- From: Leo Obrst <lobrst@mitre.org>
- Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 20:39:01 -0400
- To: Christopher Welty <welty@us.ibm.com>
- CC: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Are you testing whether anyone reads these notes or not? Or is this really what occurred? ;) A thankless jobs needs must have some humor. Christopher Welty wrote: > > 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) -- _____________________________________________ 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 Friday, 7 June 2002 20:38:50 UTC