discuss what are our WG outcomes to be, roughly when and 
how will we get there
*** Signoff: pfps (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
       JimH: We need to produce spec/software/test cases/support examples/etc.
       JimH: JEremy: discuss early helps w/implement
       JimH: Pat - in many cases some of the issues in the documents 
overlap/impinge - how we will deal w/that
       JimH: example - layering
       JimH: how to create/coordinate is an issue - little discussion
       JimH: RESOLVED: Jim and Guus to create/approve methods
   timfinin: I have to leave for another meeting.  bye.
*** timfinin has left channel #webont.
       JimH: Jeremy: implicit breaking into subgroups w/email to everyone.
       JimH: Jeremy: we could be using email a lot more
       JimH: Eric: a lot of background knowledge needed for the group 
- seems like people cannot always see how things happen -- how do we 
do this.
        las: I need to leave too....dropping off the phone line, 
though I hope to monitor the irc....
       JimH: Sometimes we need to know what we are doing - changing 
D+O, breaking new ground, etc.
       JimH: Eric: again, can only make limited contribution to things 
sometimes.
       JimH: ACTION Jim/Guus will send to mailing list a proposed list 
of documents/approaches and ask people to express interests in 
particular w/respect to those issues.
       JimH: Please EMAIL AGENDA ITEMS FOR NEXT TIME TO GUUS/JIM
       JimH: Guus - next week we will discuss reqs and how they match 
w/current D+O -- we want to identify reqs that are not covered by D+O 
and D+O features not used in the Reqs.
       JimH: Guus - can discussion of layering please include other people.
       JimH: (i.e. be emailed)
       JimH: Jeremy sugests virtually all mail should be sent to the 
group - this seems to meet other people's approval
       JimH: RESOLVED: All groups working on WebOnt should try to have 
their discussion as open as possible.  Please make sure major 
versions are noted.
       JimH: Peter raises problem w/resolution -- not resolved.
       JimH: ADJOURNED
       JimH: =======================================
-- 
Prof. James Hendler		Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technology
301-405-2696 (phone)		Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab
301-405-8488 (fax)		University of Maryland
http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler	College Park, MD 20742
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2002 13:50:20 GMT

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