W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > July 2003

RE: WOWG: minutes Jul 10 telecon

From: Smith, Michael K <michael.smith@eds.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 08:37:56 -0500
Message-ID: <87CE68334664A54C81F8DF312343A3FF0211168D@USPLM207>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
Cc: WebOnt WG <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

> ACTION MikeS to add new compoundkey issue
DONE

I had been waiting for minutes to point to.

> ACTION MikeSmith change closing text  to reflect iff => if
DONE

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] 
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 1:02 PM
To: Guus Schreiber
Cc: WebOnt WG
Subject: WOWG: minutes Jul 10 telecon



On Thu, 2003-07-10 at 08:20, Guus Schreiber wrote:
> AGENDA  Teleconference Web Ontology Working Group
> July 10, 2003, 1200 (East US), 0900 (West US). 1700 (London)
> Duration: 60-90 min
> 
> Bridge: +1.617.761.6200 passcode 9326#.
> IRC Chat: irc:irc.w3.org (port 6665), #webont

log: http://www.w3.org/2003/07/10-webont-irc

> Chair: Guus Schreiber
> Scribe: Dan Connolly
> 
> 
> 1. Administrivia
> 
> Role Call

present: Guus, DanC, Sandro, HermanT, Jeff_Heflin, MasahiroH, NickG,
ChrisW, IanH, PatH, Evan_Wallace, CharlesW, JosD

regrets: Sabbouh, alSafadi, finin, van Harmelen, Lassila,
  Borden, Euzenat, Bechhofer, Hendler, Carroll, [others?]

> Approve Minutes of Jul 3:
> IRC log: http://www.w3.org/2003/07/03-webont-irc
> [no minutes on WG list as yet]

RESOLVED to accept http://www.w3.org/2003/07/03-webont-irc
as a true record.

> Provisional telecon schedule for summer:
> 
> Jul 17    NO telecon
> Jul 24    telecon, chair Hendler, scribe TBD
> Jul 31    NO telecon
> Aug 7     telecon, chair Schreiber, scribe TBD
> Aug 14    NO telecon
> Aug 21    telecon, chair Hendler, scribe TBD

RESOLVED to meet next in two weeks, 24 July;
	Hendler to chair, Wallace to scribe.

> 2. LC comments
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/lc-status-report.html
> 
> Actions closed comments/issues:
> 
> ACTION jjc make sure test has owl:sameAs in Lite and no
owl:sameIndividualAs
> ACTION jjc Add owl:Thing = owl:Nothing test
> ACTION JJC update test document  to reflect iff => if

all 3 CONTINUED (nobody on the call could see any progress)

> ACTION MikeS to add new compoundkey issue

CONTINUES (we couldn't verify that it was done)

> ACTION MikeSmith change closing text  to reflect iff => if

CONTINUEs

> ACTION PFPS editorial change  to reflect iff => if

CONTINUES (some progress was reported, but not definitively)

> ACTION Guus: update reference  to reflect iff => if

DONE. no update is necessary.

> 3. unspecified domain,range in App. C of OWL Language Reference 31 March
> 2003
> ACTION: Mike Dean to respond.

WITHDRAWN; transferred to Guus.
ACTION Guus: propose response re domain, range in App. C...

> 12. Re: privacy in OWL
> ACTION: Jim to propose response

CONTINUES (some progress reported)

> 21. daml:item
> ACTION: Jim Hendler. Respond with pointer to Issue 2.5.

Guus: only documentation of daml:item in the daml spec is in an RDFS
comment... and it has a mistake.
        
Guus: I gave an example [work-around?]... JimH seems interested in
having that in reference.

DanC gives some history of daml:item... sorta below the radar...

jim's action is changed...

ACTION GuusS: add daml:item work-alike example to Ref
ACTION JimH: Respond to commentor noting new example in ref
        

> 22. RDFCore Comments on OWL Reference
> ACTION: Frank van Harmelen to respond to one open element (rdfs:Class
> vs. owl:Class)

WITHDRAWN; transferred to PatH

ACTION PatH: draft rationale for rdfs:Class vs. owl:Class situation
(less controversial than last time)

> 28. Non-global Keys
> ACTION: Jim Hendler to propose response.
> DONE

noted DONE.

> ACTION JimH To tell issue raiser about compound ket

CONTINUES (DanC thought he saw it, but couldn't confirm,
  perhaps due to list archive wierdness)

> 38. QA Review of owl-semantics
> 
> ACTION: Jeremy review proposed reply.

DONE.

> ACTION: All editors add link from their document to ALL others.

some of the docs seems to be done... except...

ACTION JJC: edit test to point to roadmap (continues)

ACTION Sandro: make sure reference roadmap gets updated

ACTION JeffH: send pointer to latest draft (including pointer to
roadmap)
[postscript: done:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jul/0095.html ]

Reply Karl Dubost:
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Jul/0012.html

Guus: oddly, sandro's msg doesn't show up in the archive
        
DanC: Karl: "OK. I agree with your answer, except for a detail."
        
Sandro: how about the editorial comment about informative vs. normative
in S&AS?
        
IanH: hmm... good question... I think that's done but I'll check...

ACTION IanH: follow up on normative/informative editorial comment from
Karl


> xx (new): Keck: ObjectProperty and DatatypeProperty
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Jul/0011.html

(JosD joined at this point)

Guus: his point that the names are bad is well-made
        
ChrisW: yes, confusion with rdfs's sense of "object" is a good point;
seems worth a note in Guide
        
Sandro: how about a comment in the owl RDF schema?
        
Guus: we don't have comments in the owl RDF schema
        
ACTION ChrisW: propose response re ObjectProperty and DatatypeProperty,
including note in Guide


> misc: ACTION DanC: send notice of RDF Core change to subClassOf

done:

  From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
  To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
  Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
  Subject: RDFCore changed rdfs:subClassOf from iff to if
  Date: 10 Jul 2003 11:00:19 -0500

DanC: [history of rdfs:subClassOf if vs. iff...]

Welty: did anybody see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jul/0087.html ?
[ChrisW] note it requires a minCardinality
        

IanH: how do you get the extensions lined up 'accidently'?
DanC: [ example using oneOf ...]
IanH: but oneOf isn't in RDFS...
DanC/PatH: see the example horst gave with rdf:type etc.

ACTION PatH: make sure S&AS is updated accordingly.
        

> 3. Discussion of Schedule and next steps
> 
> Web Based Strawpoll - DR or PR choices
> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/30310/

results: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/30310/CRorPR/results
(member-confidential)
        
(Mike Smith joined during this item)

Guus: summary: 18 responses.
  I think some folks weren't clear that if you prefer something, you can
also live with it

 for "move to PR", 3 preferred, 14 could live with it.
 for "short CR iff RDF not ready" 12 prefer, 9 can live with it. appears
Jeremy and Jeff cannot live with it
 for "Have a short CR irrespective of RDF Core" 2 prefer, 14 can live
with
 for "Have a long CR period" 0 prefer, 7 can live with
 for "Other - explained in comment field" 1, jjc, comment: gives exit
criteria; suggests CR should be as long as it takes to get those

IanH: this "short CR" idea... how short is short? who decides?

DanC: it's not really time that matters... it's implementation
  experience. The time period
  gives a deadline for reporting experience and and helps
  set expectations, but the end of the time period isn't a
  guarantee of advancement.

IanH: I think we have enough; I went to a recent conference with tons of
people converting

DanC: let's please look at the draft request for CR/PR...
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/rqim.html

IanH: there's a column missing for Sean's work with vampire
 it solved by far the biggest set of tests I've seen...
IanH: you could add Racer as a column

DanC: it would be nice if I had a report from the Racer folks about
which tests they pass

Guus: the questionairre seems to indicate that a short CR is in order.
DanC: so should we draft a request for CR?
Guus: yes, seems like a good idea. perhaps for the 24July agenda

Guus: some comments are awaiting ack... does that prevent CR?
DanC: no... if we say "are you satisfied?" and they don't reply after 7
days, they must not have cared that much

Guus: RDFCore reviewed WebOnt, we responded; do you expect that'll be
accepted?
PatH: I haven't seen anything that's likely to cause trouble, but I'm
not sure I've seen it all
JosD: I'm not comfortable on the rdfs:Class/owl:Class situation...
hmm...


> 4. Syntax issues
> 
> [agenda request from Jeremy]

not discussed.

> **** B1 B2 proof
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jun/0294
> This is ready for discussion I believe.
> 
> 
> **** no explicit type on bnodes
> (rdf:List)
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jun/0302
> 
> the proof on this one depends on owl:Things being identified with
> rdfs:Resource in OWL Full, and only a weaker result would hold if we
decide
> to resolve the semantic layering problem by dropping this identity.
> 
> 5. AOB

none.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 11 July 2003 09:38:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:01 GMT