ADMIN: minutes of Dec 19th telecon

Appended below. IRC log attached.
Minutes of WebOntology Working Group Teleconf 19th December 2002

Role Call:

Ian, JimH, Leo, Herman, John_Stanton, Jerome., MikeD, Ziv, DanC, JeffH, TimF, Peter_PS, McGuinness, Jos, Jeremy (late), Chris Welty (late), Marwan (late)

Regrets: Schreiber (others reported in WG archive)

Resolution and Action Summary

PROPOSAL to close datatype issue as per email (amended M. Dean)
Opposed: none
Abstain: DanC, JeffH, Dean, Hendler, Stanton, Hori

PROPOSAL to close XML presentation syntax (with action on Jerome to produce XSLT)
PeterPS's new mapping document (attachment):
Opposed: none
Abstentions: none

PROPOSAL to close Unique names assumption issue by postponing it and accepting 
DanC's language feature proposal
Opposed: none
Abstain: Ian, PeterPS, JeffH

ACTION (cont): Jonathon Borden to update media types document and pass to M Dean
for use in editing Reference Document.

ACTION (cont): Dan C take media type registration request to IETF.

ACTION (cont): DebMcG/Change feature doc in accordance with 5.19 resolution
(using MikeD's text)

ACTION (cont): DebMcG/Change features for three sublanguages

ACTION on MikeD to say why RDF datatype proposal is problematical for
us. To be done by Jan 9th F2f.

ACTION on PeterPS to bring XML presentation syntax up to date and forward to MikeD

ACTION on Jeff to update requirements doc to make Unique Names an
objective rather than a requirement.

ACTIONS on all other editors to amend their documents as appropriate.

ACTION on MikeD to write detailed proposal on Mime Type issue for Jan 2.

ACTION on JeffH: check postponed issues don't affect requirements doc
and that all requirements now met

Detailed Minutes

    1.2 Approval of Minutes of Dec 5 call

    PROPOSED to accept the following as a true record of the Dec 5

This should be:

Plus: regrets added for Leo Orbst

Proposed: JimH
Seconded: Dan C.
Objections: none

    1.3 Agenda Amendments

MikeD: Discuss closing of Versioning issue

    1.4   Telecon Schedule

No telecon 26th Dec.
Next telecon after that is: January 2
Scribe: TBD
DebMcG volunteered for Jan 16

    1.5  F2F Meeting Manchester

    Registration page:

    Local arrangements page:

Ian: now additional local arrangements info on page
DanC: Agenda for f2f?
JimH: will arrange next week with Guus
JimH: needs to hear immediately about any input
JimH: reviews to eds by Jan 2nd; frozen release for f2f by that date;
small final changes at f2f (except for any late additions); f2f will
focus on implementation and testing, and will involve other people
active in those areas.

    1.6 ACTION Review (10 min)

    ACTION:  Mike Smith to add Postponed Justification issue to issue list.


    ACTION: Jeremy to create text to use in place of PPS item 3 in resolution to
    Issue 5.8 on datatypes.


    ACTION: Dan C to to communicate with XML schema group about URIs for
    XML datatypes.


    ACTION: Jonathon Borden to update media types document and pass to M Dean
    for use in editing Reference Document.

Continued - MikeD waiting for updates from JB

    ACTION: Dan C take media type registration request to IETF.


    ACTION: Ian to write up an explanation of known characteristics
    for decision procedures for OWL Lite and OWL DL.


    ACTION: ChrisW will work on getting "The meaning of
    owl:ontology" explained better in Guide, other editors will see
    if their documents need changing (not obvious they do).


    ACTION: Jeremy to generate test Cases for 5.5. List Syntax or Semantics


    ACTION: DebMcG/Change feature doc in accordance with 5.19 resolution
    (using MikeD's text)


    ACTION: MikeDean/update reference appropriately for three

DONE - added overview and reference to Guide.

    ACTION: DebMcG/Change features for three sublanguages


    2. OPEN ISSUES (20 min)

    Link to issues list:

    [We have three open issues left]

    2.1 Issue 5.8 - Datatypes

    Proposal to close datatypes

JimH: proposal to close but DanC uncomfortable.

DanC: RDF datatype mech interaction with collection problem - doesn't
want users to have to write "cardinality 5 decimal" - works OK with
just "5".

Jos: Why not - its only to be written by machines

DanC: unacceptable complexity

MikeD: doing it once in ontology is least of problem

DanC: problem is in writing instance form

MikeD: agreed - people creating millions of instances

Jos: mixed feelings about using both at same time - nothing
conceptually wrong with typed literals

Ian: but users wont be typing in millions of instances.

JimH: specific issue is w.r.t. cardinalities. Feedback is that we will
get flawed ontologies. Will get so many errors we might as well accept
it in advance. PeterPS - problems?

PeterPS: In semantics for OWL need to specify mapping from literal to
integer - difficult and problematic.

DanC: Not consistent, but doesn't expect users to use RDF datatypes

JimH,PeterPS,DanC; problem is due to decisions of RDF core

JimH: Didn't understand problem

PeterPS: Asking for string to be a cardinality value. I.e, unicode
sequence for "1", possibly plus language tags.

DanC/JimH: Don't use language tags!

PeterPS: Semantics will need mapping from string!

JimH: OK - wont be formally correct without a lot of work. Can't we
use some black box like datavalues?

PeterPS: wont work

DanC: Let's not try to design it on phone - is there support for this design?

MikeD: Disingenuous to use RDF datatypes but NOT for one bit of our
languages where data values occur.

JimH: Straw poll
    Oppose current proposal?: DanC, JeffH, Helman
    Abstain: Leo
    In favour: PeterPS, Jeremy, Ian, Jos, ChrisW

JimH: PROPOSAL to close datatype issue as per email (amended M. Dean)
    Opposed: none
    Abstain: DanC, JeffH, Dean, Hendler, Stanton, Hori

JimH: Will someone take action to write up where our problem with RDF datatypes lies?

PeterPS: For what date?

JimH: RDF asked us to review several of their documents by mid Jan, i.e., within next few weeks.

PeterPS: Yes, if pointed at official review doc.

DanC: Nothing official until last call.

Jeremy: will send pointers

DanC: Please don't do that without chairs permission.

JimH: Not clear which is relevant doc.

DanC: Scattered in several docs; if MikeD will give examples of
problems, DanC will wrap up in a document.

JimH: ACTION on MikeD to say why RDF proposal is problematical for us. To
be done by Jan 9th F2f.

    2.2 Issue 5.17 - XML presentation syntax

    Proposal to close XML presentation syntax

    PeterPS's new mapping document (attachment):

JimH: Dec-0204 is latest proposal. Take PeterPS's proposal with
amendments and mapping to XML-RDF syntax to be produced as
non-normative appendix to reference doc.

DanC: PeterPS - any experiments on translating from XML presentation to RDF

PeterPS: should be easy - they are very close.

DanC: needs running code

JimH: you produce spec - I will produce code.

PeterPS: too busy in next couple of weeks.

DanC: should be easy in XSLT

JimH: student will do it in PERL - do we need more? (something on paper)

DanC: implementation report might do it but would prefer mapping in spec.

JimH: that would make it easier!

Jerome: any examples of ontologies in 2 forms?

PeterPS: nothing substantive

Jerome: will try it in XSLT at INRIA

JimH: note in appendix stating that implementation/mapping is required

DanC: Jerome's XSLT good enough for me

JimH: Straw poll - close as written up with action on Jerome to do

NO Objections.

PROPOSAL to close issue with action on Jerome to produce XSLT
  Opposed: none
  Abstentions: none

MikeD: what to write in reference doc?

DanC: put PeterPS's schema in doc with brief intro

PeterPS: may need a bit of fixing, e.g., re imports

JimH: ACTION on PeterPS to bring up to date and forward to MikeD

Marwan: Do we have XMLS for DL and Lite?

DanC: good idea

Jeremy: support - need to exercise DL and Lite

Dog: woof!, woof!

DanC,PeterPS: presentation syntax is only for DL/Lite

DanC: doesn't capture OWL full

JimH: let's move on - doc's must clarify what they cover and what they
don't; Jerome can look out for this in his work.

Jerome: should be 3 schemas

DanC: should be something in XSLT that picks up errors re Lite/DL/full

Jerome: start with single schema and then refine

Marwan: will also try to write schemas

    2.3  Issue 5.18 - Unique names assumption

    Proposal to close issue 5.18
    - based on DanC's message:
    -and Jos' second and test cases

JimH: propose to close by accepting

DanC: Anyone read yet? ChrisW? (no), PeterPS(?)

PeterPS: asking for oneOf with disjointness.

DanC: yes - called distinct.

PeterPS: same as covering constructor - combines multiple things (axioms
and constructors)

JimH: doesn't believe proposal undoes earlier decisions

MikeD: understands.

DebMcG: understands; action to add to documents

DanC: doesn't solve UN assumption

Jos: made namespace proposal but was rejected; this is simpler and
could be accepted.

JimH: problems? - can we close issue with this

DebMcG: doesn't solve problem

DanC: proposing to postpone UN issue.

ChrisW: why talk about it in guide?

DanC: this is the best we can do in response to user requirements.

JimH: move UN to objective and state that it is partly addressed by this.

JimH: Straw Poll - any opposed to this?

PeterPS: objects but wont vote against - it is same as disjoint covering.

Ian: still don't like it.

JimH: PROPOSAL to close issue by postponing it and accepting DanC's
language feature proposal

 Opposed: none
 Abstain: Ian, PeterPS, JeffH

DebMcG: Actions as result? Update ref, features, requirements, guide,
semantics and test docs.

ACTION on Jeff to update requirements doc to make UN an objective.

ACTIONS on all other editors to amend their documents as appropriate.

    3. Proposal to amend closing of issue 5.13 - Mime type  (10 min)

    Chair will entertain a motion to append closing of issue 5.13 with
    Mike Dean's proposal to have 3 subclasses of owl:ontology for the 
    language types:

JimH: possibility of accepting MikeD's solution as amendment to issue closure.

MikeD: add subClasses of owl:ontology to allow users to indicate level
that they are using: DL, full and Lite ontology

JimH: clean solution

DanC: why full?

MikeD: better to explicitly state and for later compatibility

DanC: objects - Lite subclass of DL subclass of full

ChrisW: why not just tags on ontology

DanC: needs to show up in RDF graph

JeffH: use properties?

MikeD: more writing

DanC: is a subclass relationship

PeterPS, ChrisW: it isn't a subclass relationship

DanC: every DL ontology is a full ontology!

PeterPS: no - didn't make ontologies classes of figure out what individuals are.

DanC: yes - ontology docs are instances of owl ontology

.... big argument about what it all means which I can't keep up with

JimH: purpose is that I want my reasoner to know if it can handle ontology

MikeD: would like to ask how many "full" ontologies are out there

JimH: could do it by asking for all those not Lite or DL

JeffH: With no tag, are they Lite DL or full?

Jeremy: Quite hard to be in DL space even if not using constructors

Ian: what about imports and mixing of docs?

Jeremy: could also get case where two Lite docs became full

JimH: no consensus. Go back to email discussion and come back with proposal on Jan 2.

ACTION on MikeD to write detailed proposal on this issue for Jan 2.

    4) DOCUMENT STATUS (30 min)

    Status update and discussion of any major changes pending for every document
    4.1 Requirements (Jeff)

JimH: Any changes
JeffH: Only minor changes; did we postpone R15 complex datatypes?
JimH/DanC: no - need to review
JimH: check all requirements to see they have been satisfied
JeffH: OK

ACTION on JeffH: check postponed issued don't affect requirements

    4.2 Guide (Chris for Mike S)

JimH: anything to do?
MS: Nothing to do 

    4.3 Features (Deb and/or Frank)

JimH: anything to do?
DebMcG: Nothing major

    4.4 Reference (Mike D.)

JimH: anything to do?  
MikeD: knows what needs doing. needs work re datatypes. still didn't 
discuss version info.
JimH: do we have consensus to remove version info?
DanC: prefer to leave in
Jos: prefer to leave in
JimH: probably have to leave in
JeffH: anyone else want to leave out?


    4.5 Semantics (PeterPS)
        Discussion of Jeremy's questions re: Semantics of Lite and DL

JimH: anything to do?  
PeterPS: addition of disjoint individual is major change
JimH/DanC: actions on all editors
PeterPS: stable modulo Jeremy's comments which were not understood
JimH: proposal for PeterPS and Jeremy to discuss after end of teleconf


    4.6 Test (Jeremy)
      Plan to release Test later than other documents

JimH: Haven't really given time to test. In OK shape, but maybe need
more checking before last call. Could use beginning of LC period to
work on test
Jeremy: coverage isn't adequate
JimH: need to go through test at f2f with invited experts
Jeremy: could use at least a day on that; hopes there will be more tests for f2f

    5) AOB (0-5 min.)

Ian: review of docs by ontoweb - will forward to list;
All: excellent
Ian: but it is work for us!
All: OK.

JimH: non editors will be expected to review docs

JimH: Adjourned - happy whatever to one and all.

Jos: Make sure you get your beer from TBL for closing all issues before Xmas!

JimH: Will push hard!

Received on Friday, 20 December 2002 04:29:47 UTC