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

Minutes telcon May 1, 2003

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 01 May 2003 16:51:32 -0500
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1051825892.10809.111.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Thu, 2003-05-01 at 10:11, Jim Hendler wrote:
> May 1, 2003
> 1200 US East Coast
> 0900 US West Coast
> 1700 London
> Duration: 60-90 minutes

> Simultaneous IRC Chat
> irc:irc.w3.org (port 6665)
> #webont

log: http://www.w3.org/2003/05/01-webont-irc

> Chair: Hendler

Scribe: Connolly

> 1) ADMIN (15-20 min)
> 1.1 Roll call

        -Mike Smith
regrets: DeRoo, Stanton, Sabbouh, Obrst, Carroll (in part)
 Patel-Schneider (post-hoc)

> 1.2 Minutes previous telecon
> Proposed to accept as a true record of the April 24,2003 telcon:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Apr/0165.html
> (plus addition of Leo Obrst in attendance)


> 1.3 Agenda amendments


> 1.4 Telecon schedule
> - next telecon:  May 8
> - scribe for May 8

Wallace to scribe 8May.

> 1.5 ACTION Item Review

> ACTION: Patel-Schneider to work on proof for issue 5.26 B1,B2
> (target completion date: not before May 1)


> ACTION Hendler Ask for some pre-LC comments to be resent.
> ACTION Jeff Heflin to add reference section to requirements document


> 2. Test document (10-15 min)

> ACTION IanH: report on running Lite tests (less datatypes) thru some
> implementation, e.g. racer

CONTINUES, though substantial progress reported:

From: Ian Horrocks (horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Tue, Apr 29 2003

RESOLVED to approve

RESOLVED to approve

RESOLVED to approve

jjc: pls unapprove cardinality/005
        so RESOLVED.

> status review from Jeremy, any requests he has for approval/deapproval
> 3. LC Comments (30-40 min)

> ACTION JJC: point the commentor at 4.x in the test doc and see if that
> satisfies the comment on reference.


> 3,1  add owl:Nothing to OWL Lite
> Proposal by Ian
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Apr/0191.html

see also:

changes in Moving owl:Nothing from DL to Lite Ian Horrocks (Mon, Apr 28

and on tests:

RESOLVED: to add owl:Nothing to owl lite
	Hayes abstaining
ACTION Dean/ref, Horrocks/semantics, Deb/overview, Connolly/test

> ACTION Guus: keep the commentor up to date on discussion of Nothing in
> Lite


> 3.2 qualified cardinality restrictions
> Timing issues brought up by Hendler
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Apr/0179.html
> Possible approach suggested by White/Horrocks
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Apr/0192.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Apr/0196.html
>   - reopen issue and close as Postponed
>   - add workaround discussion to ref (?), Guide (?)
>   - put idiom on OWL web site
>   - maybe release note on suggested handling (WG in critical path?)
> ACTION JJC: propose RDF/XML syntax


> ACTION PatH: propose RDF/XML syntax


> ACTION JJC: get real data about the complexity of italian banquet

WITHDRAWN (though it's still welcome)

JimH: doesn't look like something we can do without another last call.
... and in DAML it looks like there's not a lot of implementation 

IanH: oiled fully supports it
... which is, in a way, how we got here...

JimH: does that mean fact supports it? IanH: yes. JimH: ah.

JonB: I wonder if some parts of the community already thinks this is
part of OWL

DanC: example? "a baseball team has 9 players"?
that's not it...
"a baseball team has 9 players, 3 of whom are outfielders"

IanH: it's an expressivity change, because of [... details missed...]

DanC: we could talk about proposals to add it; I haven't seen a "soup to
nuts" proposal yet

JimH: proposals in email so far are not just "do what DAML did"

JonB: these *Q things have never been quite clear to me.

IanH: recent syntax proposals might make it easier to do...
JimH: we could reopen [this issue] and postpone it...
... and work on proposals after this version

PatH: keep in mind that if it's not in this version, it won't go out for
a long time

Guus: it does seem important, but it didn't come up in lots of DAML
apps, so perhaps not that important. Note we didn't do stuff like
defaults, which are also important...
... and note that someValuesFrom can help [?]
... personally, I'd like to see it in, but I see more reasons not to.

Jeremy: I'm sorta the other way around: I personally am still
comfortable leaving it out, but the arguments against putting it in
aren't compelling to me.
... what's going to slow us down is reasoning with individuals. [??] I
expect a non-trivial CR while the community learns to deal with it.

DanC: I don't like the idea of sorta tacking it on after, though I admit
that's possible. Let's decide to put it in or not...
... I think the case that they're needed is well made, but I'll need to
see text for the guide and implemented tests before I agree.

DanC: let's reopen the issue, in any case
JimH/Guus: we did that.


DanC: how many want to postpone? could we strawpoll?

Chris: I'm prepared to do the guide; how many implementors are there?
can we just ask them?

JimH: how many OK to postpone?
straw poll shows:
  yes: several
  no: several

JimH: FYI, I phoned Alan R (the commentor) about the time cost...
... he'd probably consider postponing (with acknowledgement that this is
important) acceptable

[... discussion of post-WG stuff... building user community, demand for
new features...]

GuusS: regarding the medical community, protoge supports the medical
community without QCRs, and would not like to add it

JimH: ... appleon toolkit... no QCRs... [?]

PatH: have they [protoge] decided *not* to have this?

DebM: yes; I went to a recent meeting.

DanC, suggested taking up Welty's offer to write guide text and perhaps
his "ask the implementors" suggestion

ACTION GuusS: write proposal to add QCRs to OWL, including text for the

ACTION JimH: notify the SemWeb CG that Richter's comment has introduced
a schedule risk

Path: which costs more, more tokens in the namespace or more complex
triple syntax?

DanC: what costs is changing the meaning of existing documents.

[... technical discussion, discussion of impact on NCI ontology... folks
that want this recorded in detail will please send mail...]

GuusS: so keep the existing thing, but add something more general too...
is that the way to go?
[... some support...]

IanH: in 0176, I gave a pretty detailed proposal...
Qualified Cardinality Restrictions
From: Ian Horrocks (horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Mon, Apr 28 2003

[...some support...]

> 4. Presentation Syntax Documents (5-10 min)
> status of current efforts?
> TR timing issues

Hori: current version is from end of March...

# Update: XML Presentation Syntax [draft for W3C Note] Masahiro Hori
(Thu, Mar 27 2003)
Guus: propose to publish
... with SOTD that says "updates expected"
RESOLVED to publish the 27Mar version
        Connolly, Hayes abstaining

ACTION Hori: deliver pubrules-happy draft
ACTION Connolly: publish XML syntax

> 5. RDF response (0-5 min)
> Reply from RDFCore on XMLLiiteral
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Apr/0031.html
> ACTION: Guus to prepare note to RDF regarding PFPS08 and its relation
> to the above resolution.


> ACTION DanC: try to develop test cases that clarify this XML literals
> stuff for WebOnt and RDFCore


> 6.0 Are datatypes correct in our docs? (5-10 min)
> COncern Raised by Dan COnnolly:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0005.html

> ACTION: DanC request review by internationalisation board of decision
> on datatypes.


ACTION: jjc change SHOULD to MUST for xsd:itneger and xsd:string

> 6.  A.O.B (0-5 min)

MikeS: pls help with
        on rdf:about="" and xml:base and all that

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 1 May 2003 17:51:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:52 UTC