- From: Stefan Decker <stefan@db.stanford.edu>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 19:05:25 -0800
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Chair: Jim Hendler, Guus Schreiber
Scribe: Stefan Decker
Note: The discussion did not happen in the order presented herein.
Roll:
ACTION DanC: to send roll details.
Agenda
see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jan/0142.html
1) Administrativa (10 min, includes telecon greets and attendance)
JimH: More focused - phone call around action items
2) Action item status check/review (50 min)
Presentations:
Action: sending presentations to DanC: Done: IanH, GuusH, StefanD,
PeterH has made them available
Language Issues
pending: ACTION Stein: explain "many systems, including frame and oo
systems ...
pending: ACTION Jeffh: to bring implications of this use of subClassOf
to attn of RDF Core WG
pending: ACTION: JimH to state summary of decidability issue ...
???: Status: ACTION: Ian/Frank to come up w/an adjective to modify
"reasoner???
IP-Issue
done: Action IPSSUE Resolved: see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jan/0150.html
Documents:
pending: ACTION JeffH, Jonathan D., Rafael V.: to draft a requirements
document by end of Jan.
Use Cases required by early in the week starting Jan 28 in
format described in:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jan/0094.html
See: http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/owl for a draft
pending: Action: Leo (lead), Mike, Jonathan, Raphael will
update content interoperability
pending: Action: StefanD will update Web Services and sent of
Jeff (based on input from TimF)
in progress: Action: DanC/IanH/MikeD to measure DAML+OIL vs WebOnt
requirements: draft at: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/reqdo.html
pending: Action: DieterF, PeterPS, MikeS :Document about Language
Layering: early draft before Jan 31,draft till Feb 15
Language Layering document needs to list issues and
tradeoffs.
Language Layering document should come in several stages
1) email to group 2) document to link to, no review required 3) eventually
clean up, W3C Note
pending: Action: JimH: F2F Schedule proposal
3) Defaults discussion (20 min)
Consensus:
The minimum requirement for defaults is the definition of a
methodological guideline for users about how to handle defaults in OWL.
Received on Monday, 28 January 2002 22:05:00 UTC