Re: WOWG: Minutes Sep 18 telecon for review

thanks for the webont records.
I would like to make an update.
I gave the incorrect email address for comments on the omg proposal.
comments should go to elisa kendall at ekendall@sandsoft.com  (i left 
out the initial e originally)

Also, I checked with Elisa about the draft.  There will be another 
iteration to the proposal and in particular, there will be an update to 
the metamodel.  Elisa is also meeting with IBM about their joining in on 
the proposal.
also, elisa confirmed that the goal of this proposal is to support OWL 
(along with RDF Schema and RDF) while it was not expected that the other 
proposals would have that goal.

the url for the current submission was correctly stated as:
http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/03-08-06

Deborah

Dan Connolly wrote:

>This record has not yet been reviewed by
>the participants...
>
>On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 10:20, Guus Schreiber wrote:
>  
>
>>AGENDA  Teleconference Web Ontology Working Group
>>Sep 18, 2003, 1200 (East US), 0900 (West US). 1700 (London)
>>Duration: 90 min
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>IRC Chat: irc:irc.w3.org (port 6665), #webont
>>    
>>
>
>log: http://www.w3.org/2002/05/30-webont-irc
>
>  
>
>>Chair: Guus Schreiber
>>    
>>
>Scribe: Connolly
>
>  
>
>>1. ADMINISTRIVIA (15 min)
>>
>>Role Call
>>
>>Regrets: Bechofer (likely), Hendler
>>See the list for last-minute regrets
>>    
>>
>regrets: Horrocks, MarwanS
>
>Present: Guus, DanC, Sandro,
>Deb Mcguinness, Jean-Francois Baget, Jeff Heflin, Mike Dean,
>Yasser Alsafadi, 
>Jeremy Carroll, Peter Patel-Schneider, Herman ter Horst
>
>
>  
>
>>PROPOSED: to accept
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0163.html
>>as a true record of Sept 11 telecon.
>>    
>>
>
>RESOLVED, with ammendment to show White, Schreiber were present
>
>
>  
>
>>PROPOSED to meet biweekly for 90 minutes Background: chairs have
>>reconsidered this. Rationale for biweekly: it may take some time for
>>the WG to go to PR/Rec due to the RDFCore dependency. We prefer less
>>frequent telecons with good attendance. Agenda will be mix of
>>tests/comments/schedule and outreach.
>>    
>>
>
>so RESOLVED.
>
>Note: If you're wondering whether this is an on week or an
>off week, stay tuned to
>
> 1. recent meeting minutes, which ensure that meeting times
>	are announced a week in advance per W3C process
> 2. agendas, which come out a day in advance per W3C process
>
>Don't rely on getting any other form of notification, please.
>
>  
>
>>Provisional telecon schedule until end of Oct:
>>   Sep 25: NO telecon
>>   Oct 2:  telecon
>>   Oct 9:  NO telecon
>>   Oct 16: telecon
>>   Oct 23: NO telecon (but many of us will meet at ISWC)
>>   Oct 30: telecon
>>    
>>
>
>On the basis of information from DebM about the DAML PI meeting,
>we switched the 9 and 16 Oct dates around:
>
>RESOLVED: to meet 2 Oct, 9 Oct, 30 Oct
>
>NOTE WELL: no telcon 25 Sep.
>
>
>  
>
>>2. OUTREACH (30-35 min)
>>
>>2.1 Publicity: status/plans
>>
>>ACTION DanC: summarize OWL press coverage
>>    
>>
>
>Connolly apologized for being late with his action and reported
>in the meeting:
>
>W3C keeps an index of press articles about W3C, indexed
>by date/publication/writer/keywords
>  http://www.w3.org/Press/Articles-2003.html
>
>e.g.
>
>Internetnews.com [12 September]
>    "Semantic Web: Out of the Theory Realm" , Michael Singer,
>	W3C, RDF, XML, Semantic Web, OWL, Eric Miller
>
>If you see articles missing from that page, you're encouraged
>to let the W3C communications team know. (contact info
>is, or at least should be, in the signature at the bottom
>of the page.)
>
>There has been some effort put into formalizing that index
>in RDF, but that hasn't reached critical mass.
>
>This action is now DONE.
>
>
>  
>
>>ACTION Guus: send overview of ISWC-related events
>>DONE:
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0157.html
>>    
>>
>
>Other outreach discussion....
>
>JJC: I've been asked to do a presentation... do we or should we have
>  a collection of presentation materials?
>
>Whilte: There's an OWL tutorial, by Roger Costello of Mitre,
>  funded by DAML. http://www.xfront.com/
>
>DanC: I've seen the xfront thing; I'm not sure about it...
>
>PFPS: I'm not sure about the xfront thing either...
>  Ian Horrocks and Sean Bechofer and I are giving a tutorial at ISWC
>
>Guus: both Jim and I have slides, but they're not very technical.
>  I'm willing to send a pointer...
>
>DanC: I guess I'll make an OwlTalks wiki topic and see if it grows
>  [postscript: http://esw.w3.org/topic/OwlTalks]
>
>DebM: I've used the daml.org collection
>   http://www.daml.org/briefings/
>  I think DAML paid for BBN to maintain it.
>... you might consider that
>
>MikeD: future funding for this is somewhat grey...
> OWL is a little broader than DAML...
> the Wiki sounds interesting...
>
>ACTION Guus: see whether ontoweb can provide some support for OWL outreach
>
>ACTION MikeD: see whether DAML can provide some support for OWL outreach
>
>DanC: note W3C has to be fair about what it endorses
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>>2.2 Guideline/FAQ repository for OWL
>>
>>ACTION DanC: Propose Wiki be used for FAQ
>>    
>>
>
>Done: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0201.html
>
>Connolly summarized his proposal...
>
>DebM: the FAQ/guidelines
>   I've found useful are ones where people took an active ownership role...
>... active recruiting etc.
>
>Guus: I like an edited resource perhaps supplemented by the wiki; I'm considering volunteering... maybe with one or two other people...
>
>
>DebM and MikeS express hesitant interest...
>
>
>[... discussion of  http://c2.com/cgi-bin/wiki?CommunityLifeCycle ... ]
>
>
>[... discussion of getting together at ISWC ...]
>
>
>ACTION Guus: organize FAQ/guideline maintenance discussion at ISWC
>
>
>  
>
>>2.3 Other possible outreach activities of WebOnt
>>
>>Status OMG UML Profile for OWL:
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0053.html
>>
>>- short discussion/brainstorm
>>    
>>
>
>Guus: there are 3 proposals... anybody familiar with any of them?
>
>DebM: I'm somewhat familiar with the sandpiper proposal
>
>Guus: would feedback be good? what's the proper channel?
>Deb: yes...
>  feedback for the sandpiper proposal should go to elisa kendall kendall@sandsoft.com
>
>Guus: Revised Submissions are due 27 October
>Guus: is that when one gets chosen?
>
>DebM: that looks likely
>
> [... more on OMG process... not sure I got it...]
>
>MikeD: how much OWL do the support? e.g. subPropertyOf?
>
>DebM: one of the things I like about the sandpiper proposal is thier support of subPropertyOf
>	... I gather subProperty is under consideration for future versions of UML
>
>
>Guus: do we need to review this, as a WG?
>
>DanC: I like to keep the SemWeb CG aware of liaison issues
>
>Guus: seems good to make sure other stds. body's work doesn't limit the use of OWL
>
>ACTION Guus: solicit advice on reviewing OMG proposals from SemWeb CG
>
>
>
>  
>
>>2.4 Other outreach-related actions
>>
>>ACTION: Jim will report back on status of Gene Ontology
>>Consortium re OWL.
>>    
>>
>
>CONTINUES
>
>
>Guus: other connections to discuss? e.g. I'd like to discuss MPEG connection...
>DanC: there's some SMPTE thing that might be relevant and urgent... sorry I'm disorganized
>
>
>  
>
>>3. CR/PR ISSUES (15-25 min)
>>
>>3.1 Exit criteria
>>
>>Background:
>>Dan's status message: "OWL exit criteria: very close!"
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0190.html
>>RDF-based test result page:
>>http://www.w3.org/2003/08/owl-systems/test-results-out
>>
>>ACTION Sandro: send email (rdf-interest, rdf-logic) about
>>http://www.w3.org/2003/08/owl-systems/test-results-out, asking for
>>more data
>>    
>>
>
>DONE: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2003Sep/0138.html
>
>
>  
>
>>ACTION: Jim Hendler - Report PELLET status re complete OWL Lite
>>consistency checkers
>>DONE:
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0165.html
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>
>>ACTION: Ian Horrocks - Report Cerebra and Racer status re complete OWL Lite
>>consistency checkers
>>DONE:
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0128.html
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>
>>ACTION: Sandro - Report reasoning status re useful subsets of OWL
>>Full.
>>    
>>
>
>CONTINUES.
>
>
>  
>
>>ACTION: Jim Hendler - Check with Bijan re owl syntax checkers passing
>>all tests
>>    
>>
>
>DONE (I think?)
>
>  
>
>>ACTION JimH: check process doc re: features at Risk
>>    
>>
>
>DONE.
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0196.html
>
>
>  
>
>>3.2 Comments on CR docs
>>
>>Jeremy's comment on S&AS/datatype mapping rules:
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0154.html
>>Peter's response:
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0183.html
>>    
>>
>
>ACTION JJC: add clarifying tests to OWL test repository
> re datatype mapping rules
>
>  
>
>>Jeremy's comment on S&AS/InverseFuncProp:
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0156.html
>>Peter's proposed resolution:
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0181.html
>>    
>>
>
>RESOLVED: "The translation rule for individualvaluedPropertyID should be
>changed to make its first triple be optional if there is... " per 0181
>+ and add tests
>
>ACTION PFPS edit S&AS [DONE Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:35:38 -0400 (EDT)]
>
>ACTION JJC edit tests for InverseFuncProp
>
>  
>
>>Jeremy's comment on S&AS/Ontology typing
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0177.html
>>Peter's proposed resolution:
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0180.html
>>    
>>
>
>PFPS: make it optional [+details]
>JJC: sounds good
>so RESOLVED
>
>ACTION JJC: add a test to show what would have happened if we hadn't made a change.
>
>ACTION PFPS edit S&AS [DONE Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:35:38 -0400 (EDT)]
>
>ACTION Guus: check ref to see if there's impact from Ontology typing
>
>
>  
>
>>Sean: Old guide ontology versions
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0134.html
>>    
>>
>
>ACTION DanC: arrange for redirect
>
>  
>
>>Parsia/Grove: OWL Test cases and Species Validation
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Aug/0016.html
>>No reply so far
>>WG discussion thread starts at:
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Aug/0120.html
>>    
>>
>
>Guus: [... summarizes email...] JJC, wanna finish this up?
>JJC: sure... shall I get WG review 1st?
>Guus: yes, send to webont-wg; chairs/team contact to OK, others welcome to comment
>
>
>  
>
>>Hugh Winkler: Missing AllDisjoint
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Aug/0025.html
>>No reply so far
>>    
>>
>
>ACTION JJC: see if there's an answer for this in owl-tests
>
>  
>
>>Benjamin Nowack on OWL ref:
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Sep/0007.html
>>No reply so far
>>    
>>
>
>ACTION MikeD: look into Nowack comments
>
>--- owl Class (from Brickley)
>
>DanC: pls *don't* do what PatH did; don't just give your opinion
>
>DanC: we have an issue relevant to this...
>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.20-should-OWL-provide-synonyms-for-RDF-and-RDFS-objects
>
>JJC: I think there are some clarifying tests...
>
>DanC: seems to me that Reference is aimed at the audience DanBri is representing
>
>ACTION JJC: propose clarifying test (cf owl for owl msg)
>
>ACTION Guus: see if Reference answers Brickley's owl:Class/rdfs:Class comment
>
>
>  
>
>>3.3 PR Schedule
>>
>>ACTION JimH: discuss PR schedule with CG
>>    
>>
>
>DONE.
>
>Guus: this basically involved discussing the RDF schedule
>
>
>
>  
>
>>4. RDFCORE DOCUMENTS (10 min)
>>
>>ACTION Ian: report back on whether RDF WDs are as expected by S&AS
>>    
>>
>
>PFPS: RDF model theory appears to be satisfactory...
>
>DONE.
>
>PFPS: since rules are now normative, gotta look more closely at the rules
>
>DanC: the rules are OK by me
>
>
>  
>
>>- appoint reviewer(s) for new RDF Semantics WD
>>    
>>
>
>ACTION HermanT: review RDF semantics w.r.t. OWL
>
>JJC: it'll help RDF Core finish sooner if we can review the current /TR/ drafts
>
>ACTION Guus: ask Ian to do a 2nd review of RDF semantics
>
>
>  
>
>>- position of WebOnt wrt. internationalization issues: discussion on
>>   whether/how to adapt Guus' message
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0027.html
>>    
>>
>
>Guus: the present RDFCore design is acceptable, and some of the others
> that have been considered are unacceptable.
> I don't propose to say "this is our favorite"
>
>JJC: it would help if the "others" were specifically those proposed by I18N WG
>
>ACTION Guus: revise proposal for WebOnt WG position on RDF Core literal decision
>
>
>  
>
>>5. Reguest from QA WG
>>
>>See:
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0076.html
>>Response from Jeremy:
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0126.html
>>    
>>
>
>JJC: documenting what we did compared to what they propose seems in
>order...
>
>JJC is willing to do some work here provided another volunteer shows up
>
>ACTION DanC: ask Evan Wallace to participate in WebOnt review of QA OPS guidelines
>
>ACTION Guus: keep Karl informed as to the status of his request
>
>
>  
>
>>6. TEST ISSUES (if time allows)
>>
>>ACTION: JJC change status of all these tests in the editor's draft.
>>DONE:
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0132.html
>>
>>Jeremy's proposal for reclassifying some tests:
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0155.html
>>
>>To discuss: relative URIs:
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0148.html
>>    
>>
>
>Not discussed.
>
>  
>
>>7. AOB
>>    
>>
>
>none.
>
>
>  
>

-- 
 Deborah L. McGuinness 
 Knowledge Systems Laboratory 
 Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241 
 Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020 
 email: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu
 URL: http://ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm 
 (voice) 650 723 9770    (stanford fax) 650 725 5850   (computer fax)  801 705 0941