scribe notes from 24 Jan telecon from Stefan Decker on 2002-01-29 (www-webont-wg@w3.org from January 2002) (original) (raw)

Chair: Jim Hendler, Guus Schreiber Scribe: Stefan Decker

Note: The discussion did not happen in the order presented herein.

Roll: ACTION DanC: to send roll details.

Agenda see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jan/0142.html

  1. Administrativa (10 min, includes telecon greets and attendance) JimH: More focused - phone call around action items

  2. Action item status check/review (50 min)

Presentations: Action: sending presentations to DanC: Done: IanH, GuusH, StefanD, PeterH has made them available

Language Issues pending: ACTION Stein: explain "many systems, including frame and oo systems ...

pending: ACTION Jeffh: to bring implications of this use of subClassOf to attn of RDF Core WG

pending: ACTION: JimH to state summary of decidability issue ...

???: Status: ACTION: Ian/Frank to come up w/an adjective to modify "reasoner???

IP-Issue done: Action IPSSUE Resolved: see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jan/0150.html

Documents:

pending: ACTION JeffH, Jonathan D., Rafael V.: to draft a requirements document by end of Jan. Use Cases required by early in the week starting Jan 28 in format described in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jan/0094.html See: http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/owl for a draft

       pending: Action: Leo (lead), Mike, Jonathan, Raphael  will

update content interoperability pending: Action: StefanD will update Web Services and sent of Jeff (based on input from TimF)

in progress: Action: DanC/IanH/MikeD to measure DAML+OIL vs WebOnt requirements: draft at: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/reqdo.html

pending: Action: DieterF, PeterPS, MikeS :Document about Language Layering: early draft before Jan 31,draft till Feb 15 Language Layering document needs to list issues and tradeoffs. Language Layering document should come in several stages

  1. email to group 2) document to link to, no review required 3) eventually clean up, W3C Note

pending: Action: JimH: F2F Schedule proposal

  1. Defaults discussion (20 min) Consensus: The minimum requirement for defaults is the definition of a methodological guideline for users about how to handle defaults in OWL.

Received on Monday, 28 January 2002 22:05:00 UTC