minutes for review: WebOnt April 18 Telecon

On Wed, 2002-04-17 at 07:02, Jim Hendler wrote:
> Apr 18, 2002


see log: http://www.w3.org/2002/04/18-webont-irc

> Chair: Hendler
> 1) Join call/attendance/admin (10 min)

19 Present:

- Jonathan Borden
- Jeremy Carroll, Hewlett Packard Company
- Dan Connolly, W3C *scribe
- Jonathan Dale, Fujitsu Limited
- Jos De Roo, Agfa-Gevaert N. V.
- Larry Eshelman, Philips Electronics N.V.
- Nicholas Gibbins, University of Southampton
- Pat Hayes
- James Hendler, Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab at the
University of Maryland *chair
- Ziv Hellman, Unicorn Solutions Inc.
- Libby Miller, University of Bristol
- Leo Obrst, MITRE
- Peter Patel-Schneider, Lucent Technologies
- Marwan Sabbouh, MITRE
- Michael Smith, Electronic Data System (EDS)
- John Stanton, Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA)
- Herman ter Horst, Philips Electronic N.V.
- Evan Wallace, National Institute of Standards and technology
- Christopher Welty, IBM Corporation


*ALT James Barnette, Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA)
     Stephen Buswell, Stilo Technology (intro)
     Dieter Fensel, Ibrow
     Jeff Heflin
     Deborah McGuinness, Stanford
     Guus Schreiber, Ibrow
*ALT D.C. De Roure, University of Southampton
     Tim Finin, University of Maryland MIND Laboratory
*ALT Natasha Kravtsova, Philips Electronic N.V.
     Said Tabet, Nisus, Inc.
     Shimizu Noboru, Interoperability Technology Association for
Information Processing, Japan (INTAP)
     Lynn Andrea Stein
     David Trastour, Hewlett Packard Company
     Frank van Harmelen, Ibrow


(perhaps I neglected to record some regrets
that were offered... not sure)

 *ALT Frederik Brysse, Ivis Group, Limited
      Mike Dean
      Stefan Decker, Stanford
      Bernard Horan Sun Microsystems, Inc.
      Ian Horrocks, Network Inference
      Francesco Iannuzzelli, Ivis Group Limited
 *ALT Mario Jeckle, Daimler Chrysler Research and Technology
      Ruediger Klein, Daimler Chrysler Research and Technology
      Ora Lassila, Nokia
 *ALT Alexander Maedche, Forschungszentrum Informatik (FZI)
      Enrico Motta, Ibrow
      Laurent Olivry EDF
      Martin Pike, Stilo Technology
 *ALT Michael Sintek, German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence
      Ned Smith, Intel
 *ALT Patrick Stickler, Nokia
      Lynne R. Thompson, Unisys Corporation
      Raphael Volz, Forschungszentrum Informatik (FZI)

> 2) ACTION item review
> >  ACTION (Mar 28) Chairs to clarify OWL naming problem


ACTION (Mar 28) DanC, Lynn Stein (prov.), Jos De Roo, to participate
 in RDF core discussions on construct for closed lists

CONTINUES, with apologies from DanC

> (April 9): chairs
> Send message to SWCG to the effect that, to achieve aims in charter,
> need a dark (unasserted) triple mechanism in RDF.
> http://www.w3.org/2002/04/09-webont-irc#T12-40-23


JimH: the decision about 'dark triples' at the ftf seems to be in doubt
in the email discussion...
... SEM has work to do here, but other groups TEST/LANG/GUIDE shouldn't
be blocked by this.

> ACTION (April 9): Frank van Harmelen with 
>    Mike Dean, Enrico Motta, Ziv Hellman, Raphael Volz,
> 		  Ian Horrocks and 
> Following polls on separation of language features between
> level 1 (OWL-lite) and level 2 (OWL-full), a group was constituted to
> revisit the level 1/2 conformance issue:
> http://www.w3.org/2002/04/09-webont-irc#T14-08-19


DONE (April 9): PeterPS + FrankVH + JeremyC write down a paragraph for
RDFCore w.r.t. these issues [1) LIST 2) DARK TRIPLES]

(Apr 9) issue drive process -- ACTION chairs + MikeS
DONE (see below)

> 2) Level 1/Level 2 (Frank v.H; 15 min)
>   status update, short discussion

===== 2. level 1/level 2 issue16:14:09 [DanCon]


# LANG: compliance levels Frank van Harmelen (Thu, Apr 18 2002)

JimH: I've asked Frank vH to estimate when a new proposal should be

JimH reviews status of this issue...

DanC: to me, it's not 'bad news' if level 2 disappears.

EvanW: I'm a little confused by references to 'framey stuff'; I thought
that had become a presentation syntax.

JimH: the presentation in frame notation is pushed to a presentation

JimH suggests Evan put his concerns in email; Evan agrees.

> 4) Test Issues (Jeremy C, 15 min)
> Discussion of proposal in email [1]: entitled
> Proposed test cases for qualified cardinality constraints
> (Webont, April 17)
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Apr/0126.html

PeterPS: it's not quite clear that we decided to drop *Q at the ftf.

JimH: I guess we got close, but it wasn't a recorded decision.

EvanW asks for and gets clarification: approval of test cases is done by
the WG as a whole; e.g. in a telcon/ftf.

MikeS: let's keep issue-related tests correlated to the issues list.

JimH: is ok to make decisions without clear notice in the agenda? DanC:

[postscript: the reference above from the agenda is clear enough
notice, to me]

re Jeremy's proposal to drop qualified cardinality constraints, JimH
doesn't think we're ready to decide just now.

Jeremy: this is 3.2 in the issues list (@@pointer)

ACTION: DanC to arrange a test repository on the http://www.w3.org site

DanC notes this is already in progress:
  just neads README, link to/from WG home page.

ACTION: Dan Connolly to arrange direct CVS access for appropriate
members [Jeremy, JosD] of the test focus area to that repository.

PROPOSED: the WG assigns to the test focus area responsibility for
maintaining the approved test cases in light of future changes made to
OWL by the WG (for example, the assignment of an appropriate namespace).

DanC wonders about the accountability of 'the test focus area'; that's
DanC/Jeremy/Jos, yes?

JosD: there were 6 volunteers for test.

PROPOSED: the WG assigns to Jeremy and the test focus area
responsibility for maintaining the approved test cases in light of
future changes made to OWL by the WG (for example, the assignment of an
appropriate namespace).

ACTION Jeremy [subsequently clarified]: to notify the WG that issue
	is now open; to propose to close it by
	removing qualified restrictions from the language

> 3) Issues list (Hendler, 45 min)
> Mike Smith to present current issue list.
> Discussion of Mechanism for adding issues
> Discussion of issues to add.

16 April 2002

MikeS: I've only added 3 issues [since the ftf version <= 1Apr]

JimH: I'd like to be clear about using the issues list to drive our

Jeremy explains how RDF Core works... issue list is a TODO list; when
the WG closes all the issues, we're done (modulo editorial work).

Jeremy: I'm not exactly sure how stuff gets on the issues list. Chair
seems to add stuff in response to comments to www-rdf-comments.

Jeremy: issues have a clear status:
  open: we're discussing it.
  closed: we've decided.
  raised: we acknowledge it's an issue, but we're not discussing it yet.

Jeremy: part of the discipline is to talk about just the open issues,
not the closed nor only raised stuff.

Jeremy: mail messages and agenda items often carry issue names.
... which makes it easy for me to, e.g., follow I18N issues.

Jos/DanC: when an issue is opened, someone is [usually?] designated the

PatH: the RDFCore chair is fairly liberal in accepting issues, but also
pretty liberal in dispatching them. issues might be 'need more
documentation on X'. This gives confidence that when you're done with
the issues, you're really done.

PatH: there's also the business of going back to the party who raised
the issue and saying 'this is what we decided; ok?'

JimH: so... does this sound workable?

PeterPS: for this issue-driven model to work, we need a starting point
[status quo].... DAML+OIL as submitted?

(general agreement)

[... some discussion of size/shape/smell of issues...]

[... discussion of the fairly high, but not impossibly high, bar for
re-opening an issue...]

[several]: yes, let's do a call for issues on DAML+OIL. lasting about 2
weeks. JimH offers to do the call16:58:02 [DanCon]

after consideration, public call for issues should maybe postponed to
publication of 1st WG

Jeremy points out the importance of being able to link to issues.


MikeS: I need to fix some of the #fragIds

Jeremy: yes; let's open qualified restrictions issue.

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#unmentioned-qualified-restrictions is open as of Jeremy's ACTION above.

JimH: ok to leave process for raising issues raising issue informal for

[several]: yes

ACTION MikeS: send to chairs how you'd like issue raised
then chairs to review and send to group; then issues list will
incorporate this process description.

> 4) A.O,B.

==== ftf record

for review:

JosD, Jeremy have looked at it; endorse it.

ACTION JimH: provide roll call data.

NOTE WELL: comments on the meeting record are due by next week's telcon,
as the WG owes the membership (and the world) an approved record
of our meeting within 2 weeks of when it happened.

"The following table lists requirements for organizing a meeting:
Minutes available (after) two weeks"

> - April 25 scribe

not decided.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 14:27:35 UTC