- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 14:59:48 -0500
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Minutes of the WebOnt teleconf on 7 March 2002, 12:00 to 13:25 EST By Peter F. Patel-Schneider AGENDA at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Mar/0111.html ITEM 1) Join call/attendance/admin (10 min) ROLL CALL: ALT James Barnette Regrets Jonathan Borden Absent Einar Breen ALT Frederik Brysse YES Stephen Buswell YES Jeremy Carroll YES Dan Connolly Regrets Jonathan Dale YES Jos De Roo Regrets Mike Dean Absent Stefan Decker ALT D.C. DeRoure YES Larry Eshelman Absent Dieter Fensel Late Tim Finin Regrets Nicholas Gibbins Absent Patrick Hayes YES Jeff Heflin Late Ziv Hellman Regrets James Hendler YES Ian Horrocks Absent Oisen Hurley Regrets Francesco Iannuzzelli ALT Mario Jeckle YES Ruediger Klein ALT Michael Kohlhase ALT Natasha Kravtsova YES Ora Lassila ALT Alexander Maedche YES Deborah McGuinness YES Libby Miller Regrets Enrico Motta YES Leo Obrst Regrets Laurent Olivry YES Peter Patel-Schneider ALT Martin Pike Late Marwan Sabbouh YES Guus Schreiber Late Noboru Shimizu YES Michael Sintek YES Michael Smith ALT Ned Smith YES John Stanton YES Lynn Andrea Stein ALT Patrick Stickler Yes Said Tabet ALT Warner ten Kate YES Herman ter Horst Late Lynne R. Thompson YES David Trastour YES Frank van Harmelen Laxman Venigalla Late Raphael Volz YES Evan Wallace ACTION Chairs: update ftf schedule on group home page. CONTINUED: fix errors ACTION ALL: register for A'dam F2F meeting (also in case of regrets) at http://www.w3c.nl/WGs/webont.html CONTINUED: URGENT: only 16 registered as of noon EST only 24 registered as of 13:30 EST ACTION Dan Connolly: set up this mailing list DONE: ACTION on editors of reqdoc: include mailing list in doc DONE: by Dan Connolly ACTION on editors of reqdoc: verify W3C guidelines on syntax & structure DONE ACTION on Mike Smith: setup repository of "open issues" DONE ACTION ALL: register interest in focus groups: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Feb/0250.html CONTINUED: only 8 missing ACTION: Jeremy Carroll to propose labels for focus areas DONE ITEM 4) Format of discussions in focus areas (chair, 5 min) Proposal: - Each telecon will have agenda item for each area - Focus in each telecon on 1-2 areas (depending on issues arising) - Only additional telecons if absolutely needed, on ad-hoc basis. These will be open to all WOWG members Some discussion, particularly that telecons for the focus groups may allow better participation, but basically this was accepted as a way to go, at least for now. ITEM 2) LANG: OWL lite (van Harmelen, 30 min) Document: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/spool/OWL-first-sketch.html Topics: - short overview of the proposal, including rationale - Q&A session - discussion (only initial, bulk expected after telecon on mailing list) Frank van Harmelen presented the proposal. Discussion on what was hard / easy, what comes out of frames. ACTION Frank van Harmelen: initial proposal for frame part of language in 2 weeks ITEM 3) TEST: Introduction to the role of test cases (Carroll/De Roo, 20 min) Relevant input to the discussion about test cases at today's telecon is found in Jos's and Dan's recent messages: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Mar/0102.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Mar/0109.html Topics: - role of test cases in RDF (see the links provided by Carroll and De Roo) - discussion about role of test cases for OWL Discussion on what kinds of tests to use, what they are good for, and how to proceed. Sources of test suites: Deborah McGuinness - http://www.daml.org/ontologies/114 Ian Horrocks - FaCT tests Peter F. Patel-Schneider - CLASSIC - Systems that may want to try out test suites: FaCT, RACER, DLP, [Tim Finin?], [Dan Connolly], JTP ACTION Dan Connolly: produce several tests in DAML+OIL syntax ACTION Jos De Roo, Ian Horrocks, Deborah McGuinness, Tim Finin: run these tests ACTION Jeremy Carroll: look up different test suites and categorize ACTION Guus Schreiber: turn CM examples into tests Deadline for the above action items was not precisely given, but all agreed to aim to be done by next week. ACTION: John Stanton: report back on different kinds of tests (very short) - next week 5) A.O.B. (5 min) Agenda items for next week: SEMANTICS - layering possibilities - Peter Patel-Schneider (agreed) and Pat Hayes (will be contacted by Guus Schreiber) IRC Log: 16:01:04 <logger_2> logger_2 has joined #webont 16:01:04 <devlin.openprojects.net> Users on #webont: logger_2 @las 16:45:02 <connolly> connolly has joined #webont 16:45:16 <connolly> connolly has changed the topic to: WebOnt 7Mar 16:45:20 <connolly> connolly has changed the topic to: WebOnt 7Mar; scribe? 16:55:03 <IanHorrocks> IanHorrocks has joined #webont 16:58:33 <ora> ora has joined #webont 17:04:30 <pfps> pfps has joined #webont 17:04:41 <DeborahMc> DeborahMc has joined #webont 17:05:04 <libby> libby has joined #webont 17:05:37 <JosD> JosD has joined #webont 17:05:52 <connolly> * connolly finishes up some tech report publication business... 17:05:56 <connolly> connolly is now known as DanC 17:08:49 <DanC> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Mar/0111.html 17:08:49 <JosD> JosD has quit 17:09:16 <pfps> chat for now is open projects 17:09:19 <pfps> actions: 17:10:40 <DanC> 16 registered (+2 regrets) per http://www.cwi.nl/htbin/buro/W3Clijst 17:11:21 <DanC> done: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/ 17:12:17 <timfinin> timfinin has joined #webont 17:12:22 <las> * las hadn't realized that regrets were to register as well....apologies (and regrets, but those are registered formally). 17:12:54 <DanC> pfps, I gather you're scribing today? 17:13:22 <pfps> yes, but the actions are hard to scribe into the chat 17:13:41 <JosD> JosD has joined #webont 17:13:42 <pfps> meeting will be slightly out of order 17:13:43 <DanC> very well. I don't mind how you do it. I just wondered who was doing it. 17:14:42 <DanC> DanC has changed the topic to: WebOnt 7 Mar; chair: Guus; scribe: PeterPS. 17:15:35 <DanC> * DanC wonders who just joined 17:17:37 <pfps> focus groups and telecons 17:18:11 <pfps> lynn stein believes that focus groups with their own telecons will allow WG members 17:18:21 <pfps> to participate better in the areas that they are interested in 17:19:02 <DanC> note that W3C process requires 7 day notice of telcon times, meanwhile. 17:19:55 <pfps> Guus proposes to leave this issue as in the agenda 17:20:40 <pfps> Agenda item LANG OWL 17:22:07 <pfps> fvh: rationale for doing things as in the document: not to have to redo stuff 17:22:49 <pfps> fvh: logic vs ontology modelling language - so want lower entry cost 17:23:20 <pfps> fvh: proposal - keep axiomatic approach as basis 17:25:49 <pfps> fvh: proposal - add back in frame-like idiom (like in OIL) 17:26:11 <pfps> fvh: tests can be informal, then use frame syntax 17:26:26 <raphael> raphael has joined #webont 17:26:35 <pfps> fvh: semantics can use axiomatic part which will be like DAML+OIL ?? 17:26:46 <raphael> sorry for coming late. Raphael Volz (FZI) joined. 17:27:43 <pfps> fvh: ontology stuff is still open 17:27:58 <pfps> guus: what does easy mean? 17:28:43 <pfps> fvh: easy is what is listed for frame idiom 17:28:58 <DanC> for reference: "OWL Language features: general line of attack & a first sketch" -- http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/spool/OWL-first-sketch.html 17:29:01 <pfps> strike previous line 17:29:16 <pfps> fvh: frame idiom is what is listed 17:29:59 <pfps> fvh: easy is easy to write/comprehend 17:31:02 <pfps> fvh: easy - unambiguous property (makes DanC happy) 17:31:26 <libby> * libby too 17:31:54 <DanC> re 7 day notice earlier; cf http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/groups.html#GeneralMeetings 17:32:00 <pfps> mike dean: inverse is problematic (hard or easy?) 17:32:59 <pfps> ian horrocks: inverse looks easy, but is hard to understand (doesn't match intuitions) 17:33:25 <pfps> fvh: how to fix - move to hard list, or provide some other construct 17:33:51 <pfps> deborah mcguinness: some things are easy in special cases, but hard in general 17:34:09 <pfps> deborah mcguinness: other things are hard in special cases, but easy in general ? 17:34:24 <pfps> fvh: Q: idioms are only in examples? 17:34:28 <DanC> teaching people to think formally is a challenge. I hope we aren't aiming *too* high there. Anything more than giving standardized syntax to folks that already understand the underlying concepts is gravy, to me. If you can't set the time on your VCR, I don't expect you'll be able to use owl:inverse. 17:35:00 <pfps> deborah mcguinness: no, idiomatic syntax is also good, but examples are great 17:35:23 <pfps> pfps: what should be done next? 17:36:00 <pfps> fvh: work on frame system, collect idioms 17:36:17 <pfps> pfps: what about the requirements document 17:36:39 <pfps> fvh: need to select language features to satisfy requirements 17:37:00 <pfps> ian horrocks: need to work fast 17:37:30 <pfps> fvh: timescale for frame idioms / syntax - 1 to 2 weeks 17:37:47 <pfps> danc: for each requirement an idiom / construct ? 17:37:52 <pfps> fvh: very ambitious 17:38:09 <pfps> guus: get the other focus groups to help? 17:39:38 <pfps> ian horrocks: getting the right combination may not be trivial 17:39:55 <pfps> ian horrocks: getting the right syntax for the idiom may also be necessary (?) 17:40:22 <pfps> danc: copy and paste from examples may work 17:41:04 <pfps> fvh: only major difference from D+O is the frame part 17:41:29 <pfps> ian horrocks: maybe the D+O part can be reduced to basics 17:41:57 <pfps> ter horst: what are frames and slots as opposed to classes and properties? 17:42:18 <pfps> fvh: frames are restrictive, classes are not 17:43:04 <pfps> danc: frame definitions are encapsulated, RDF classes are not 17:43:32 <pfps> ian horrocks: true to an extent, but D+O can do this sort of encapslation via conjunction 17:44:11 <pfps> ian horrocks: in D+O you have quantification, which is hard for users to comprehend 17:44:28 <pfps> ian horrocks: frames hides this 17:45:04 <pfps> fvh: yes, in the standard patterns (required multi-value slot) 17:45:45 <pfps> carroll: restrictive reading of frames? 17:46:20 <pfps> fvh: yes I did *say* that 17:46:21 <DanC> we're up to 18registered to attend, 5 regrets, per http://www.cwi.nl/htbin/buro/W3Clijst . Real-time collaboration is fun. ;-) 17:46:44 <pfps> ian horrocks: worrisome, handled differently by different systems 17:46:58 <pfps> guus: related to modelling languages (e.g., UML) 17:48:04 <pfps> ian horrocks: we need a language that doesn't have surprises 17:49:35 <pfps> ACTION: produce an idiom for frame/UML stuff - frank - 2 weeks 17:50:21 <pfps> item 3) TEST 17:51:05 <pfps> jeremy: test cases help to iron out problems 17:51:25 <pfps> jeremy: emails give examples of how this is supposed to work 17:52:01 <pfps> jeremy: e.g. what does rdf:li mean and how does it work 17:52:21 <pfps> jeremy: don't have to provide precise *wording* for this 17:52:40 <pfps> jeremy: can be changed 17:53:32 <DanC> jeremy is discussing his message: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Mar/0096.html 17:54:58 <pfps> DanC: the value of tests appears to be self-evident to WG 17:55:48 <pfps> DanC: e.g. showing entailment - e.g. unambiguous properties can tie together resource names 17:56:17 <pfps> DanC: can anyone handle this sort of test? 17:57:21 <pfps> ian horrocks: more or less - turn it into a test with a T/F answer 17:59:10 <pfps> jeremy: what kinds of tests will be considered 17:59:52 <DanC> I'd like somebody to answer "is our language closed under negation" briefly here and then in substance offline. 18:00:19 <pfps> no, the question may not even make sense 18:00:53 <las> * las just beeped as she lost the line and rejoined.... 18:01:03 <pfps> DanC: where are lists of test cases? 18:01:10 <DanC> sound like actions on Ian and Deb. 18:01:21 <pfps> various: FaCT, DAML+OIL, CLASSIC 18:02:33 <DanC> I don't think we're committing to anything. But for my purpose, I'm convinced by Ian... I'm going to make one-file tests for the next week or so. 18:02:35 <pfps> jeremy: don't require single-input test cases 18:03:19 <DeborahMc> http://www.daml.org/ontologies/114 is the pointer that i also sent to the mailing list 18:03:28 <DeborahMc> this is just testing cardinalities 18:03:42 <DanC> "This is a small testing ontology. It is includes as an example of how to test a theorem prover implementing inferences required for complete processing of DAML+OIL." 18:05:00 <pfps> tim finin: lots of incomplete reasoners, so difficult tests are of interest 18:05:42 <pfps> ian horrocks: FaCT test set will be a good start there 18:06:00 <pfps> tim finin: probably need more kinds of tests 18:06:48 <pfps> deborah mcguinness: CLASSIC test suite is a regression suite 18:08:15 <pfps> stanton: lots of uses for test cases 18:08:52 <pfps> jeremy: tests cases may have to be fixed very late, maybe 18:11:01 <pfps> DanC: which systems are available - FaCT, RACER, DLP, finin?, DanC, JTP 18:11:19 <pfps> DanC: which systems will participate - 18:13:03 <libby> * libby would like to see if plausible to see if query-based code can be used for the tests 18:13:41 <pfps> ACTION: DanC will produce several tests in DAML+OIL syntax 18:14:37 <pfps> ACTION: run these tests - Jos, Ian Horrocks, Deborah McGuinness, Tim Finin 18:15:21 <pfps> ACTION: Jeremy - look up different test suites and categorize 18:16:15 <pfps> ACTIOM timing - report back next week 18:16:49 <DanC> good question, libby... please do send some mail about how query systems could be tested. 18:16:56 <pfps> ACTION: stanton - report back on different kinds of tests (very short) - next week 18:18:42 <pfps> ACTION: Guus - turn CM examples into tests 18:19:15 <pfps> AOB 18:19:40 <pfps> Jos: layering? 18:20:50 <pfps> Guus: synthesis of layering discussion for next week 18:22:02 <ora> ora has left #webont 18:22:34 <raphael> raphael has left #webont 18:22:35 <DanC> hmm... Jos? I'm actually not sure how to get cwm to do these one-file tests. I'll have to think about it. 18:22:36 <JosD> JosD has quit
Received on Thursday, 7 March 2002 16:13:27 UTC