Proposed minutes for 6/26

Minutes of WebOnt Meeting 6/26/2003

IRC log:

Next Meeting: 2003-07-03, Carroll to scribe. 

====== Participants

Dan Connolly (Chair)
Jerome Euzenat
Mike Smith
Evan Wallace
Mike Dean
Sandro Hawke (co-scribe)
Jeremy Carroll
Chris Welty (Scribe)
Deborah McGuinness
Tim Finin
Peter Patel-Schnieder
Charles White
Jos DeRoo
Herman TerHorst
Jim Hendler
Jeff Hefflin
Guus Schreiber
Sean Bechhofer
Ian Horrocks

====== Regrets

====== Approval of Last Weeks Minutes


====== Action Review 


1. "sameAs" error in OWL Language Reference 31 March 2003

Deemed adequate response.
ACTION: Jim Hendler.  Send response.
ACTION: Jeremy Carroll.  Generate test case.

8. OWL S&AS comment - owl:imports

ACTION: Jeff Heflin - waiting for approval of response to send.

12. Re: privacy in OWL

ACTION: Mike Smith. Guide to xref any Ref. change.

16. OWL comment - blank nodes in OWL DL

Named data ranges
Blank nodes used more than once. Jeremy Carroll B1, B2 proof in progress.
Syntactic restrictions on unnamed indiv. (Covered)
17. OWL S&AS Comment - owl:imports

Proposed response sent to WG by Heflin.
ACTION: Jim Hendler to review.

19. Problem with PET of sections 7.1.5 and 7.1.6 of OWL test cases

ACTION: Jim Hendler to confirm our response.

26. inadequate reference in Owl REF

Guus had a link to S&AS built-in datatypes that are problematic.
Now in the RDF semantics.  S&AS points to that.

ACTION: Jeremey Carroll to send RDF link to Guus, Peter, Mike S.

33. OWL and Published Subjects

ACTION: Jim to respond.

38. QA Review of owl-semantics

Sandro sent proposed reply.

ACTION: Dan, Jim, Guus to review reply. 
ACTION: Guus to send proposed words re xrefs to all docs.
ACTION: Peter, Guus, Frank, MKS
All editors add link from their document to ALL others.


2. Restriction, DeprecatedClass in OWL Language Reference 31 March 2003

ACTION: Guus Schreiber will craft process response.

3. unspecified domain,range in App. C of OWL Language Reference 31 March
CONTINUED: 12Jun ACTION: Mike Dean to respond. 

10. OWL Reference comment - RDF Schema for OWL

Guus S. sent propose response.  Approved

ACTION: Guus S. to send response.

12. Re: privacy in OWL

ACTION: Guus S. to propose response. (moved to JimH)

21. daml:item

ACTION: Jim Hendler. Respond with pointer to Issue 5.5.

22. RDFCore Comments on OWL Reference

Guus sent partial response.

ACTION: Frank van Harmelen to respond to one open element.

25. Comments on Owl REF document

DONE: 12Jun ACTION: Guus (sent to WG, approved by Dan)

ACTION: Guus to send.

28. Non-global Keys

Compound keys not in response.
ACTION: Guus to find record of decision and propose Issue to be postponed.
ACTION: Jim Hendler to add to proposed response. 

30. OWL comment - owl:OntologyProperty

DONE: 12Jun ACTION: Guus.
12Jun minute: Jeremy to respond
ACTION: Guus to make Ref consistent with resolution

32. Language Overview Document editorial comments

DONE: 12Jun ACTION: Frank.
12Jun minute: Frank to respond, editorial


ACTION: Guus to find our response.

34. Could owl:sameAs reference non-OWL resources?

12Jun minute: Pat to respond

ACTION: Guus to check status.

38. QA Review of owl-semantics

Sandro sent proposed reply.

ACTION: Jeremy, Jeff.
All editors add link from their document to ALL others.

===================Agenda Item 3 - Sameas 
RESOLVED by consensus to accept Guus' proposal 
ABSTENTIONS: Jerome Euzenat
ACTION: all editors to update 

===================Agenda Item 4 - Compound Keys 

proposal to open and postpone the issue 
Sentiment of group in favor - no vote

Jeremy summarizes - OWL lacks the ability to express keys of more than one 
attribute "It is very common in database systems to have primary keys 
composed of multiple fields, and in OWL, using InverseFunctionalProperties 
it is possible to do something similar with one field, but ..." technical 
work still in progress 

Ian - may be possible - not necessarily a design flaw in OWL 

ACTION Jim write up an issue description 

===================Agenda Item 5.0 Dave Beckett's response 

Beckett not satisfied with response of group, as per 

possibly send "what Sean wrote" (on RDF to OWL) 

DanC wanted to add beckett to dissenters 

jimh - are our syntax checkers sufficient for this? 

jjc - tools do not conform to abstract syntax at this time 

mikes - why translate from RDF triple to OWL abstract syntax?

danc - not a requirement (tried to say this reverse transformation is 
pretty closely related to the entailment testing task) 

seanb - to do the reasoning youhave to understand the translation 

danc - do we have implementors who have implemented the entire spec, as 
opposed to just satisfying the tests 

danc - reverse mapping not required - just getting the "Right answers" 

jeffh - semantics document uses abstract syntax, but documents talk about 
concrete syntax, and people need to do that mapping in their head 

jimh - are people willing to evaluate Sean's document to make it (more) 

ACTION: JeffH report back to the WG on whether SeanBs document contributes 
to the issue 

===================Agenda Item 6.0 Test LC Update 

jjc - propose to reopen semantic layering.  DL and Full consistency are 
not the same according to PFPS 
Tests that make that assumption maybe need to be rewritten 

danc - document is different from WG decision 

jos - we get an inconsistency 

jjc- annotation property example at 
empty universe example at 

jim - is this just for annotation properties? 

jjc - one is. The empty universe has to do with finite universes.

jim - As chair I reopen issue 
ACTION: (implied on MikeS) to update issues list with "semantic layering" 

[thanks to Sandro for scribing while ChrisW participates] 

jjc - some work on test document required to fix 
owl:Thing owl:oneOf rdf:nil contradiction in owl full, but not in DL, 
because it can have the empty universe. 

ChrisW - owl:Thing owl:oneOf rdf:nil . 
is a contradiction in OWL Full but not in OWL DL 

pfps: it is in the syntax 

jjc: or owl:Thing owl:EquivalentClass owl:Nothing 
jjc: and owl:Thing must have instances in owl full, since it has itself. 

ianH: there are several nasty examples with finite universes 

pfps: the whole idea of owl full was to pump up the universe, so you dont 
need to worry about typing. 

jimh - just subtype OWL:Thing from RDF:Resource 

pfps - not clear that would do it. 

jimh - if we could describe this in one paragraph (as a caveat) then OK to 

jimh - need an owner for this issue. Volunteers? 


jim - I should have found an issue owner BEFORE re-opening.  It's been so 

pfps on the road for the next two weeks 

pfps: I don't think I beleive the if-and-only-if statement 

ianh: weaken it to "if" and we might be okay 

peter's msg with the one-way entailment is at 

ianh: if it's entailed in DL it's entailed in Full, but not necessarily 
the other way around. 

from Guide: every valid DL conclusion is a valid Full conclusion. PFPS: 
that's correct. 

pfps: If it's owl full consistent, it's owl dl consistent. 

ACTION: JJC summarize impact on test 

ACTION: IanH notify FrankVH 

ACTION: DanC to contact PatH and W3C colleagues 

Next meeting: July 3rd, Hender chair, Carroll scribe. 


Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 11:17:08 UTC