- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 18:19:52 +0000
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Minutes of WebOntology Working Group Teleconf 19th December 2002 ================================================================ Amended 21st December (Marwan -> M_Hori) ======================================== Role Call: Ian, JimH, Leo, Herman, John_Stanton, Jerome., MikeD, Ziv, DanC, JeffH, TimF, Peter_PS, McGuinness, Jos, Jeremy (late), Chris Welty (late), M_Hori (late) Regrets: Schreiber (others reported in WG archive) Resolution and Action Summary ============================= PROPOSAL to close datatype issue as per email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0196.html (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) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0204.html PeterPS's new mapping document (attachment): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0220.html Opposed: none Abstentions: none PROPOSAL to close Unique names assumption issue by postponing it and accepting DanC's language feature proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0124.html 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 telecon: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0106.html This should be: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0205.html 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: http://cgi.w3.org/Register/selectUser.pl?_w3c_meetingName=WebontManchester Local arrangements page: http://wonderweb.semanticweb.org/mcr-f2f.shtml 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. DONE ACTION: Jeremy to create text to use in place of PPS item 3 in resolution to Issue 5.8 on datatypes. DONE ACTION: Dan C to to communicate with XML schema group about URIs for XML datatypes. DONE 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. Continued ACTION: Ian to write up an explanation of known characteristics for decision procedures for OWL Lite and OWL DL. DONE 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). DONE ACTION: Jeremy to generate test Cases for 5.5. List Syntax or Semantics DONE ACTION: DebMcG/Change feature doc in accordance with 5.19 resolution (using MikeD's text) Continued ACTION: MikeDean/update reference appropriately for three sublanguages DONE - added overview and reference to Guide. ACTION: DebMcG/Change features for three sublanguages Continued 2. OPEN ISSUES (20 min) Link to issues list: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html [We have three open issues left] 2.1 Issue 5.8 - Datatypes Proposal to close datatypes http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0196.html 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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0196.html (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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0204.html PeterPS's new mapping document (attachment): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0220.html 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 XSLT. 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 M_Hori: 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 M_Hori: will also try to write schemas 2.3 Issue 5.18 - Unique names assumption Proposal to close issue 5.18 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0225.html - based on DanC's message: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0124.html -and Jos' second and test cases http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0229.html JimH: propose to close by accepting http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0124.html 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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0124.html 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: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0224.html 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? silence 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 Agreed 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 Saturday, 21 December 2002 13:20:11 UTC