W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > October 2002

Minutes 26.9.02

From: Raphael Volz <volz@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 23:32:11 +0200
To: "Webont" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DMECLAFLIOFJEFFIAJPCIEMGDAAA.volz@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>

Minutes of WebOnt telecon
September 26, 2002


The Agenda is

1)	Roll Call

Everyone was present except for those excused:
Dale, Klein, Sabbouh, ter Hosrt, van Harmelen
The latter joined in later.

2)	Last Minutes

Minutes of last telcon accepted They can be found at

3)	Next telecon

- no telecon on Oct 3
- next telecon will be Oct 10
- scribe solicited for Oct 10

LynnT will scribe if Massimo is not available

Final agenda will be disputed tomorrow. Please comment on
Bristol ftf4 agenda:

Ftf version of documents should be avaialbe by Fri 27 Sep noon EST.
Current versions:
Ftf version of documents should be avaialbe by Fri 27 Sep noon EST. People
think that they'll make it.
People should email, whether they cannot make it to one of the proposed
dates for probable FTF in Boston

4)	Upcoming ftf meetings

Bristol logistics (Jeremy):
Bristol networking:
Bristol ftf4 agenda:
Network constraints. No IRC over wireless

2) ACTION review: (10 min)

ACTION: Jeff Heflin - produce a test case/use case for versioning
feature and send it to the list.
--> Done
ACTION: Pat Hayes - update embedded semantics document and provide an
appendix to point out the position that the semantics takes on Issues.
--> Done
ACTION: Authors of Working Drafts - summarize document changes to WOWG list.
ACTION: Carroll - update WG on networking for f2f-> Done

3) Comments on WDs (15 min, editors)

Summary of comments on feature synopsis: feature set still under dispute
(some people want things off, other things on)
Summary of comments on asbtract syntax: Primarily wording...
FvH thinks that we don't have enough comment, need more visibility

4) ISSUES (45-60 min.)

4.1 ISSUE 5.6 & 5.14 (Heflin)
Heflin's message on proposal to move forward:
- status of debate: main options/decision points
- actions for amended/new resolutions

one opinion is that we should not do anyting that requires new parsers
Jim says, that rdf:RDF may not be required in theory but pratice etablishes
it as a standard
multiple rdf:RDF is not defined, depends on parser behaviour
jim proposes to take identifier for import out of possible domain of
resources, which can be subject of OWL statements
ACTION JEFF: Update semantic layering directions doc in prep of FTF

4.2 ISSUE 5.3 Semantic layering (Hayes, Patel-Schneider)
Last version of "Semantic latering" document
Hayes' message on status of the debate c.q. possible resolutions
- Q&A/discussion on Weak/Large/Fast OWL
- Q&A/discussion on Weak/Large/Fast OWL
- impact on ISSUE 5.1: Uniform treatment of literal/data values
- impact on ISSUE 5.19: Classes as instances
- straw polls on possible resolutions
... can we even stop having email `?
Received on Friday, 4 October 2002 17:34:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:36 UTC