- From: Christopher Welty <welty@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 17:21:56 -0400
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Chair: Guus Schreiber
Scribe: Chris Welty
1) Join call/attendance/admin (10 min)
- regrets: Dean, Finin, Gibbins, Hellman, Klein, McGuinness, Smith
(ChrisW regrets volunteering to scribe)
Guus will scribe the roll. Don't forget Darth Vader's presence. Next
time we should add Yoda in order to acheive "balance"
- ISWC / telecon Jun 13
Ian will provide a speakerphone for Jun 13th telecon. Roughly 10 people
to be at ISWC for that call, including chairs. They will likely be
intoxicated. DanC will chair the telecon, and produce an agenda. Dan
will not be intoxicated.
- WOWG schedule revision
2) ACTION item review
(chair, 10 min)
ACTION Connolly: to arrange direct CVS access for
appropriate members [Jeremy Carroll, Jos de Roo] of the test focus
area to that repository.
DanC: ToClass progress. ("ToClass" renamed "some")
ACTION Deborah McGuinness, Frank van Harmelen, Pat Hayes:
coedit level 1 document as draft to WG
In progress.
ACTION Jim Hendler - find editor for D+O document
???
ACTION Jon Borden to send email to RDF Core and WebOnt with DT review.
(action completed, need URIs for the log)
done
ACTION Dan Connolly - set up "vote" on name replacements for
hasClass/toClass (note: just a straw poll, not a binding WG vote)
in progress
ACTION Peter Patel-Schneider to send message to Webont mailing list
with latest version of abstract syntax/features document
done: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jun/0049.html
ACTION Heflin, DeRoos to review Full Feature Document
in progress. Heflin has sent comments.
ACTION: Patel-Schneider, Hendler, Volz to review Gibbins RDFS
document, Gibbins to send to RDFS comments thereafter.
in progress
ACTION Heflin to update requirements document by June 13; Welty,
Hellman to review.
in progress
ACTION: - Heflin, Carroll, Borden to review XML Presentation Syntax
document
in progress. JimH and DanC will review as well.
------------------
New Section - Issue action review
ISSUE ACTIONS (Mike Smith to edit into document)
Issue 4.5 Inverse of -- Dan Connolly resolution + amendment as logged
>(a) ISSUE InverseOf
>Proposed resolution by Dan Connoly:
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0264.html
At 5:47 PM -0400 6/4/02, Jim Hendler wrote:
>Issue 5.11
>b) ISSUE hasClass/ToClass-names
>DanC is issue owner
--------------
3) Multi-part agenda item -- ISSUE CLEANUP 1.1 - 3.4 (30 min, Hendler)
3a) Proposal to close issue 1.1 Variables
Issue: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#1.1-Variables
Proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jun/0006.html
Resolution: closed issue. None opposed.
3b) Proposal to close issue 2.1 URI naming of instances
Issue:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#2.1-URI-naming-of-instances
Proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0255.html
Status: No comments raised on mailing list
Discussion: danC thinks this is related to pointing to parts of an XML
Schema element. PFPS is "not unhappy" with the proposal. JeffH asked if
an update to requirements doc is needed, the answer seemed to be "no."
(JeffH undoubtedly "not unhappy" about that)
Resolution: closed issue. None opposed.
3c) Proposal to close issue 2.3 Adding Properties to Other Classes
Issue:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#2.3-Adding-Properties-to-Other-Classes
Proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0256.html
Status: Wording changes proposed by Jeff Heflin in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0268.html
New Proposal: CLOSE with amended wording (per Jeff msg):
Our Working group has decided to use RDF/XML as our exchange
framework and that the semantics of our documents will be carried by
the triple store corresponding to this document (see resolutions of
second face to face meeting). The basic RDF model [1] allows
documents to refer to and extend the resources defined in other
documents.
Discussion: DanC wanted a test case, for each feature there should be one.
Resolution: Closed issue. None opposed.
3d) Proposal to close issue 2.4 - Enumerated Classes (daml:oneOf)
issue:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#2.4-Enumerated-Classes
proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0257.html
Status: No discussion on WG.
Discussion: DanC opposed to closing issue. Ian expressed "no opinion" on
closing the issue, merely posted some information (see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jun/0016.html). Ian
will send a an example of what he meant for the benefit of smaller-brained
mammals. Dan will reconsider a test case posted by Jos.
Resolution: None. Issue still open.
3e) Proposal to close issue 3.1 - Local Restrictions
issue:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#3.1-Local-Restrictions
proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0259.html
status: No discussion on mailing list.
Discussion: DanC says this is necessary to meet the cardinality
requirement.
Resultion: closed. None opposed.
3f) Proposal to eradicate issue 3.3 (Daml:DisjointFrom) from issues list
Issue: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#3.3-DisjointFrom
Proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0261.html
Status:
Mike Dean has suggested a change, and closing text in:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0262.html
New proposal: CLOSE with Mike Dean's wording
Discussion: DanC wants a test case for all features. PFPS doesn't think
absence of test cases should interfere with closing an issue. DanC
disagrees, but not strongly enough to do the test case.
Resolution: closed. None opposed (strongly enough).
3g) Proposal to close issue 3.4 daml:UnambiguousProperty
Issue:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#3.4-UnambiguousProperty
proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0260.html
Status: DanC points out a missed fact:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0272.html
New proposal: CLOSE with amended wording:
daml:UnambiguousProperty is motivated by the "cardinality
constraints" requirement in
http://www.w3.org/TR/webont-req/#section-requirements.
No one has advocated its removal and
there does seem to be consensus it is a desirable feature. It is
provided for in DAML+OIL and will be provided in OWL.
Discussion: DanC thinks related to the cardinality requirement. Needs to
be renamed. FrankvH offered to raise the renaming as a new issue. DanC
believed more expedient to add renaming as part of the issue.
Resolution: Issue left open. FrankvH to own issue and add a discussion of
renaming.
4) Proposal to POSTPONE issue 4.8 Trust and Ontology
Issue:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#4.8-Trust-and-Ontology
Proposal: This issue was raised by a comment to public-webont-comments:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2002Apr/0005.html
The issue is an important one, but beyond the scope of this WG.
Someone should take the ACTION to write this up for the issues
document.
Discussion: Issue needs an owner. Jim responded to the outside poster
citing wording in the requirements document that this is important, but
outside our scope. DanC was happy with this. What trust means was
discussed briefly. Most agreed it was out of scope. Evan and Laurent
objected initially to closing the issue. Evan thought there are some
important issues regarding trust we should allow in the language. JimH
said that the languages allows for "tags it doesn't understand" and that
groups of users can agree amongst themselves to use certain tags to
represent trust, since RDF lets us refer to expressions themselves and say
things about them. Laurent raised, I believe, the idea of confidence
values as a part of the language. Jim seemed to convince him that "saying
things about ontologies" was enough, or that more was outside our scope.
Resolution: closed issue. JimH will own it. None opposed.
5) Document Review (10 min)
Updates/Reports on any of the pending documents:
Compliance Level 1 (Frank vH - regrets from Deb M.)
Discussion: FrankvH would like to have a concrete proposal on the table
for the f2f to be voted on once and for all. DLM has extended the
document with a "bold" proposal ("bold" believed not to refer to the font)
to add local ranges and cardinality. This pushes up the expressiveness
and thereby the complexity. Local ranges is still an open issue for the
full language, however. DanC thinks local ranges key for level 1, but not
cardinality, for "his applications". JimH thinks card. is important for
medical domain - "they want the medical equivalent of saying a baseball
team has nine players." Whether level 1 description should be a separate
document or part of the full language description was also discussed. JimH
believe strongly that it should be separate, since the reason for a level
1 is to make it possible to come into OWL quickly and easily. PFPS stated
dramatically that having a second document destroyed the purpose of
compliance level 1, which is to make implementors lives easier. Ian
concurred. Their point seemed to be that implementors are different from
users in that they don't need a simpler "nice and easy" document. This
raised the issue of who the document is for, implementors (who, while not
smart enough to implement the full language, are smart enough to read only
a subset of a large document and implement it) or users (who are not smart
enough to be able to read only a subset of a document).
Resolution: none.
[At this point the scribe had to leave on urgent business critical to the
survival of our universe as we know it]
[subsequent scribe should have these: ]
OWL V 1.0 Reference (Jim H.)
OWL Full Feature Syntax (Peter P-S)
UML presentation Syntax (Guus)
XML presentation Syntax (Peter P-S)
6) Reponse to DT document from RDF Core/CG (5 min)
summary: RDF Core likely to consider at f2f in Bristol, CG to take
no action before then.
7) A.O.B.
- scribe for June 13 (or cancellation of meeting)
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2002 17:22:34 UTC