ADMIN: Updated Minutes of July 25 Telecon

Updated to reflect 2 action item status changes:

1.2)  ACTION ITEM REVIEW
...
ACTION: Deb - add "property" to make sure we are using same terms.
STATUS: DONE
                  --------

ACTION: Deb to make sure names are same between her document and Mike's.

STATUS: DONE
                  --------

=====


MINUTES OF JULY 25 TELECON

Chair: Jim Hendler
Scribe: Leo Obrst

1. ADMIN:

1.1) ROLL CALL

Present:

Buswell
Carroll
Connolly
De Roo
De Roure
Dean
Finin
Gibbins
Heflin
Hellman
Hendler
Klein
Marchiori
McGuinness
Obrst
Patel-Schneider
Michael Smith
Stanton
Stein
Thompson

Regrets:

Jonathan Dale
Larry Eshelman
Pat Hayes
Libby Miller
Marwan Sabbouh
Guus Schrieber
Evan Wallace
Chris Welty


1.2) ACTION ITEM REVIEW

ACTION: DanC to raise an issue wrt rdfs:subclassof and
owl:subclassoff
STATUS: DONE

ACTION: Connoly to get the OK'd for the OWL URI by the W3C
webmaster/director;
STATUS: DONE

ACTION: Pat will attempt to take abstract syntax, and Peter's MT and
the mapping into RDF and will write a model theory in the Connolly
style (i.e. as an extension to RDF MT) and see if he can identify
the exact issues. Target deadline: three weeks (July 25). - change of
due date to Aug 1.
STATUS: CONTINUED

ACTION: Guus will generate a structure in which the examples should
appear by July 11. Done

This will also include one example.
Evan Wallace and Larry Eshelman: contribute examples
STATUS: CONTINUED

ACTION: Evan will writeup a description of a recent OMG meeting that
concerned UML and OWL, and the process he is running at OMG, and
will post that to the WG.
STATUS: CONTINUED

ACTION (all): send to WebOnt mailing list a short
description of the tools you have available.
or that you will use to help tools.
STATUS: WITHDRAWN

ACTION (Raphael): will make a large ontology available to test
readers.
STATUS: CONTINUED.

ACTION: Hendler produce test for issue 4.2
STATUS: CONTINUED

ACTION: ChrisW to propose resolution of 3.4 and 4.1
STATUS: CONTINUED

ACTION: connolly review abstract syntax
STATUS: DONE

ACTION: chairs - find photo of face to face example from the
discussion of model theory.
STATUS: CONTINUED

ACTION: Dan C. to work with Pat H to reconcile the issues of missing
discussion of model theory in the log
STATUS: CONTINUED

ACTION: Jim H will set up a straw poll based on the offers - this
will include choices of Dec/Jan and place
STATUS: CONTINUED

ACTION: Deb - add "property" to make sure we are using same terms.
STATUS: DONE

ACTION: Deb to make sure names are same between her document and Mike's.

STATUS: DONE

ACTION: DanC to review Deb's final edits of feature document.
STATUS: CONTINUED

ACTION: Mike will summarize changes in email to the list. (by next week)

STATUS: CONTINUED

ACTION: Peter - will review appendix C.
STATUS: DONE

ACTION: JimH to draft press release - solicits input ASAP from WG
members.
STATUS: WITHDRAWN. Maybe around next f2f. W3C needs 1 month notice.


1.3) FACE TO FACE UPDATES:

  f2f4  update (Jeremy)

Jeremy will give updates about hotels, etc. in 2 weeks.
Web page: Dan will coordinate. F2F host will put up local web page.

ACTION: Dan Connolly will set up F2F registering.
ACTION: Jeremy will put up a web page by next telecon.

  f2f5 update  (REMEMBER BIDS DUE BY THURS.)
    Bids: U. Manchester
          US NY region (IBM)
          US DC region (DARPA/UMCP/UMBC - not confirmed)
          US FL region (U W. Fl)
NEW:      US DC/Boston region (MITRE)
   straw poll to be held
    date: Mid Jan (poss late Dec)

Lynn: if we have 4 choices equally, would like to have eastern US as one
choice.
ACTION: Lynn and Dan to get on phone for details of straw poll.
Jeremy: alternate between Europe and US?
Jim: Jan is looking better than Dec. Will put on straw poll.

2) DOCUMENT UPDATE:
  Status of three WDs

   Features – Deb
Deb: Action from f2f, all other actions done, don’t want to drop section
2 (per Peter’s request), did some other reorganization that Peter had
requested.
All edits are final.
Formatting status: not validated fully yet.
Dan is allowed to do edit markup.


   Reference – Mike Dean
Mike: ready to publish. A few comments yet to address, no text for class
expressions. OWL link, examples. Latest RDF core decisions not yet made.

Dan: XML syntax?
Mike will leave these in. Maybe change to editorial note (Mike will do).

Mike: will do final edits, will be done in next day or so. Cross-links
not yet done, and status.


   Abst Syntax – Peter
Peter: No change since last Thurs. No IP policy yet for the WG (Dan will
do?) Any resolutions made today will be incorporated.
Dan: tomorrow is best guess for all 3 publications to be published.
ACTION: Dan will send mail to the WG when W3C publishes the documents.
ACTION: Jim will solicit reviews for appropriate working groups. By Aug.
15


    Process issues (if any) – Dan
Dan: has to point to patent disclosures, but since none yet, will point
to nothing, but make sure if you have a patent in the works, notify DAN.



3) PROPOSAL TO CLOSE ISSUES 3.4 AND 4.1
        (UniqueProperty and UnambiguousProperty)
      Welty

Proposal:
OWL FunctionalProperty
OWL InverseFunctionalProperty

Many: Welty’s proposal is good.
Jim: add 1-1 property?
Peter: later
Jim: straw poll: any objections? Mike: but can be 0-0 or 1-1.
Resolution: unanimous. Adopted Chris Welty’s proposal. So, will go with
what we have, not yet include 1-1.
STATUS: RESOLVED.

See Chris Welty’s proposals:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jul/0170.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jul/0169.html

See Mike Smith’s Issues document:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I3.4-UnambiguousProperty

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I4.1-UniqueProp-BadName

ACTION: Mike Smith will close this out.
Jim: someone has to do the TEST case.
ACTION: Jeremy to do TEST case.
ACTION: Deb, Mike, Peter to reflect this change in their documents,
prior to release.


4) PROPOSAL TO CLOSE ISSUE 2.4  (oneOf)

Ian was invited to discuss this, but nothing much showed up yet.
Deb: he is still working on this.
Dan: cardinality and oneOf interaction test case? Has anyone else seen
this?
Jeremy: has seen some, look hairy.
Jim: no one has suggested we don’t have oneOf. Should we remove? It’s
currently heavily used.

Straw Poll: No objections. No abstentions. PROPOSAL PASSES. Issue is
CLOSED.
STATUS: RESOLVED.

ACTION: Jim to write up a test case.

Should we have oneOf in OWL-Lite?
Jeremy: Feature vs. Issue driven test cases?
Dan: just use of oneOf. Entailment test.
Jeremy: test cases to be in a hierarchy structure? Prefer to see
feature-based test cases higher view.
Jim: today we are closing everything that could affect the 3 docs. Next
week, talk about next documents. August 15th: semantic issues. Probable
cancel of Aug. 8th.


5) PROPOSAL TO CLOSE ISSUE 4.6 (equivalentTo)

Jim: email looks like other opinions. Is there a consensus?
Peter: 2 issues: 1) same individual as  (2 names denote same) implies
same class as and same property as (follows RDF view). Same property
does not denote same individual.
Dan: doesn’t affect the documents.
ACTION: Peter will send out longer note and people to reply. Peter: by
next week.
ACTION: Jim will REMOVE proposal to close issue.

Class as instance discussion.
Peter: model theory has a weak view of class as instance.
Property defined-by attached to class. Average price property?
First is not a property of the extension.
Jim: can we close 4.6 because it’s subsumed by this issue (classes as
instances). No, so just leave separate.

6) OPENING OF ISSUE 5.20 (SHOULD OWL PROVIDE SYNONYMS FOR RDF
AND RDFS OBJECTS?)

Jim: opening this issue, discuss, get feedback, send to email.
Peter: nothing substantive; legalistic: D+O pulls into D+O namespace,
but RDF will not pull into the RDF/S namespace (but RDF/S does not have
capability).

OWL:PROPERTY: same denotation? RDFS:PROPERTY? Not to have the former in
the OWL namespace when they’re both equivalent.
Issue: will RDF tool understand what OWL:PROPERTY is?

Jim: at the last F2F, no resolution.
Namespace of the identifier should be the definitive identifier. If we
have a different model theory (different from RDF), then have a
different namespace (i.e., OWL namespace).
Do we need a separate model theory for OWL? Yes, for things not in the
other language. If we extend RDF/s, need to have a model theory for
this.
Much discussion.

7) AOB
   next telecon: Aug. 1
   next scribe: Mike Smith

Aug. 8 meeting: cancelled.



--
_____________________________________________
Dr. Leo Obrst  The MITRE Corporation
mailto:lobrst@mitre.org Intelligent Information Management/Exploitation
Voice: 703-883-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S W640
Fax: 703-883-1379       McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA

Received on Thursday, 25 July 2002 17:59:45 UTC