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

Re: notes for 6/6 until 1:10

From: Leo Obrst <lobrst@mitre.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 20:39:01 -0400
Message-ID: <3D015225.63DB91EB@mitre.org>
To: Christopher Welty <welty@us.ibm.com>
CC: www-webont-wg@w3.org

Are you testing whether anyone reads these notes or not? Or is this
really what occurred? ;) A thankless jobs needs must have some humor.

Christopher Welty wrote:
> Chair: Guus Schreiber
> Scribe:  Chris Welty
> 1) Join call/attendance/admin (10 min)
> - regrets: Dean, Finin, Gibbins, Hellman, Klein, McGuinness, Smith
> (ChrisW regrets volunteering to scribe)
> Guus will scribe the roll.  Don't forget Darth Vader's presence.  Next
> time we should add Yoda in order to acheive "balance"
> - ISWC / telecon Jun 13
> Ian will provide a speakerphone for Jun 13th telecon.  Roughly 10 people
> to be at ISWC for that call, including chairs.  They will likely be
> intoxicated.  DanC will chair the telecon, and produce an agenda.  Dan
> will not be intoxicated.
> - WOWG schedule revision
> 2) ACTION item review
>     (chair, 10 min)
> ACTION Connolly: to arrange direct CVS access for
> appropriate members [Jeremy Carroll, Jos de Roo] of the test focus
> area to that repository.
> DanC: ToClass progress.  ("ToClass" renamed "some")
> ACTION Deborah McGuinness, Frank van Harmelen, Pat Hayes:
>          coedit level 1 document as draft to WG
> In progress.
> ACTION Jim Hendler - find editor for D+O document
> ???
> ACTION Jon Borden to send email to RDF Core and WebOnt with DT review.
>    (action completed, need URIs for the log)
> done
> ACTION Dan Connolly - set up "vote" on name replacements for
> hasClass/toClass (note: just a straw poll, not a binding WG vote)
> in progress
> ACTION Peter Patel-Schneider to send message to Webont mailing list
> with latest version of abstract syntax/features document
> done: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jun/0049.html
> ACTION  Heflin, DeRoos to review Full Feature Document
> in progress.  Heflin has sent comments.
> ACTION: Patel-Schneider, Hendler, Volz to review Gibbins RDFS
> document, Gibbins to send to RDFS comments thereafter.
> in progress
> ACTION Heflin to update requirements document by June 13; Welty,
> Hellman to review.
> in progress
> ACTION: - Heflin, Carroll, Borden to review XML Presentation Syntax
> document
> in progress.  JimH and DanC will review as well.
> ------------------
> New Section - Issue action review
> ISSUE ACTIONS (Mike Smith to edit into document)
>   Issue 4.5 Inverse of -- Dan Connolly resolution + amendment as logged
> >(a) ISSUE InverseOf
> >Proposed resolution by Dan Connoly:
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0264.html
> At 5:47 PM -0400 6/4/02, Jim Hendler wrote:
> >Issue 5.11
> >b) ISSUE hasClass/ToClass-names
> >DanC is issue owner
> --------------
> 3) Multi-part agenda item -- ISSUE CLEANUP 1.1 - 3.4 (30 min, Hendler)
> 3a) Proposal to close issue 1.1 Variables
> Issue: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#1.1-Variables
> Proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jun/0006.html
> Resolution: closed issue.  None opposed.
> 3b) Proposal to close issue 2.1 URI naming of instances
> Issue:
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#2.1-URI-naming-of-instances
> Proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0255.html
> Status: No comments raised on mailing list
> Discussion: danC thinks this is related to pointing to parts of an XML
> Schema element.  PFPS is "not unhappy" with the proposal.  JeffH asked if
> an update to requirements doc is needed, the answer seemed to be "no."
> (JeffH undoubtedly "not unhappy" about that)
> Resolution: closed issue.  None opposed.
> 3c) Proposal to close issue 2.3 Adding Properties to Other Classes
> Issue:
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#2.3-Adding-Properties-to-Other-Classes
> Proposal:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0256.html
> Status: Wording changes proposed by Jeff Heflin in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0268.html
> New Proposal: CLOSE with amended wording (per Jeff msg):
>   Our Working group has decided to use RDF/XML as our exchange
> framework and that the semantics of our documents will be carried by
> the triple store corresponding to this document (see resolutions of
> second face to face meeting). The basic RDF model [1] allows
> documents to refer to and extend the resources defined in other
> documents.
> Discussion: DanC wanted a test case, for each feature there should be one.
> Resolution: Closed issue.  None opposed.
> 3d) Proposal to close issue 2.4 - Enumerated Classes (daml:oneOf)
> issue:
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#2.4-Enumerated-Classes
> proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0257.html
> Status: No discussion on WG.
> Discussion: DanC opposed to closing issue.  Ian expressed "no opinion" on
> closing the issue, merely posted some information (see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jun/0016.html).  Ian
> will send a an example of what he meant for the benefit of smaller-brained
> mammals.  Dan will reconsider a test case posted by Jos.
> Resolution: None.  Issue still open.
> 3e) Proposal to close issue 3.1 - Local Restrictions
> issue:
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#3.1-Local-Restrictions
> proposal:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0259.html
> status: No discussion on mailing list.
> Discussion: DanC says this is necessary to meet the cardinality
> requirement.
> Resultion: closed.  None opposed.
> 3f) Proposal to eradicate issue 3.3 (Daml:DisjointFrom) from issues list
> Issue: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#3.3-DisjointFrom
> Proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0261.html
> Status:
> Mike Dean has suggested a change, and closing text in:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0262.html
> New proposal: CLOSE with Mike Dean's wording
> Discussion: DanC wants a test case for all features.  PFPS doesn't think
> absence of test cases should interfere with closing an issue.  DanC
> disagrees, but not strongly enough to do the test case.
> Resolution: closed.  None opposed (strongly enough).
> 3g) Proposal to close issue 3.4 daml:UnambiguousProperty
> Issue:
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#3.4-UnambiguousProperty
> proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0260.html
> Status: DanC points out a missed fact:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0272.html
> New proposal: CLOSE with amended wording:
>    daml:UnambiguousProperty is motivated by the "cardinality
> constraints" requirement in
> http://www.w3.org/TR/webont-req/#section-requirements.
> No one has advocated its removal and
> there does seem to be consensus it is a desirable feature.  It is
> provided for in DAML+OIL and will be provided in OWL.
> Discussion: DanC thinks related to the cardinality requirement.  Needs to
> be renamed.  FrankvH offered to raise the renaming as a new issue. DanC
> believed more expedient to add renaming as part of the issue.
> Resolution: Issue left open.  FrankvH to own issue and add a discussion of
> renaming.
> 4) Proposal to POSTPONE issue 4.8 Trust and Ontology
> Issue:
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#4.8-Trust-and-Ontology
> Proposal: This issue was raised by a comment to public-webont-comments:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2002Apr/0005.html
> The issue is an important one, but beyond the scope of this WG.
> Someone should take the ACTION to write this up for the issues
> document.
> Discussion:  Issue needs an owner.  Jim responded to the outside poster
> citing wording in the requirements document that this is important, but
> outside our scope.  DanC was happy with this.  What trust means was
> discussed briefly.  Most agreed it was out of scope.  Evan and Laurent
> objected initially to closing the issue.  Evan thought there are some
> important issues regarding trust we should allow in the language.  JimH
> said that the languages allows for "tags it doesn't understand" and that
> groups of users can agree amongst themselves to use certain tags to
> represent trust, since RDF lets us refer to expressions themselves and say
> things about them.  Laurent raised, I believe, the idea of confidence
> values as a part of the language.  Jim seemed to convince him that "saying
> things about ontologies" was enough, or that more was outside our scope.
> Resolution: closed issue.  JimH will own it.  None opposed.
> 5) Document Review (10 min)
>    Updates/Reports on any of the pending documents:
>     Compliance Level 1 (Frank vH - regrets from Deb M.)
> Discussion: FrankvH would like to have a concrete proposal on the table
> for the f2f to be voted on once and for all.  DLM has extended the
> document with a "bold" proposal ("bold" believed not to refer to the font)
> to add local ranges and cardinality.  This pushes up the expressiveness
> and thereby the complexity.  Local ranges is still an open issue for the
> full language, however.  DanC thinks local ranges key for level 1, but not
> cardinality, for "his applications".  JimH thinks card. is important for
> medical domain - "they want the medical equivalent of saying a baseball
> team has nine players."  Whether level 1 description should be a separate
> document or part of the full language description was also discussed. JimH
> believe strongly that it should be separate, since the reason for a level
> 1 is to make it possible to come into OWL quickly and easily.  PFPS stated
> dramatically that having a second document destroyed the purpose of
> compliance level 1, which is to make implementors lives easier.  Ian
> concurred.  Their point seemed to be that implementors are different from
> users in that they don't need a simpler "nice and easy" document.  This
> raised the issue of who the document is for, implementors (who, while not
> smart enough to implement the full language, are smart enough to read only
> a subset of a large document and implement it) or users (who are not smart
> enough to be able to read only a subset of a document).
> Resolution: none.
> [At this point the scribe had to leave on urgent business critical to the
> survival of our universe as we know it]
> [subsequent scribe should have these: ]
>     OWL V 1.0 Reference (Jim H.)
>     OWL Full Feature Syntax (Peter P-S)
>     UML presentation Syntax (Guus)
>     XML presentation Syntax (Peter P-S)
> 6) Reponse to DT document from RDF Core/CG (5 min)
>   summary: RDF Core likely to consider at f2f in Bristol, CG to take
> no action before then.
> 7) A.O.B.
> - scribe for June 13 (or cancellation of meeting)

Dr. Leo Obrst		The MITRE Corporation
mailto:lobrst@mitre.org Intelligent Information Management/Exploitation
Voice: 703-883-6770	7515 Colshire Drive, M/S W640
Fax: 703-883-1379       McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA
Received on Friday, 7 June 2002 20:38:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:44 UTC