WOWG: Minutes aPRIL 24 telecon

On Wed, 2003-04-23 at 10:44, Guus Schreiber wrote:
> April 24, 2003
> 1200 US East Coast
> 0900 US West Coast
> 1700 London
> Duration: 60-90 minutes
> Simultaneous IRC Chat
> (port 6665)
> #webont

IRC log:

> Chair: Schreiber

Scribe: Connolly

> 1) ADMIN (15-20 min)
> 1.1 Roll call


Yasser Alsafadi, Philips Electronics N.V.
Jonathan Borden (Invited Expert)
Jeremy Carroll, Hewlett Packard Company
Dan Connolly, W3C
Mike Dean (invited expert)
Jérôme Euzenat, INRIA
Tim Finin, Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab at the
University of Maryland
Pat Hayes, (invited expert)
Jeff Heflin (invited expert)
Ian Horrocks, Network Inference
Peter Patel-Schneider, Lucent Technologies
Marwan Sabbouh, MITRE
Guus Schreiber, Ibrow
Michael Smith, Electronic Data System (EDS)
Herman ter Horst, Philips Electronics N.V.
Charles White, Network Inference

regrets: McGuinness, Stanton
> Regrets: Hendler, Wallace (probable)
> See list archive for last-minute regrets

> 1.2 Minutes previous telecon
> Proposed to accept as a true record of the April 10,2003 telcon:


> 1.3 Agenda amendments

 - rdf:List, from Jeremy. under 5. RDF response
 - also QA review. under AOB

> 1.4 Telecon schedule
> - next telecon:  May 1

regrets: Carroll

> - scribe for May 1

> 1.5 ACTION Item Review
> ACTION: DanC request review by internationalisation board of decision
> on datatypes.

CONTINUED, with apologies for the delay.

> ACTION: Patel-Schneider to work on proof for issue 5.26 B1,B2
> (target completion date: not before May 1)


PFPS: stuff brought up by jeremy make it more difficult.

> ACTION Hendler Ask for some pre-LC comments to be resent.

some progress was observed, but those present couldn't
confirm that it was done.

> ACTION Jeff Heflin to add reference section to requirements document
> ACTION Heflin Add second line to editors draft pointing at LC.
> ACTION Heflin Change firstname/lastname to e-mail.
> ACTION Heflin Add change log appendix to editors draft.
> all DONE:
> ACTION McGuinness Add second line to editors draft pointing at LC.
> ACTION McGuiness Add change log appendix to editors draft.


> ACTION Dean Add second line to editors draft pointing at LC.
> ACTION Dean Add change log appendix to editors draft.


> 2. Test document (10-15 min)
> ACTION: Jeremy to send email to WG identifying where he could use help
> and a proposed schedule.
> PROPOSAL for test demotion:
> New editor's draft:
> New work in TEST:

JJC: two must-dos remaining: 1 [?help?], 2: reflect datatypes decision
JJC: I'm not available to work on test next week. on holiday tomorrow.

JJC: not likely to have a Last Call candidate by 1May
JJC: I did the compound document split just now. [yeah! -- DanC]
JJC: some new tests based on input from Sean [... technical details
DanC: I'm not seeing as much implementor feedback as I expected when I
started planning to skip CR. I expect we'll need a 6 month CR now.

IanH: we'll run all the tests we can, but won't be able to run all the
list tests... dunno about datatypes.

ACTION IanH: report on running Lite tests (less datatypes) thru some
implementation, e.g. racer

IanH: the hardest part of doing the tests is parsing
JJC: yes... I have some code to do that... IanH: so do we (Sean)... but
it's a significant overhead... JJC: yes.

ACTION Guus: poll Bijan, Protoje, and [karlsurle?] to get test feedback

IanH: hmm... JTP folks?
JJC: [... on state of HP's implementation work; maybe jjc will elaborate
in email?]

IanH: JJC, if you could get your parser to convert to the dig syntax
[?], you'd get 2 reasoners for free. Racer and [?]

Guus: so 8May is a target for test document

> 3. LC Comments (20-30 min)
> 3,1 Discussion points arising from comments of on S&AS and Ref:
> Short discussion to see whether this is an issue:
> - add owl:Nothing to OWL Lite
> - where is the precise syntax of OWL?

Guus collects advice on whether to open issues here
IanH: recalling from history, not having Nothing in owl Lite seemed
"simpler" by measure of less tokens.

JonB: reasons for putting it in?
IanH: it's useful and it's low cost to add.

Guus: ISSUE OPENED (or perhaps re-opened), with Ian as owner.
[issue number/identifier pending]

- where is the precise syntax of OWL?
DanC suggests answers the

ACTION JJC: point the commentor at 4.x in the test doc and see if that
satisfies the comment on reference.

ACTION Guus: keep the commentor up to date on discussion of Nothing in

Guus: appendix B of reference...
  (Normative)... shouldn't be there.
Guus: I'll fix.

> 3.1 qualified cardinlity restrictions
> plus thread in webont
> - discussion of options

Guus: issue has been re-opened.

Straw poll: shall we put qualified cardinality restrictions back in?
shows lots in favor to put it in, a few against, and a few abstain

IanH: the feature was in DAML+OIL; it doesn't cost a lot; it was removed
due to "feature count" and lack of understanding and uses cases at the
time... since then the use cases and understanding have become more
clear ... I've seen implementation experience
PatH: adding it makes explaining things easier

jjc: I'm not satisfied with the implementation experience I've seen.

DanC: I think the commentor's case is well made, but I'll need to see
text for the guide and test cases that are implemented before I'll

Mike: once the syntax is worked out, it shouldn't be hard to explain
Guus: I find the commentor's use cases compelling and relevant.
Yassir: yes, the modelling capability here is important.
JJC: re syntax... rather than hasCardinalityQ, we could have
QualifiedRestriction as a class, so that the current owl:Restriction
remains unchanged...
[details in a recent message]

IanH: how about using a class all the time, and having folks use
owl:Thing for the unqualified case
[... some argument against that idea...]

PatH: a food example for the guide...
  "don't put more than four spices in a recipe"
IanH: "at least 2 courses of type primo piasto"

JJC: I could get constraints on banquets
ACTION JJC: propose RDF/XML syntax

postscript: cf
  qualified restrictions - syntax proposal Jeremy Carroll
  (Thu, Apr 24 2003)

ACTION PatH: propose RDF/XML syntax
ACTION JJC: get real data about the complexity of italian banquet

MikeS: should be easy to do a guide section based on that

> 4. Pesentation Syntax Documents (0-5 min)
> - publication plan for XML Presentation Syntax note.

postponed due to critical parties not being available

> 5. RDF response (5-10 min)
> Reply from RDFCore on XMLLiiteral
> ACTION: Guus to prepare note to RDF regarding PFPS08 and its relation
> to the above resolution.


ACTION DanC: try to develop test cases that clarify this XML literals
stuff for WebOnt and RDFCore

> 6.  A.O.B (0-5 min)


Dan Connolly, W3C

Received on Friday, 25 April 2003 15:10:44 UTC