- From: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
- Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 19:24:01 -0400 (EDT)
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Minutes from Web Ontology working group telecon of
8 May 2003
as recorded by Evan Wallace
Executive Summary:
RESOLVED:
- Postpone the a full treatment of Qualified Cardinality
Restrictions.
NEW ACTIONS:
- Guus to ping Hori about pubrules testing of XML Syntax draft
- Jim Hendler, Sandro Hawke, and Pat Hayes to review test document.
- Jim Hendler to report back on implementation feedback.
- Peter Patel-Schneider to piddle with ontology name.
- Dan Connolly to create a test for this.
- Jim Hendler and Dan Connolly to compose a response to the LC comment on
local and compound keys.
- Peter Patel-Scheider to compose a response to Jeremy's technical
issue comment.
- Pat Hayes to discuss ramifications of removing type List triples
with S and AS co-editor.
- Guus Schreiber to discuss type List triples issue with Jeremy in
more detail.
- Guus Schreiber to let Brian McBride know that this issue is not
yet resolved in WebOnt.
------------------------
More detail:
>WEB ONTOLOGY WORKING GROUP
>AGENDA/LOGISTICS
>MAY 8, 2003
>
>1200 US East Coast
>0900 US West Coast
>1700 London
>
>Duration: 60-90 minutes
>
>PHONE INFORMATION
>To use Zakim:
>Dial +1.617.761.6200
>At the "enter your passcode followed by the pound key" message,
>enter 9326#.
>
>CHAT INFO
>Simultaneous IRC Chat
>irc:irc.w3.org (port 6665)
>#webont
>
>Chair: Schreiber
>Scribe: Wallace
>
>1. ADMIN (15 min)
>
>1.1 Roll call
Herman ter Horst, Ian Horrocks, Guus Schrieber, Jim Hendler, Sandro
Hawke, Evan Wallace, Peter Patel-Schneider, Dan Connolly, Pat Hayes,
Charles White, Tim Finin, Jean-Francois Baget, Yasser Alsafadi, Jeff
Heflin, Jos De Roo, Mike Smith, Ziv Helman (late)
Regrets: Jeremy Carroll, Deborah McGuinness, Sean Bechhofer,
Marwan Sabbouh, Nicholas Gibbons, Leo Obrst, and Lynn Thompson
>
>1.2 Minutes previous telecon
>
>Proposed to accept as a true record of the May 1 telcon:
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0017.html
Evan seconded, so RESOLVED.
>1.3 Agenda amendments
>
No new items. Some items affected by Jeremy Carroll's suggestions in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0092.html.
Most significantly, Jeremy suggested postponing 4.2 Reply to RDFCore
on XMLLiteral to next telecon, and Pat agreed that this was a good
idea. 4.2 was not addressed during this telecon.
>1.4 Telecon schedule
>
>- next telecon: May 15
- scribe for May 15 - Jeremy Carroll
>
>1.5 ACTION Item Review
>
>ACTION: Patel-Schneider to work on proof for issue 5.26 B1,B2
Peter no longer prepared to specify a completion date.
CONTINUED
>ACTION JJC: point the commentor at 4.x in the test doc and see if that
>satisfies the comment on reference.
>DONE
>ACTION Dean/ref, Horrocks/semantics, Deb/overview, Connolly/test
>update owl:Nothing
ALL COMPLETE
>ACTION Guus: keep the commentor up to date on discussion of Nothing in
>Lite
DONE
>ACTION JimH: notify the SemWeb CG that Rector's comment has introduced
>a schedule risk
CONTINUED
>ACTION Hori: deliver pubrules-happy draft
CONTINUED
new ACTION Guus: ping Hori about this
>ACTION Connolly: publish XML syntax
CONTINUED
2. TEST DOCUMENT (5-10 min)
>Test status:
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0066.html
>
>- plan reviews LC draft
Test document discussed and referenced in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0079.html
Guus asked for volunteers.
Jim Hendler, Sandro Hawke, and Pat Hayes.
new ACTION Hendler, Hawke, Hayes: review test document
Ian - finds the naming convention difficult.
JimH - Publication moratorium may delay release until after the World
Wide Web Conference.
>ACTION IanH: report on running Lite tests (less datatypes) thru some
>implementation, e.g. racer
Progress:
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0069.html
CONTINUED
>ACTION: jjc change SHOULD to MUST for xsd:integer and xsd:string
CONTINUED
new ACTION: Jim Hendler report back about implementation feedback.
Request for this information was in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0054.html
Ian summarized status of Protege (http://protege.stanford.edu) wrt OWL
as learned from a recent visit of Protege implementers:
Commited to implementing OWL. Development already underway. Now
think 95% of users will be happy with OWL DL. Now prepared to do
CardinalityQ if the wg decides to add it.
>3. LC COMMENTS (30-45 min)
>
>3.1 qualified cardinlity restrictions
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Apr/0040.html
>
>ACTION GuusS: write proposal to add QCRs to OWL, including text for the
>guide.
>DONE: Proposal to POSTPONE:
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0072.html
Dan Connolly took temporary chair duty so that Guus could advocate a
position on this issue.
Pat Hayes spoke in favor of adding qualified cardinality restrictions.
Indicating that the case made for the language feature was strong.
Straw poll:
Postpone or Add
Add
Hayes, Wallace, Finin, ter Horst, !,
Postpone,
Hendler, Guss, Peter, De Roo, Connolly , Heflin, !, !
Can't live with adding
Hendler,
Can't live with Postponing
none
Dan as chair put the question as proposed in Guus' email #0072. Hendler
Seconded.
The proposal, excerpted from the email, reads:
I'm proposing to POSTPONE this issue for the following reasons:
1. OWL already contains one QCR construct: owl:someValuesFrom (QCR
with minimal cardinality of 1) which covers some
frequent-occurring cases of QCRs.
2. There are some workarounds for QCRs, using the
rdfs:subPropertyOf construct. These can be used in simple cases,
such as the example in the Guide below. The WG agrees that these
workarounds are more problematic for complex part-of relations
such as pointed out by Alan Rector in his use cases a) and b).[4]
3. The evidence on whether users need this is mixed. Rector's use cases
are compelling, but Protege (which has a large user community) has
not reported user requests for this feature.
4. Inclusion of this feature will put additional burden on
implementations. For example, it is nontrivial to add this to
Protege.
The Working Group therefore POSTPONES the full treatment of QCRs,
while considering possibilities for making idioms or other guidelines
for QCRs available to the community.
Opposed:
Pat Hayes, Yasser
Because of member questions about the interpretation of a no vote, a
role call vote (based on the attendance list) on this proposal was
held. The results are shown below.
Herman ter Horst Philips abstain
Ian Horrocks Network Inference abstain
Guus Schrieber lbrow yes
Jim Hendler UMD MINDlab yes
Peter Patel-Schneider Lucent yes
Dan Connolly W3C yes
Pat Hayes invited expert abstain
Evan Wallace NIST abstain
Jean-Francios INRIA abstain
Jeff Heflin invited expert yes
Ziv Helman Unicorn Solutions Inc. yes
Jos De Roo Agfa-Gevaert N. V. yes
Mike Smith EDS yes
Totals:
yes - 8,
no - 0,
abstain - 5.
RESOLVED as proposed.
>3.2 use of xml:base
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0008.html
>
>Question Smith:
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0008.html
>Suggestion Carroll:
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0021.html
Mike Smith - Not completely resolved. about = foo interacts with
xmlbase how? S and AS seems slightly simpler.
Dan - important that we don't add anything to how xml and rdf
does this.
Peter - an abstract syntax ontology could have at most one name.
Peter - a mapping from name to ontology. When you write ontology:foo
junk that is the foo ontology. There is no other mechanism for naming
an ontology. You can't use sameAs on the ontology in the abstract
syntax.
Mike - the imports process occurs outside of the abstract syntax.
Peter - well ....
Mike - using the URI makes it concrete and causes confusion.
Pat - don't make it "the name."
Mike - <suggested text>
name of the ontology vs ontology id
new ACTION Peter - piddle with ontology name
Jeremy's note provides suggested methodology
new ACTION Dan - create a test for this
>Mike Smith departs the call<
>3.3 simple and compound keys
[ekw - simple, local, and compound keys]
>Proposed response Horrocks:
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0065.html
>Comments Hendler:
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0074.html
Ian's response:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0085.html
Ian - we can't express local, and compound
new ACTION - Jim Hendler and Dan to compose a response and mail to list.
Dan - three issues:
1 has exactly one - asked and answered,
2 Qualified cardinality,
3 compound keys not yet covered by an issue
Hard to add compound without adding syntax.
Should not come up in next agenda.
out of band from JimH:
Last call closes tomorrow.
>JimH leaves telecon<
>3.4 RDFCore review of Reference
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003May/0004.html
Guus - RDF literal is mentioned in our (at least ref) documents as a
datatype. We in our documents list RDFLiteral as a possible datatype.
This is actually the class of all literal values.
Pat - If its included we would have to define its lexical value
space and lexical value mapping.
Peter and Pat discussed this and didn't agree on the above.
Documents should read "if you want to say this is a datatype you need to
say more" see Pat statement above.
Guus - need a volunteer to own a response to these comments.
Guus - should this be deleted. If so, will it then be inconsistent
with S and AS?
Peter - SandAS nowhere indicates that RDFS:Literal is a datatype
Guus - so it can be removed from Ref
Peter - We have a comment from Jeremy on a technical issue.
new ACTION Peter to send a message about possible remedies to Jeremy's
issue.
Guus to add a discussion of this to next telecon agenda.
>4. RDFCore LC (10-20 min)
>
>4.1 rdf:List redundant triples
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/thread.html
>
>Carroll's response: proposes to keep the "redundant" triples:
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0048.html
Pat and Peter disagree on the need for these triples.
Pat states that parsers don't need this. First, rest is enough to
recognize parsing context. [<-My words -ekw-]
Discussion about Jeremy's preference for everything typed.
Pat - if list syntax is disallowed, then isn't even this argument
spurious.
PPS - Disallowed vocabulary is within the abstract syntax only and
not in the translated triples.
Dan to PPS -
What is the cost of this change?
PPS - We can change the design in all kinds of ways. But if the wg
decides to accept this exact design change, the change to the document
will be small.
Dan proposes taking out the list label. Jos seconds.
Dan elaborates - TBL as an implementer asked why this is needed.
PPS - the costs of the change are higher than the document changes.
It leaves other design decisions based on this esthetic judgement in
question.
At 1:30 Guus proposes to extend the meeting ten minutes to resolve this.
No objection heard. [at least by scribe - ekw]
Straw poll
Take out requirement that the triples be present: Jos, Hayes, Connolly
Leave in requirement: PPS, Horrocks, Jean Paul, (Jeremy)
Cannot live with just take the triples out: PPS
PPS - I would fall back to the syntax as it was before making this
comprimise [with Jeremy's syntax change requests].
>Peter had to drop off at 1:35.<
Dan -
I hear Peter to indicate that this decision would reopen the OWL DL
syntax. I hereby request that the chairs consider reopening this issue.
new ACTION Pat - to discuss this with his coediter (Peter)
new ACTION Guus - to discuss this with Jeremy in more detail
new ACTION Guus - to let Brian McBride know that unfortunately this is
not resolved.
No other business, adjourned at 1:40 PM EST.
>4.2 Reply from RDFCore on XMLLiteral
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Apr/0031.html
>
>ACTION DanC: try to develop test cases that clarify this XML literals
>stuff for WebOnt and RDFCore
>
>ACTION: DanC request review by internationalisation board of decision
>on datatypes.
>
>
>6. A.O.B (0-5 min)
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 19:24:40 UTC