00:00:00 <MarkusK_> PRESENT: Peter Patel-Schneider, Markus Krötzsch, Ivan Herman, Jie Bao, Jos de Bruijn, Boris Motik, Alan Ruttenberg, Uli Sattler, Sandro Hawke, Zhe Wu, clu, Michael Schneider, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Mike Smith, Rinke Hoekstra, Achille Fokoue, Jeff Pan
00:00:00 <MarkusK_> REGRETS: Christine Golbreich, Evan Wallace, Ian Horrocks, Elisa Kendall
00:00:00 <MarkusK_> CHAIR: Alan Ruttenberg
17:49:12 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/11/12-owl-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/11/12-owl-irc ←
17:49:21 <pfps> Zakim, this is owlwg
Peter Patel-Schneider: Zakim, this is owlwg ←
17:49:21 <Zakim> pfps, I see SW_OWL()1:00PM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be owlwg".
Zakim IRC Bot: pfps, I see SW_OWL()1:00PM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be owlwg". ←
17:49:28 <pfps> Zakim, this will be owlwg
Peter Patel-Schneider: Zakim, this will be owlwg ←
17:49:28 <Zakim> ok, pfps; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 11 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, pfps; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 11 minutes ←
17:49:39 <pfps> RRSagent, make records public
Peter Patel-Schneider: RRSagent, make records public ←
17:55:22 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started ←
17:55:29 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider
Zakim IRC Bot: +Peter_Patel-Schneider ←
17:58:06 <Zakim> +??P7
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P7 ←
17:58:16 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
17:58:16 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
17:58:18 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
17:58:35 <ivan> zakim, drop me
Ivan Herman: zakim, drop me ←
17:58:35 <Zakim> Ivan is being disconnected
Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan is being disconnected ←
17:58:37 <Zakim> -Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←
17:59:01 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
17:59:01 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
17:59:03 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
17:59:07 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.518.276.aaaa ←
17:59:39 <Zakim> +josb
Zakim IRC Bot: +josb ←
17:59:41 <Zakim> +??P11
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P11 ←
17:59:44 <bmotik> Zakim, ??P11 is me
Boris Motik: Zakim, ??P11 is me ←
17:59:44 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bmotik; got it ←
17:59:47 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
17:59:47 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←
18:00:54 <Zakim> + +1.617.452.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.617.452.aabb ←
18:01:13 <Zakim> +??P14
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P14 ←
18:01:17 <alanr_> zakim, aabb is me
Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, aabb is me ←
18:01:17 <Zakim> +alanr_; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +alanr_; got it ←
18:01:21 <uli> zakim, ??P14 is me
Uli Sattler: zakim, ??P14 is me ←
18:01:21 <Zakim> +uli; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +uli; got it ←
18:01:23 <alanr_> zakim, who is here?
Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, who is here? ←
18:01:23 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, +1.518.276.aaaa, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, +1.518.276.aaaa, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli ←
18:01:25 <Zakim> On IRC I see baojie, alanr_, josb, bmotik, uli, ivan, MarkusK_, schneid, RRSAgent, Zakim, clu, alanr, sandro, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see baojie, alanr_, josb, bmotik, uli, ivan, MarkusK_, schneid, RRSAgent, Zakim, clu, alanr, sandro, trackbot ←
18:01:25 <uli> zakim, mute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me ←
18:01:25 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted ←
18:01:34 <baojie> Zakim, aaaa is me
18:01:34 <Zakim> +baojie; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +baojie; got it ←
18:02:42 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
18:02:53 <Zakim> +Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: +Zhe ←
18:03:00 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is on the call? ←
18:03:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, baojie, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli (muted), Sandro, Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, baojie, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli (muted), Sandro, Zhe ←
18:03:42 <Zakim> + +0494212186aacc
Zakim IRC Bot: + +0494212186aacc ←
18:03:56 <clu> zakim, aacc is me
Carsten Lutz: zakim, aacc is me ←
18:03:56 <Zakim> +clu; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +clu; got it ←
18:04:00 <clu> zakim, mute me
Carsten Lutz: zakim, mute me ←
18:04:00 <Zakim> clu should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: clu should now be muted ←
18:04:20 <Zakim> +wonsuk
Zakim IRC Bot: +wonsuk ←
18:04:39 <alanr_> zakim, who is here?
Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, who is here? ←
18:04:39 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, baojie, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli (muted), Sandro, Zhe, clu (muted), wonsuk
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, baojie, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli (muted), Sandro, Zhe, clu (muted), wonsuk ←
18:04:41 <Zakim> On IRC I see msmith, bcuencagrau, Zhe, baojie, alanr_, josb, bmotik, uli, ivan, MarkusK_, schneid, RRSAgent, Zakim, clu, sandro, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see msmith, bcuencagrau, Zhe, baojie, alanr_, josb, bmotik, uli, ivan, MarkusK_, schneid, RRSAgent, Zakim, clu, sandro, trackbot ←
18:04:50 <schneid> zakim, wonsuk is me
Michael Schneider: zakim, wonsuk is me ←
18:04:59 <Zakim> +schneid; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +schneid; got it ←
18:05:03 <schneid> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
18:05:10 <Zakim> +??P20
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P20 ←
18:05:15 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, ??P20 is me
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, ??P20 is me ←
18:05:19 <alanr_> zakim, who is here
Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, who is here ←
18:05:22 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should now be muted ←
18:05:25 <alanr_> zakim, who is here?
Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, who is here? ←
18:05:30 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bcuencagrau; got it ←
18:05:34 <Zakim> alanr_, you need to end that query with '?'
Zakim IRC Bot: alanr_, you need to end that query with '?' ←
18:05:36 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, mute me ←
18:05:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, baojie, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli (muted), Sandro, Zhe, clu (muted), schneid (muted), bcuencagrau
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, baojie, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli (muted), Sandro, Zhe, clu (muted), schneid (muted), bcuencagrau ←
18:05:51 <MarkusK_> Scribe: MarkusK_
(Scribe set to Markus Krötzsch)
18:05:53 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencagrau should now be muted ←
18:05:57 <Zakim> On IRC I see Rinke, msmith, bcuencagrau, Zhe, baojie, alanr_, josb, bmotik, uli, ivan, MarkusK_, schneid, RRSAgent, Zakim, clu, sandro, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Rinke, msmith, bcuencagrau, Zhe, baojie, alanr_, josb, bmotik, uli, ivan, MarkusK_, schneid, RRSAgent, Zakim, clu, sandro, trackbot ←
18:06:02 <MarkusK_> Topic: Admin
18:06:05 <uli> Alan, you are very quiet
Uli Sattler: Alan, you are very quiet ←
18:06:07 <Rinke> ScribeNick: MarkusK_
18:06:09 <Zakim> +msmith
Zakim IRC Bot: +msmith ←
18:06:23 <MarkusK_> Alan: Last minute agenda extension regarding question on XML literals
Alan Ruttenberg: Last minute agenda extension regarding question on XML literals ←
18:06:28 <MarkusK_> Previous minutes
Previous minutes ←
18:06:40 <alanr_> zakim is slow
Alan Ruttenberg: zakim is slow ←
18:06:52 <Zakim> +Tom
Zakim IRC Bot: +Tom ←
18:06:54 <alanr_> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-11-05
Alan Ruttenberg: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-11-05 ←
18:06:57 <Rinke> zakim, Tom is me
Rinke Hoekstra: zakim, Tom is me ←
18:06:57 <Zakim> +Rinke; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Rinke; got it ←
18:07:05 <msmith> last week's minutes looked ok to me
Mike Smith: last week's minutes looked ok to me ←
18:07:36 <MarkusK_> Alan: I did mechanical cleanup on F2F4 2nd day minutes
Alan Ruttenberg: I did mechanical cleanup on F2F4 2nd day minutes ←
18:07:57 <MarkusK_> Alan: Contents should be in better shape now
Alan Ruttenberg: Contents should be in better shape now ←
18:08:19 <MarkusK_> Alan: Anyone looked at last week's minutes?
Alan Ruttenberg: Anyone looked at last week's minutes? ←
18:08:27 <MarkusK_> Pfps: Yes, they appear to be ok
Peter Patel-Schneider: Yes, they appear to be ok ←
18:08:46 <uli> something is causing static noise
Uli Sattler: something is causing static noise ←
18:09:01 <MarkusK_> Proposed: Accept minutes of Nov 5 Telco
PROPOSED: Accept minutes of Nov 5 Telco ←
18:09:22 <MarkusK_> Accepted: Accept minutes of Nov 5 Telco
RESOLVED: Accept minutes of Nov 5 Telco ←
18:09:36 <pfps> I haven't had a chance to look at the F2F4 minutes since yesterday
Peter Patel-Schneider: I haven't had a chance to look at the F2F4 minutes since yesterday ←
18:09:37 <Zakim> +[IBM]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM] ←
18:09:58 <Achille> Zakim, IBM is me
Achille Fokoue: Zakim, IBM is me ←
18:09:58 <Zakim> +Achille; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Achille; got it ←
18:10:10 <MarkusK_> Action item status
Action item status ←
18:10:10 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - item
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - item ←
18:10:22 <msmith> I updated the action, it was actually done by markus k
Mike Smith: I updated the action, it was actually done by markus k ←
18:10:36 <MarkusK_> Action 243 completed
ACTION-243 completed ←
18:10:36 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 243
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - 243 ←
18:10:59 <sandro> action-243 closed
Sandro Hawke: ACTION-243 closed ←
18:10:59 <trackbot> ACTION-243 Edit test section of test & conf to include two links and explanatory text closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-243 Edit test section of test & conf to include two links and explanatory text closed ←
18:11:00 <MarkusK_> Alan: I completed Action 242
Alan Ruttenberg: I completed ACTION-242 ←
18:11:19 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is on the call? ←
18:11:19 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, baojie, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli (muted), Sandro, Zhe, clu (muted), schneid (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), msmith,
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, baojie, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli (muted), Sandro, Zhe, clu (muted), schneid (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), msmith, ←
18:11:22 <Zakim> ... Rinke, Achille
Zakim IRC Bot: ... Rinke, Achille ←
18:11:23 <MarkusK_> Topic: Reviewing and Publishing
18:11:23 <MarkusK_> SubTopic: OWL2 Datatypes
18:11:31 <MarkusK_> Alan: Jos de Bruijn is joining OWL WG to look at issues related to datatypes, esp. regarding RIF-OWL compatibility.
Alan Ruttenberg: Jos de Bruijn is joining OWL WG to look at issues related to datatypes, esp. regarding RIF-OWL compatibility. ←
18:12:11 <josb> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/DTB#Primitive_Datatypes
Jos de Bruijn: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/DTB#Primitive_Datatypes ←
18:12:24 <JeffP> {JeffP am only available on IRC)
Jeff Pan: {JeffP am only available on IRC) ←
18:12:28 <MarkusK_> Jos: We have a certain set of required datatypes in RIF. These are required, but you are free to implement further datatypes. The conformance conditions of RIF require that only the required datatypes are implemented but conformance can be parameterized to include further datatypes. Now OWL requires much more datatypes than RIF, so the extended conformance conditions would apply.
Jos de Bruijn: We have a certain set of required datatypes in RIF. These are required, but you are free to implement further datatypes. The conformance conditions of RIF require that only the required datatypes are implemented but conformance can be parameterized to include further datatypes. Now OWL requires much more datatypes than RIF, so the extended conformance conditions would apply. ←
18:14:01 <bmotik> +q
Boris Motik: +q ←
18:14:10 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me ←
18:14:10 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted ←
18:13:30 <sandro> ID, IDREF, ENTITY
Sandro Hawke: ID, IDREF, ENTITY ←
18:14:15 <MarkusK_> Jos: I was surprised to see the datatypes ID, IDREF, ENTITY being included in OWL since they were partly discouraged by WebOnt.
Jos de Bruijn: I was surprised to see the datatypes ID, IDREF, ENTITY being included in OWL since they were partly discouraged by WebOnt. ←
18:14:18 <alanr_> ack bmotik
Alan Ruttenberg: ack bmotik ←
18:14:34 <msmith> Where in the RIF documents is the description of conformance?
Mike Smith: Where in the RIF documents is the description of conformance? ←
18:14:37 <MarkusK_> Boris: I can try to explain. The datatypes ID, IDREF, ENTITY essentially are just restricted types of strings. They have no relation to documents or anything so things are done like in XML Schema.
Boris Motik: I can try to explain. The datatypes ID, IDREF, ENTITY essentially are just restricted types of strings. They have no relation to documents or anything so things are done like in XML Schema. ←
18:15:35 <schneid> RDF Semantics document tells people they should not use xsd:ENTITY and such: <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#DTYPEINTERP>
Michael Schneider: RDF Semantics document tells people they should not use xsd:ENTITY and such: <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#DTYPEINTERP> ←
18:15:42 <MarkusK_> Boris: Those particular special forms of strings should not cause problems since they are not relatvie to a document.
Boris Motik: Those particular special forms of strings should not cause problems since they are not relatvie to a document. ←
18:15:46 <sandro> boris: We understand ID, IDREF, and ENTITY to just be subtypes of string with a restricted syntax. This is how they are done in XML Schema. They are just strings with additional restrictions.
Boris Motik: We understand ID, IDREF, and ENTITY to just be subtypes of string with a restricted syntax. This is how they are done in XML Schema. They are just strings with additional restrictions. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:16:00 <josb> http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#ENTITY
Jos de Bruijn: http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#ENTITY ←
18:16:10 <MarkusK_> Jos: I think at least ENTITY seems to point to a document (see link pasted).
Jos de Bruijn: I think at least ENTITY seems to point to a document (see link pasted). ←
18:16:32 <MarkusK_> Boris: (reads from linked text)
Boris Motik: (reads from linked text) ←
18:16:34 <pfps> q+
18:16:40 <MarkusK_> Boris: Indeed, it mentions a document. I had not noticed this; this was not the intention in OWL. I will check version 1.1 of the spec.
Boris Motik: Indeed, it mentions a document. I had not noticed this; this was not the intention in OWL. I will check version 1.1 of the spec. ←
18:16:38 <msmith> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#ENTITY
Mike Smith: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#ENTITY ←
18:16:52 <alanr_> says same thing in 1.1
Alan Ruttenberg: says same thing in 1.1 ←
18:17:00 <pfps> the 1.1 document appears to be incoherent
Peter Patel-Schneider: the 1.1 document appears to be incoherent ←
18:17:27 <Zakim> -uli
Zakim IRC Bot: -uli ←
18:17:32 <MarkusK_> Jos: The intended interpretation is that entities need to be distinguished when taking the union of two documents.
Jos de Bruijn: The intended interpretation is that entities need to be distinguished when taking the union of two documents. ←
18:17:41 <MarkusK_> Boris: this was not intended in OWL. Anything beyond simple strings would be out of scope.
Boris Motik: this was not intended in OWL. Anything beyond simple strings would be out of scope. ←
18:17:52 <Zakim> +??P14
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P14 ←
18:18:00 <uli> zakim, ??P14 is me
Uli Sattler: zakim, ??P14 is me ←
18:18:00 <Zakim> +uli; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +uli; got it ←
18:18:10 <uli> zakim, mute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me ←
18:18:10 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted ←
18:18:26 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
18:18:31 <MarkusK_> Jos: Why was this a concern for WebOnt and RDF but not for OWL?
Jos de Bruijn: Why was this a concern for WebOnt and RDF but not for OWL? ←
18:18:38 <josb> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#DTYPEINTERP
Jos de Bruijn: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#DTYPEINTERP ←
18:19:21 <MarkusK_> Jos: this link is relevant to the discussion of ENTITIY.
Jos de Bruijn: this link is relevant to the discussion of ENTITIY. ←
18:19:22 <pfps> q+ to ask why we are doing this sort of thing at a teleconference
Peter Patel-Schneider: q+ to ask why we are doing this sort of thing at a teleconference ←
18:19:32 <msmith> rdf-mt says, "xsd:QName and xsd:ENTITY require an enclosing XML document context"
Mike Smith: rdf-mt says, "xsd:QName and xsd:ENTITY require an enclosing XML document context" ←
18:19:40 <MarkusK_> Jos: Both RDF and OWL discourage the use of this type, pointing to this section.
Jos de Bruijn: Both RDF and OWL discourage the use of this type, pointing to this section. ←
18:19:42 <alanr_> ack pfps
Alan Ruttenberg: ack pfps ←
18:19:42 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to ask why we are doing this sort of thing at a teleconference
Zakim IRC Bot: pfps, you wanted to ask why we are doing this sort of thing at a teleconference ←
18:19:59 <josb> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/syntax.html#owl_built_in_datatypes
Jos de Bruijn: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/syntax.html#owl_built_in_datatypes ←
18:20:05 <schneid> +1 to PFPS
Michael Schneider: +1 to PFPS ←
18:20:13 <MarkusK_> Pfps: Should this be discussed during the current telco? We are not sufficiently prepared. Let us take this to Email.
Peter Patel-Schneider: Should this be discussed during the current telco? We are not sufficiently prepared. Let us take this to Email. ←
18:20:37 <schneid> I just stumbled over the RDFS paragraph a few days ago, not related to this discussion.
Michael Schneider: I just stumbled over the RDFS paragraph a few days ago, not related to this discussion. ←
18:20:38 <MarkusK_> Sandro: It seemed to be an urgent issue that needed some discussion.
Sandro Hawke: It seemed to be an urgent issue that needed some discussion. ←
18:21:01 <MarkusK_> Alan: Should we simply remove the problematic types then? Or is anybody interested in having them?
Alan Ruttenberg: Should we simply remove the problematic types then? Or is anybody interested in having them? ←
18:20:56 <schneid> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
18:20:58 <pfps> I'm perfectly happy to junk them
Peter Patel-Schneider: I'm perfectly happy to junk them ←
18:21:00 <uli> I would think that this would be too rushed
Uli Sattler: I would think that this would be too rushed ←
18:21:01 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
18:21:01 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should no longer be muted ←
18:22:32 <alanr_> ack schneid
Alan Ruttenberg: ack schneid ←
18:21:28 <MarkusK_> Schneid: I would feel incomfortable with keeping these datatypes in, because RDFS semantics says SHOULD NOT be used, while RDF-based Semantics would have it in its datatype map.
Michael Schneider: I would feel incomfortable with keeping these datatypes in, because RDFS semantics says SHOULD NOT be used, while RDF-based Semantics would have it in its datatype map. ←
18:21:25 <msmith> I think junking them is ok, but suggest that proposal go to the list and be resolved next week.
Mike Smith: I think junking them is ok, but suggest that proposal go to the list and be resolved next week. ←
18:21:33 <uli> +1 to Mike
Uli Sattler: +1 to Mike ←
18:21:37 <schneid> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
18:21:37 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should now be muted ←
18:21:48 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
18:21:49 <uli> yes
Uli Sattler: yes ←
18:21:50 <JeffP> +1 to Mike
18:21:55 <MarkusK_> Alan: Then we can discuss this over email and schedule a proposal for next week.
Alan Ruttenberg: Then we can discuss this over email and schedule a proposal for next week. ←
18:22:14 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: XMLLiteral in OWL 2
18:22:14 <MarkusK_> Jos: XMLLiteral is a datatype not included in OWL 2, but required in RDF; in OWL 1 it was built-in. Is it a mistake that it is not in OWL 2?
Jos de Bruijn: XMLLiteral is a datatype not included in OWL 2, but required in RDF; in OWL 1 it was built-in. Is it a mistake that it is not in OWL 2? ←
18:22:16 <pfps> q+
18:22:23 <pfps> q+ on a point of order
Peter Patel-Schneider: q+ on a point of order ←
18:22:25 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+ ←
18:23:54 <ivan> ack pfps
Ivan Herman: ack pfps ←
18:23:54 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to comment on a point of order
Zakim IRC Bot: pfps, you wanted to comment on a point of order ←
18:23:04 <MarkusK_> Pfps: A link in the agenda is not accessible without a login.
Peter Patel-Schneider: A link in the agenda is not accessible without a login. ←
18:23:12 <MarkusK_> Sandro: Sorry, I will fix this.
Sandro Hawke: Sorry, I will fix this. ←
18:23:32 <MarkusK_> Pfps: What good can we do with this discussion now? I am clueless. More preparation would be useful.
Peter Patel-Schneider: What good can we do with this discussion now? I am clueless. More preparation would be useful. ←
18:24:07 <MarkusK_> Sandro: OK, but maybe Jos can still bring forward what the issue is, and then we can possibly move on.
Sandro Hawke: OK, but maybe Jos can still bring forward what the issue is, and then we can possibly move on. ←
18:24:10 <msmith> +1 to adding XMLLiteral if we can.
Mike Smith: +1 to adding XMLLiteral if we can. ←
18:24:15 <ivan> XMLLiteral is not an xsd datatype
Ivan Herman: XMLLiteral is not an xsd datatype ←
18:24:39 <MarkusK_> Boris: The only normative types in OWL 1.0 are strings and integers; I overlooked the XMLLiteral type.
Boris Motik: The only normative types in OWL 1.0 are strings and integers; I overlooked the XMLLiteral type. ←
18:24:41 <schneid> XMLLiteral is in the RDF namespace
Michael Schneider: XMLLiteral is in the RDF namespace ←
18:24:53 <schneid> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
18:24:58 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
18:24:58 <Zakim> schneid was not muted, schneid
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid was not muted, schneid ←
18:24:58 <ivan> XMLLiteral is (the only) datatype defined in RDF
Ivan Herman: XMLLiteral is (the only) datatype defined in RDF ←
18:24:59 <alanr_> ack bmotik
Alan Ruttenberg: ack bmotik ←
18:25:06 <bmotik> ACTION: bmotik2 to Come up with an analysis of whether OWL 2 should include XMLLiteral
ACTION: bmotik2 to Come up with an analysis of whether OWL 2 should include XMLLiteral ←
18:25:06 <trackbot> Created ACTION-244 - Come up with an analysis of whether OWL 2 should include XMLLiteral [on Boris Motik - due 2008-11-19].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-244 - Come up with an analysis of whether OWL 2 should include XMLLiteral [on Boris Motik - due 2008-11-19]. ←
18:25:07 <josb> I would expect an answer to my public comment to be an outcome of the action
Jos de Bruijn: I would expect an answer to my public comment to be an outcome of the action ←
18:25:10 <MarkusK_> Alan: We should come up with a proposal whether or not to include XMLLiteral in OWL 2
Alan Ruttenberg: We should come up with a proposal whether or not to include XMLLiteral in OWL 2 ←
18:25:34 <josb> rdf:XMLLiteral spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-XMLLiteral
Jos de Bruijn: rdf:XMLLiteral spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-XMLLiteral ←
18:25:38 <MarkusK_> Schneid: XMLLiteral is mandatory in RDF and thus it is mandatory for the RDF-based semantics. I do not see why it is required for DL datatype maps though. XMLLiteral is already covered for OWL 2 Full.
Michael Schneider: XMLLiteral is mandatory in RDF and thus it is mandatory for the RDF-based semantics. I do not see why it is required for DL datatype maps though. XMLLiteral is already covered for OWL 2 Full. ←
18:28:16 <schneid> rdf:XMLLiteral in RDF Semantics: <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#RDFINTERP>
Michael Schneider: rdf:XMLLiteral in RDF Semantics: <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#RDFINTERP> ←
18:25:45 <alanr_> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
18:25:49 <schneid> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
18:25:49 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should now be muted ←
18:25:50 <alanr_> acm schneid
Alan Ruttenberg: acm schneid ←
18:25:52 <ivan> q?
Ivan Herman: q? ←
18:25:54 <alanr_> ack schneid
Alan Ruttenberg: ack schneid ←
18:26:01 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
18:26:01 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←
18:26:29 <bmotik> -q
Boris Motik: -q ←
18:26:35 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me ←
18:26:35 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted ←
18:26:38 <MarkusK_> Thanks to Jos for attending, bye
Thanks to Jos for attending, bye ←
18:26:43 <Zakim> -josb
Zakim IRC Bot: -josb ←
18:26:48 <JeffP> bye
18:22:14 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Progress report on document changes
18:27:09 <sandro> Boris: my parts of http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Last_Call_Check_List to be done by the end of the week
Boris Motik: my parts of http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Last_Call_Check_List to be done by the end of the week [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:27:29 <MarkusK_> Alan: I also noticed a link at the end where the full grammar should be
Alan Ruttenberg: I also noticed a link at the end where the full grammar should be ←
18:27:32 <schneid> Ivan, several of the RDF semantic conditions are about rdf:XMLLiteral
Michael Schneider: Ivan, several of the RDF semantic conditions are about rdf:XMLLiteral ←
18:27:35 <MarkusK_> Boris: I can fix this too.
Boris Motik: I can fix this too. ←
18:27:57 <MarkusK_> Alan: Some remaining changes seems to be more than editorial
Alan Ruttenberg: Some remaining changes seems to be more than editorial ←
18:28:16 <MarkusK_> Boris: Yes, the original reviewers should be asked to look over it again after I finish. I will send a pointer by email.
Boris Motik: Yes, the original reviewers should be asked to look over it again after I finish. I will send a pointer by email. ←
18:28:27 <alanr_> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
18:28:35 <MarkusK_> Sandro: I will provide a color-coded diff then.
Sandro Hawke: I will provide a color-coded diff then. ←
18:28:45 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
18:28:45 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←
18:29:02 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Mime types
18:29:11 <sandro> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Oct/0164.html
Sandro Hawke: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Oct/0164.html ←
18:29:28 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
18:29:29 <MarkusK_> Alan: Peter's email suggested mime types for functional and Manchester syntax. There are still question marks for XML syntax.
Alan Ruttenberg: Peter's email suggested mime types for functional and Manchester syntax. There are still question marks for XML syntax. ←
18:29:57 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
18:30:14 <MarkusK_> Alan: Do we still need to specify file extensions?
Alan Ruttenberg: Do we still need to specify file extensions? ←
18:30:24 <MarkusK_> Pfps: I assume that file extensions should be specified. A three-character extension might be good. It should be possible to find un-occupied 3-char extensions. I propose oxl or just xml for XML syntax.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I assume that file extensions should be specified. A three-character extension might be good. It should be possible to find un-occupied 3-char extensions. I propose oxl or just xml for XML syntax. ←
18:31:51 <MarkusK_> Sandro: I think it could be xml, but I need to check.
Sandro Hawke: I think it could be xml, but I need to check. ←
18:32:11 <MarkusK_> For RDF/XML the extension is rdf.
For RDF/XML the extension is rdf. ←
18:32:29 <MarkusK_> Alan: So the choice is between oxl and xml?
Alan Ruttenberg: So the choice is between oxl and xml? ←
18:32:29 <alanr_> owx
Alan Ruttenberg: owx ←
18:32:31 <sandro> .xml or .oxl (.owx)
Sandro Hawke: .xml or .oxl (.owx) ←
18:32:33 <MarkusK_> Pfps: Yes
Peter Patel-Schneider: Yes ←
18:32:40 <MarkusK_> Sandro: owx is another option
Sandro Hawke: owx is another option ←
18:33:06 <MarkusK_> Action: Sandro to check if it would be recommendable to use xml as file extension for XML syntax files.
ACTION: Sandro to check if it would be recommendable to use xml as file extension for XML syntax files. ←
18:33:06 <trackbot> Created ACTION-245 - Check if it would be recommendable to use xml as file extension for XML syntax files. [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-11-19].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-245 - Check if it would be recommendable to use xml as file extension for XML syntax files. [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-11-19]. ←
18:33:09 <ivan> good point
Ivan Herman: good point ←
18:33:27 <MarkusK_> Alan: Using xml might cause confusion with some tools, e.g. Protege.
Alan Ruttenberg: Using xml might cause confusion with some tools, e.g. Protege. ←
18:33:58 <MarkusK_> Sandro: Also web servers might like to have a separate extension for serving the right mime type.
Sandro Hawke: Also web servers might like to have a separate extension for serving the right mime type. ←
18:34:14 <MarkusK_> Alan: Then we should probably not consider xml.
Alan Ruttenberg: Then we should probably not consider xml. ←
18:34:14 <sandro> action-245 closed
Sandro Hawke: ACTION-245 closed ←
18:34:14 <trackbot> ACTION-245 Check if it would be recommendable to use xml as file extension for XML syntax files. closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-245 Check if it would be recommendable to use xml as file extension for XML syntax files. closed ←
18:34:24 <MarkusK_> Pfps: ok
18:34:26 <Rinke> oxl = OMEGA Product Suite File
Rinke Hoekstra: oxl = OMEGA Product Suite File ←
18:34:27 <ivan> toss a coin
Ivan Herman: toss a coin ←
18:34:29 <MarkusK_> Sandro: ok
Sandro Hawke: ok ←
18:34:31 <sandro> owx
Sandro Hawke: owx ←
18:34:45 <MarkusK_> Alan: So the choice is between owx and oxl.
Alan Ruttenberg: So the choice is between owx and oxl. ←
18:35:10 <msmith> Does mime registration limit us to 3 characters?
Mike Smith: Does mime registration limit us to 3 characters? ←
18:35:22 <sandro> No, but some people prefer it.
Sandro Hawke: No, but some people prefer it. ←
18:35:37 <Rinke> ... and some filesystems do as well
Rinke Hoekstra: ... and some filesystems do as well ←
18:35:43 <MarkusK_> Alan: There appears to be a file type for oxl but none for owx, which might support the latter. Peter, do you like owx?
Alan Ruttenberg: There appears to be a file type for oxl but none for owx, which might support the latter. Peter, do you like owx? ←
18:35:57 <JeffP> xol?
18:36:04 <ivan> owx it is!
Ivan Herman: owx it is! ←
18:36:07 <MarkusK_> Pfps: I don't care.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I don't care. ←
18:36:17 <Zhe> owx is not bad
18:36:32 <MarkusK_> Alan: Ok, then let us use owx.
Alan Ruttenberg: Ok, then let us use owx. ←
18:36:48 <MarkusK_> Pfps: I will edit all relevant documents to mirror this choice.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I will edit all relevant documents to mirror this choice. ←
18:37:02 <ivan> :-)
Ivan Herman: :-) ←
18:37:16 <MarkusK_> Sandro: Could we fix who will contact IETF for registering the mime types?
Sandro Hawke: Could we fix who will contact IETF for registering the mime types? ←
18:38:13 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
18:38:15 <sandro> q-
Sandro Hawke: q- ←
18:38:30 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Alignment of functional syntax keywords and RDF syntax URIs
18:38:41 <MarkusK_> (Sandro takes over chairing)
(Sandro takes over chairing) ←
18:39:09 <MarkusK_> Alan: The action was to have a smaller group of people to work-out a proposal. It might be good to have another week for a coherent proposal.
Alan Ruttenberg: The action was to have a smaller group of people to work-out a proposal. It might be good to have another week for a coherent proposal. ←
18:39:59 <pfps> q+
18:40:08 <sandro> ack pfps
Sandro Hawke: ack pfps ←
18:40:18 <MarkusK_> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/AligningSyntaxKeywords
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/AligningSyntaxKeywords ←
18:40:27 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
18:41:07 <alanr_> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
18:41:13 <alanr_> ack ivan
Alan Ruttenberg: ack ivan ←
18:41:17 <MarkusK_> Ivan: One option for solving the dealock would be to not do any change.
Ivan Herman: One option for solving the dealock would be to not do any change. ←
18:41:41 <pfps> there are a couple of suggestions that don't seem to have much, if any, pushback
Peter Patel-Schneider: there are a couple of suggestions that don't seem to have much, if any, pushback ←
18:42:09 <bmotik> I'm afraid that the only noncontentious thing is ExistsSelf
Boris Motik: I'm afraid that the only noncontentious thing is ExistsSelf ←
18:42:26 <sandro> STRAWPOLL: Should we put effort into aligning the functional syntax and RDF names?
STRAWPOLL: Should we put effort into aligning the functional syntax and RDF names? ←
18:42:29 <bmotik> -1
Boris Motik: -1 ←
18:42:32 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
18:42:32 <bcuencagrau> -1
18:42:32 <alanr_> +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
18:42:35 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
18:42:38 <pfps> -1
18:42:44 <MarkusK_> 0
0 ←
18:42:44 <schneid> -0
Michael Schneider: -0 ←
18:42:44 <msmith> 0
Mike Smith: 0 ←
18:42:45 <JeffP> 0
18:42:48 <uli> -0
Uli Sattler: -0 ←
18:42:51 <Zhe> +1 consistency is always a good thing
Zhe Wu: +1 consistency is always a good thing ←
18:42:53 <Rinke> +0.5
Rinke Hoekstra: +0.5 ←
18:42:59 <Achille> 0
Achille Fokoue: 0 ←
18:43:28 <sandro> baojie? opinion?
Sandro Hawke: baojie? opinion? ←
18:43:33 <schneid> consequently, one could then also ask for aligning the Manchester Syntax...
Michael Schneider: consequently, one could then also ask for aligning the Manchester Syntax... ←
18:43:43 <Rinke> I don't really think differences in singular vs plural form are a problem
Rinke Hoekstra: I don't really think differences in singular vs plural form are a problem ←
18:43:44 <pfps> there are various different kinds of consistency that could be aimed for here. The current status is for a particular kind of consistency.
Peter Patel-Schneider: there are various different kinds of consistency that could be aimed for here. The current status is for a particular kind of consistency. ←
18:43:51 <bmotik> +q
Boris Motik: +q ←
18:43:58 <ivan> ack alanr_
Ivan Herman: ack alanr_ ←
18:44:02 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
18:44:05 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me ←
18:44:05 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted ←
18:44:05 <sandro> ack bmotik
Sandro Hawke: ack bmotik ←
18:44:09 <MarkusK_> Sandro: If there was no effort involved, would there be objections changing the names?
Sandro Hawke: If there was no effort involved, would there be objections changing the names? ←
18:44:34 <baojie> sorry, was off for a few minutes, I would vote +1
Jie Bao: sorry, was off for a few minutes, I would vote +1 ←
18:44:24 <MarkusK_> Boris: I voted with -1. In an ideal world, it would be great to have that alignment but in practice, forcing an alignment would make the functional syntax ugly. For instance, we do have singular names in RDF where we have n-ary constructs in functional-style syntax. Given that we cannot change RDF, I believe that the alignment is not practical.
Boris Motik: I voted with -1. In an ideal world, it would be great to have that alignment but in practice, forcing an alignment would make the functional syntax ugly. For instance, we do have singular names in RDF where we have n-ary constructs in functional-style syntax. Given that we cannot change RDF, I believe that the alignment is not practical. ←
18:44:46 <alanr_> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
18:44:56 <sandro> boris: In an ideal world, yes, we'd like the same names. But the RDF syntax takes precidence, so the function syntax would start to get very ugly.
Boris Motik: In an ideal world, yes, we'd like the same names. But the RDF syntax takes precidence, so the function syntax would start to get very ugly. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:45:29 <sandro> boris: If we were designing two syntax from scratch, then sure, align them.
Boris Motik: If we were designing two syntax from scratch, then sure, align them. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:45:40 <sandro> boris: but since we can't change RDF, let's not make functional ugly.
Boris Motik: but since we can't change RDF, let's not make functional ugly. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:45:41 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
18:45:43 <bcuencagrau> +q
18:45:45 <sandro> ack alanr_
Sandro Hawke: ack alanr_ ←
18:45:46 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
18:45:46 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←
18:46:23 <sandro> alan: let's accept plurality issues, but try to solve the other?
Alan Ruttenberg: let's accept plurality issues, but try to solve the other? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:46:30 <MarkusK_> Alan: Maybe one could focus on alignments that are less problematic than the plurals/singulars. There are other issues that could possibly be changed with less effort. I will suggest this in an email.
Alan Ruttenberg: Maybe one could focus on alignments that are less problematic than the plurals/singulars. There are other issues that could possibly be changed with less effort. I will suggest this in an email. ←
18:46:38 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
18:46:57 <sandro> ack bcuencagrau
Sandro Hawke: ack bcuencagrau ←
18:46:57 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, unmute me
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, unmute me ←
18:47:00 <Zakim> bcuencagrau was not muted, bcuencagrau
Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencagrau was not muted, bcuencagrau ←
18:47:24 <msmith> q+ to mention the OWL XML schema
Mike Smith: q+ to mention the OWL XML schema ←
18:47:27 <MarkusK_> Bernardo: Do you then only suggest to change some names? I agree with Boris. We have a nice and well-developed functional syntax now. It has been developed for quite some time, and I would not like to implement major changes there now.
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Do you then only suggest to change some names? I agree with Boris. We have a nice and well-developed functional syntax now. It has been developed for quite some time, and I would not like to implement major changes there now. ←
18:47:52 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
18:47:53 <alanr_> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
18:48:06 <sandro> ack ivan
Sandro Hawke: ack ivan ←
18:48:12 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, mute me ←
18:48:12 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencagrau should now be muted ←
18:48:44 <MarkusK_> Ivan: I also see that the complete alignment appears to be unrealistic. We only arrived at consensus in a few cases, while most of the namings remained disputed. Still there is a problem in understanding OWL 2 for people coming to OWL from the RDF world. A possible answer of course is that people from the DL world would prefer the current namings over the RDF-compatible ones. But changing only two or three names seems not to solve the problem anyway, so we might just avoid this extra work.
Ivan Herman: I also see that the complete alignment appears to be unrealistic. We only arrived at consensus in a few cases, while most of the namings remained disputed. Still there is a problem in understanding OWL 2 for people coming to OWL from the RDF world. A possible answer of course is that people from the DL world would prefer the current namings over the RDF-compatible ones. But changing only two or three names seems not to solve the problem anyway, so we might just avoid this extra work. ←
18:49:19 <bcuencagrau> +q
18:49:25 <bmotik> +q
Boris Motik: +q ←
18:50:27 <sandro> ack msmith
Sandro Hawke: ack msmith ←
18:50:27 <Zakim> msmith, you wanted to mention the OWL XML schema
Zakim IRC Bot: msmith, you wanted to mention the OWL XML schema ←
18:51:00 <ivan> +1 to msmith
Ivan Herman: +1 to msmith ←
18:51:09 <sandro> ack alanr_
Sandro Hawke: ack alanr_ ←
18:51:11 <MarkusK_> MikeSmith: Note that the functional syntax is also aligned with the OWL XML syntax. Any change in the names would thus also affect the XML syntax.
Mike Smith: Note that the functional syntax is also aligned with the OWL XML syntax. Any change in the names would thus also affect the XML syntax. ←
18:51:08 <schneid> of course, every change in the FS would need to be followed by OWL/XML
Michael Schneider: of course, every change in the FS would need to be followed by OWL/XML ←
18:51:17 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, unmute me
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, unmute me ←
18:51:17 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencagrau should no longer be muted ←
18:52:06 <MarkusK_> Sandro: Many people may arrive at OWL as an extension of RDF and those people should be supported.
Sandro Hawke: Many people may arrive at OWL as an extension of RDF and those people should be supported. ←
18:52:25 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
18:52:29 <sandro> ack bcuencagrau
Sandro Hawke: ack bcuencagrau ←
18:52:48 <MarkusK_> Sandro: An editorial improvement could be to (scribe did not get this, sorry)
Sandro Hawke: An editorial improvement could be to (scribe did not get this, sorry) ←
18:53:01 <pfps> q+
18:53:05 <pfps> q-
18:53:10 <sandro> Alan: We could xref the function syntax to the RDF vocabulary, as an editorial fix.
Alan Ruttenberg: We could xref the function syntax to the RDF vocabulary, as an editorial fix. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:53:13 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me ←
18:53:13 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted ←
18:53:13 <MarkusK_> Bernardo: One way to move forward would be to check if there are comments from the community after publishing the documents. So we may want to wait for comments before starting major changes.
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: One way to move forward would be to check if there are comments from the community after publishing the documents. So we may want to wait for comments before starting major changes. ←
18:53:33 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, mute me ←
18:53:33 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencagrau should now be muted ←
18:53:36 <sandro> ack bmotik
Sandro Hawke: ack bmotik ←
18:53:48 <MarkusK_> Sandro: The downside would be that this may require a second last call.
Sandro Hawke: The downside would be that this may require a second last call. ←
18:54:26 <MarkusK_> Boris: We should keep in mind that OWL is indeed serving two partially overlapping communities. I am not convinced that changing some names would solve the problem that those different approaches bring. And there are various documents addressing the view of the RDF community, including the Primer that shows explicitly how to translate syntactic forms.
Boris Motik: We should keep in mind that OWL is indeed serving two partially overlapping communities. I am not convinced that changing some names would solve the problem that those different approaches bring. And there are various documents addressing the view of the RDF community, including the Primer that shows explicitly how to translate syntactic forms. ←
18:54:14 <sandro> (Hey, let's have two different languages, with different names! :-)
Sandro Hawke: (Hey, let's have two different languages, with different names! :-) ←
18:54:38 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
18:55:09 <uli> good points, Boris
Uli Sattler: good points, Boris ←
18:55:11 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
18:55:11 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←
18:55:18 <alanr_> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
18:56:00 <MarkusK_> Ivan: So how should we continue?
Ivan Herman: So how should we continue? ←
18:56:24 <schneid> we had pretty much a draw in the straw poll, with half of the votes being 0
Michael Schneider: we had pretty much a draw in the straw poll, with half of the votes being 0 ←
18:56:34 <MarkusK_> Sandro: This can be discussed on the mailing lists; if not enough people continue to work on this, we need to give up on the alignment.
Sandro Hawke: This can be discussed on the mailing lists; if not enough people continue to work on this, we need to give up on the alignment. ←
18:56:45 <MarkusK_> Alan: I will send a mail with some suggestions for discussion
Alan Ruttenberg: I will send a mail with some suggestions for discussion ←
18:56:51 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Manchester syntax
18:57:08 <MarkusK_> Pfps: Some months ago, I mailed that Manchester syntax is ready for review. There have been some at least partial reviews since then. I have addressed most of those comments, but one major comment resulted in issue-146.
Peter Patel-Schneider: Some months ago, I mailed that Manchester syntax is ready for review. There have been some at least partial reviews since then. I have addressed most of those comments, but one major comment resulted in ISSUE-146. ←
18:58:23 <MarkusK_> Sandro: Any other comments before publishing this?
Sandro Hawke: Any other comments before publishing this? ←
18:59:11 <MarkusK_> Alan: Some review comments are still in the document, maybe these should be turned into editor's notes.
Alan Ruttenberg: Some review comments are still in the document, maybe these should be turned into editor's notes. ←
18:59:31 <MarkusK_> Pfps: I still wait for responses from the authors of some of these comments.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I still wait for responses from the authors of some of these comments. ←
19:00:25 <MarkusK_> Alan: I guess I would like my comments turned into editor's notes without open issues. If Peter agrees with that.
Alan Ruttenberg: I guess I would like my comments turned into editor's notes without open issues. If Peter agrees with that. ←
19:01:18 <Rinke> (my two remaining review comments have been addressed, as far as I'm concerned they may be removed)
Rinke Hoekstra: (my two remaining review comments have been addressed, as far as I'm concerned they may be removed) ←
19:01:23 <MarkusK_> Pfps: For this document there appears to be disagreement between the editor and the reviewers. Keeping the comments as notes will not solve the problem in the end.
Peter Patel-Schneider: For this document there appears to be disagreement between the editor and the reviewers. Keeping the comments as notes will not solve the problem in the end. ←
19:01:42 <schneid> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
19:01:50 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
19:02:00 <Rinke> I don't have an alternative either
Rinke Hoekstra: I don't have an alternative either ←
19:02:00 <MarkusK_> Sandro: But we can ask the public for comments on open issues.
Sandro Hawke: But we can ask the public for comments on open issues. ←
19:02:14 <Rinke> yes
Rinke Hoekstra: yes ←
19:02:34 <MarkusK_> Pfps: OK, I can turn the comments into editor's notes, and we can then go forward with publication.
Peter Patel-Schneider: OK, I can turn the comments into editor's notes, and we can then go forward with publication. ←
19:02:42 <schneid> q-
Michael Schneider: q- ←
19:02:57 <sandro> ACTION: Pfps convert review comments to editors notes (except rinke's)
ACTION: Pfps convert review comments to editors notes (except rinke's) ←
19:02:57 <trackbot> Created ACTION-246 - Convert review comments to editors notes (except rinke's) [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2008-11-19].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-246 - Convert review comments to editors notes (except rinke's) [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2008-11-19]. ←
19:03:14 <msmith> and in test&conf (responding to the question where to find examples for making editor's notes on the wiki)
Mike Smith: and in test&conf (responding to the question where to find examples for making editor's notes on the wiki) ←
19:04:06 <schneid> there's also an EdNote resulting from some open disagreement between the editor and one of the reviewers of the RDF-Based Semantics ... :)
Michael Schneider: there's also an EdNote resulting from some open disagreement between the editor and one of the reviewers of the RDF-Based Semantics ... :) ←
19:03:29 <ivan> q?
Ivan Herman: q? ←
19:03:33 <MarkusK_> Sandro: Can we propose to publish? Should publication be as soon as possible or in combination with other publications?
Sandro Hawke: Can we propose to publish? Should publication be as soon as possible or in combination with other publications? ←
19:04:08 <MarkusK_> Alan: Maybe we can at least resolve now to publish.
Alan Ruttenberg: Maybe we can at least resolve now to publish. ←
19:04:33 <sandro> PROPOSED: Publish ManchesterSyntax as FPWD, after Peter's just-discussed editors notes are added, in our next round of publications.
PROPOSED: Publish ManchesterSyntax as FPWD, after Peter's just-discussed editors notes are added, in our next round of publications. ←
19:05:29 <MarkusK_> Alan: So "next round" would mean the next time we publish; is this at Last Call?
Alan Ruttenberg: So "next round" would mean the next time we publish; is this at Last Call? ←
19:05:36 <MarkusK_> Sandro: Yes, that would be useful.
Sandro Hawke: Yes, that would be useful. ←
19:04:40 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford)
Boris Motik: +1 (Oxford) ←
19:04:45 <Rinke> +1 (UvA)
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 (UvA) ←
19:04:46 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI)
+1 (FZI) ←
19:04:48 <pfps> +1 (ALU)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU) ←
19:04:50 <bcuencagrau> +1 (Oxford)
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1 (Oxford) ←
19:04:53 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)
19:04:55 <ivan> +1 (w3c)
Ivan Herman: +1 (w3c) ←
19:04:58 <alanr_> +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
19:04:58 <Achille> +1 (IBM)
Achille Fokoue: +1 (IBM) ←
19:05:11 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
19:05:12 <alanr_> +1 (science commons)
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 (science commons) ←
19:05:19 <uli> +1 (Man)
Uli Sattler: +1 (Man) ←
19:05:33 <msmith> +1 (C&P)
Mike Smith: +1 (C&P) ←
19:05:38 <sandro> RESOLVED: Publish ManchesterSyntax as FPWD, after Peter's just-discussed editors notes are added, in our next round of publications.
RESOLVED: Publish ManchesterSyntax as FPWD, after Peter's just-discussed editors notes are added, in our next round of publications. ←
19:05:42 <baojie> +1 (RPI)
19:05:48 <sandro> ack ivan
Sandro Hawke: ack ivan ←
19:06:16 <MarkusK_> Ivan: There is one open issue related to the Manchester Syntax; I do not understand what it says.
Ivan Herman: There is one open issue related to the Manchester Syntax; I do not understand what it says. ←
19:06:31 <MarkusK_> Sandro: This one is on the agenda, maybe we can get to this.
Sandro Hawke: This one is on the agenda, maybe we can get to this. ←
19:06:43 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Datarange extensions
19:07:24 <MarkusK_> Alan: We have had some reviews, and the question now is if we can make this a publishable WG note.
Alan Ruttenberg: We have had some reviews, and the question now is if we can make this a publishable WG note. ←
19:07:12 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+ ←
19:07:18 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me ←
19:07:18 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted ←
19:07:22 <alanr_> ack bmotik
Alan Ruttenberg: ack bmotik ←
19:07:45 <MarkusK_> Boris: I think the document is good, but some of the comments need to be addressed. I think all reviewers agreed that this should be published as a note. Some open issues remain, but I do not see why those should not be solvable.
Boris Motik: I think the document is good, but some of the comments need to be addressed. I think all reviewers agreed that this should be published as a note. Some open issues remain, but I do not see why those should not be solvable. ←
19:07:57 <uli> q+
Uli Sattler: q+ ←
19:08:05 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
19:08:05 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←
19:08:09 <uli> zakim, unmute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, unmute me ←
19:08:09 <Zakim> uli should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should no longer be muted ←
19:08:41 <MarkusK_> Uli: We plan to address all the reviewers' comments, but this won't happen by next week.
Uli Sattler: We plan to address all the reviewers' comments, but this won't happen by next week. ←
19:08:55 <uli> zakim, mute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me ←
19:08:55 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted ←
19:09:22 <MarkusK_> Alan: OK; so let us continue to work on this.
Alan Ruttenberg: OK; so let us continue to work on this. ←
19:09:28 <sandro> Alan: consensus seems to be that this is moving along nicely to end up as a Note.
Alan Ruttenberg: consensus seems to be that this is moving along nicely to end up as a Note. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:09:49 <bmotik> Given this outcome, could we perhaps resolve ISSUE-127 now/soon?
Boris Motik: Given this outcome, could we perhaps resolve ISSUE-127 now/soon? ←
19:10:03 <MarkusK_> Topic: Issues
19:10:12 <sandro> subtopic: issue-127
19:10:29 <MarkusK_> (Alan is back chairing)
(Alan is back chairing) ←
19:10:28 <bmotik> +1 to close
Boris Motik: +1 to close ←
19:10:33 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+ ←
19:10:42 <sandro> ack uli
Sandro Hawke: ack uli ←
19:10:43 <alanr_> ack uli
Alan Ruttenberg: ack uli ←
19:10:54 <alanr_> ack bmotik
Alan Ruttenberg: ack bmotik ←
19:10:56 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me ←
19:10:56 <Zakim> bmotik was not muted, bmotik
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik was not muted, bmotik ←
19:11:01 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
19:11:02 <uli> zakim, mute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me ←
19:11:02 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted ←
19:11:16 <MarkusK_> Boris: Does anything speak against closing Issue 127?
Boris Motik: Does anything speak against closing ISSUE-127? ←
19:11:43 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
19:11:43 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←
19:11:47 <ivan> q-
Ivan Herman: q- ←
19:11:55 <schneid> we had /3/ proposals to close this in the last few days, AFAIR :)
Michael Schneider: we had /3/ proposals to close this in the last few days, AFAIR :) ←
19:12:07 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close issue-127 given the work on Data Range Extension is proceeding nicely
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-127 given the work on Data Range Extension is proceeding nicely ←
19:12:09 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
19:12:12 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
19:12:13 <alanr_> +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
19:12:13 <msmith> +1
Mike Smith: +1 ←
19:12:13 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
19:12:14 <Rinke> +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 ←
19:12:14 <schneid> +1
Michael Schneider: +1 ←
19:12:14 <MarkusK_> +1
+1 ←
19:12:14 <pfps> +1
19:12:17 <Zhe> +1
19:12:18 <bcuencagrau> +1
19:12:23 <uli> +1
Uli Sattler: +1 ←
19:12:24 <JeffP> 0
19:12:26 <baojie> +1
19:12:33 <sandro> RESOLVED: Close issue-127 given the work on Data Range Extension is proceeding nicely
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-127 given the work on Data Range Extension is proceeding nicely ←
19:12:56 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Issue-87
19:13:08 <MarkusK_> (Sandro is chairing this)
(Sandro is chairing this) ←
19:13:50 <MarkusK_> Alan: It is considered useful to add rational numbers as a datatype. The question was how this should be realized, and what conformance would require for this datatype. Also it was asked if we should have a dedicated lexical representation for rationals.
Alan Ruttenberg: It is considered useful to add rational numbers as a datatype. The question was how this should be realized, and what conformance would require for this datatype. Also it was asked if we should have a dedicated lexical representation for rationals. ←
19:14:05 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+ ←
19:14:18 <msmith> q+
Mike Smith: q+ ←
19:14:20 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me ←
19:14:20 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted ←
19:14:23 <sandro> ack bmotik
Sandro Hawke: ack bmotik ←
19:15:17 <MarkusK_> Boris: Regarding the dedicated lexical form, I do not see any problems. There might be some implementation challenges involved. One would probably store rationals as pairs of integers. We do not need arithmetics, since OWL does not include much arithmetics anyway. But comparing floats and rationals might be a slight challenge for implementors.
Boris Motik: Regarding the dedicated lexical form, I do not see any problems. There might be some implementation challenges involved. One would probably store rationals as pairs of integers. We do not need arithmetics, since OWL does not include much arithmetics anyway. But comparing floats and rationals might be a slight challenge for implementors. ←
19:15:28 <alanr_> q+ to mention finite number of floats between rationals
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ to mention finite number of floats between rationals ←
19:16:13 <msmith> q-
Mike Smith: q- ←
19:16:43 <sandro> ack alanr_
Sandro Hawke: ack alanr_ ←
19:16:43 <Zakim> alanr_, you wanted to mention finite number of floats between rationals
Zakim IRC Bot: alanr_, you wanted to mention finite number of floats between rationals ←
19:16:46 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
19:16:46 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←
19:16:51 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, mute me ←
19:16:51 <Zakim> bcuencagrau was already muted, bcuencagrau
Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencagrau was already muted, bcuencagrau ←
19:17:11 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+ ←
19:17:33 <MarkusK_> Alan: I was also wondering about the comparison. Maybe we should put this in and tag it as an "at risk" feature. There was also a problem relating to counting floats.
Alan Ruttenberg: I was also wondering about the comparison. Maybe we should put this in and tag it as an "at risk" feature. There was also a problem relating to counting floats. ←
19:17:33 <sandro> a?
Sandro Hawke: a? ←
19:17:36 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
19:17:37 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me ←
19:17:37 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted ←
19:17:42 <sandro> ack bmotik
Sandro Hawke: ack bmotik ←
19:17:54 <schneid> xsd:double just specifies a finite subset of all rationals
Michael Schneider: xsd:double just specifies a finite subset of all rationals ←
19:18:17 <alanr_> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
19:18:45 <sandro> ack alanr_
Sandro Hawke: ack alanr_ ←
19:18:46 <MarkusK_> Boris: Yes, but the value space of rationals is dense, i.e. there are infinitely many values between each pair of distinct rational numbers. Even if there are only finitely many constants, the number of rationals is not a problem.
Boris Motik: Yes, but the value space of rationals is dense, i.e. there are infinitely many values between each pair of distinct rational numbers. Even if there are only finitely many constants, the number of rationals is not a problem. ←
19:19:32 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
19:19:32 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←
19:19:33 <MarkusK_> Alan: Yes, but there might e.g. be a data range of floats bounded by rational constants
Alan Ruttenberg: Yes, but there might e.g. be a data range of floats bounded by rational constants ←
19:19:58 <MarkusK_> Sandro: This discussion probably should be continued elsewhere.
Sandro Hawke: This discussion probably should be continued elsewhere. ←
19:19:41 <msmith> +1
Mike Smith: +1 ←
19:19:46 <alanr_> +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
19:20:10 <sandro> STRAWPOLL: go ahead with Rationals in OWL2, marked as At Risk until we get implementation experience
STRAWPOLL: go ahead with Rationals in OWL2, marked as At Risk until we get implementation experience ←
19:20:11 <ivan> +1 (why putting it on the agenda next week?)
Ivan Herman: +1 (why putting it on the agenda next week?) ←
19:20:14 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
19:20:17 <MarkusK_> +1
+1 ←
19:20:17 <baojie> +1
19:20:18 <uli> +1
Uli Sattler: +1 ←
19:20:19 <pfps> +1
19:20:19 <Achille> +1
Achille Fokoue: +1 ←
19:20:19 <Zhe> +1
19:20:22 <schneid> +1 (even without "at risk")
Michael Schneider: +1 (even without "at risk") ←
19:20:23 <alanr_> +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
19:20:23 <bcuencagrau> +1
19:20:24 <Rinke> +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 ←
19:20:29 <JeffP> 0
19:20:49 <bmotik> Perhaps we can come up by the next week with questions that need to be answered in order to remove "at risk"
Boris Motik: Perhaps we can come up by the next week with questions that need to be answered in order to remove "at risk" ←
19:20:55 <MarkusK_> Sandro: It appears to be too early to make this a full resolution, since it was not announced on the agenda.
Sandro Hawke: It appears to be too early to make this a full resolution, since it was not announced on the agenda. ←
19:21:06 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
19:21:12 <sandro> Subtopic: issue-146
19:21:22 <MarkusK_> (Sandro chairing)
(Sandro chairing) ←
19:22:16 <MarkusK_> Sandro: We probably could let this issue sit until we have feedback on Manchester syntax.
Sandro Hawke: We probably could let this issue sit until we have feedback on Manchester syntax. ←
19:22:17 <sandro> we're going to let this sit....
Sandro Hawke: we're going to let this sit.... ←
19:22:52 <ivan> q-
Ivan Herman: q- ←
19:22:55 <MarkusK_> Ivan: I really do not understand Issue 146. I would like a more detailed explanation via email.
Ivan Herman: I really do not understand ISSUE-146. I would like a more detailed explanation via email. ←
19:23:19 <sandro> ACTION: Alan make a detailed proposal for edits to ManchesterSyntax to address issue-146 - due Jan 15
ACTION: Alan make a detailed proposal for edits to ManchesterSyntax to address ISSUE-146 - due Jan 15 ←
19:23:19 <trackbot> Created ACTION-247 - make a detailed proposal for edits to ManchesterSyntax to address issue-146 [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-01-15].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-247 - make a detailed proposal for edits to ManchesterSyntax to address ISSUE-146 [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-01-15]. ←
19:23:56 <sandro> Subtopic: deprecated
19:24:08 <sandro> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Nov/0076.html
Sandro Hawke: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Nov/0076.html ←
19:24:18 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+ ←
19:24:21 <pfps> q+
19:24:36 <MarkusK_> Alan: Since we have punning, we can no longer distinguish deprecation of properties and classes. A simple way to fix this would be to have two separate annotation properties as deprecation markers: one for classes and one for properties.
Alan Ruttenberg: Since we have punning, we can no longer distinguish deprecation of properties and classes. A simple way to fix this would be to have two separate annotation properties as deprecation markers: one for classes and one for properties. ←
19:24:43 <Zakim> -Rinke
Zakim IRC Bot: -Rinke ←
19:24:45 <sandro> ack bmotik
Sandro Hawke: ack bmotik ←
19:24:46 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me ←
19:24:48 <Zakim> bmotik was not muted, bmotik
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik was not muted, bmotik ←
19:24:49 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
19:25:04 <pfps> q-
19:25:24 <MarkusK_> Boris: So the suggestion is to have two distinct annotation properties?
Boris Motik: So the suggestion is to have two distinct annotation properties? ←
19:25:29 <MarkusK_> Alan: Yes.
Alan Ruttenberg: Yes. ←
19:25:48 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
19:25:51 <schneid> or more: for individuals, classes, datatypes, dataproperties, objectproperties
Michael Schneider: or more: for individuals, classes, datatypes, dataproperties, objectproperties ←
19:25:54 <sandro> ack ivan
Sandro Hawke: ack ivan ←
19:25:56 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
19:25:56 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←
19:25:57 <MarkusK_> Boris: Isnt't it that you deprecate a URI rather than a particular use/view of it?
Boris Motik: Isnt't it that you deprecate a URI rather than a particular use/view of it? ←
19:26:11 <MarkusK_> Alan: No, my intention is to deprecate a particular view on a URI.
Alan Ruttenberg: No, my intention is to deprecate a particular view on a URI. ←
19:26:24 <MarkusK_> Ivan: Are there any use cases?
Ivan Herman: Are there any use cases? ←
19:26:27 <bmotik> +1 to ivan
Boris Motik: +1 to ivan ←
19:26:37 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+ ←
19:26:41 <MarkusK_> Alan: Yes, you could have a legacy document that contains a deprecated property. But you can no longer tell that that use was deprecated, and not, e.g., the class.
Alan Ruttenberg: Yes, you could have a legacy document that contains a deprecated property. But you can no longer tell that that use was deprecated, and not, e.g., the class. ←
19:27:00 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
19:27:37 <MarkusK_> Ivan: Conceptually, URIs still refer to one thing, and this is what I expect to deprecate. Thus the deprecation refers to all uses of the URI.
Ivan Herman: Conceptually, URIs still refer to one thing, and this is what I expect to deprecate. Thus the deprecation refers to all uses of the URI. ←
19:27:54 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
19:28:01 <schneid> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
19:28:02 <MarkusK_> Alan: My assumption was that single uses of URIs might be deprecated.
Alan Ruttenberg: My assumption was that single uses of URIs might be deprecated. ←
19:28:23 <MarkusK_> Ivan: If I am in OWL Full, I also deprecate a URI.
Ivan Herman: If I am in OWL Full, I also deprecate a URI. ←
19:28:41 <bmotik> In OWL Full, there is no distinction between a property and a class
Boris Motik: In OWL Full, there is no distinction between a property and a class ←
19:28:43 <sandro> ack bmotik
Sandro Hawke: ack bmotik ←
19:28:44 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me ←
19:28:44 <Zakim> bmotik was not muted, bmotik
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik was not muted, bmotik ←
19:29:20 <MarkusK_> Boris: The reason for having deprecated class and deprecated property in OWL 1 seems to be a side effect but not a very thought-through design. For instance, there is no way of deprecating individuals. I do not think that this OWL 1 deprecation was actually used a lot either. Maybe we do not require to spend more effort on this.
Boris Motik: The reason for having deprecated class and deprecated property in OWL 1 seems to be a side effect but not a very thought-through design. For instance, there is no way of deprecating individuals. I do not think that this OWL 1 deprecation was actually used a lot either. Maybe we do not require to spend more effort on this. ←
19:29:56 <ivan> ???
Ivan Herman: ??? ←
19:30:04 <alanr_> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
19:30:10 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
19:30:10 <Zakim> schneid was not muted, schneid
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid was not muted, schneid ←
19:31:00 <schneid> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
19:31:00 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should now be muted ←
19:31:03 <MarkusK_> Schneid: One could imagine that someone wants to deprecate only the class use of a URI but not the property use, but this will probably never happen in practice.
Michael Schneider: One could imagine that someone wants to deprecate only the class use of a URI but not the property use, but this will probably never happen in practice. ←
19:31:07 <uli> bye
Uli Sattler: bye ←
19:31:10 <Zhe> bye
19:31:10 <Zakim> -bmotik
Zakim IRC Bot: -bmotik ←
19:31:11 <sandro> ADJOURNED
Sandro Hawke: ADJOURNED ←
19:31:13 <Zakim> -alanr_
Zakim IRC Bot: -alanr_ ←
19:31:14 <Zakim> -msmith
Zakim IRC Bot: -msmith ←
19:31:15 <msmith> bye
Mike Smith: bye ←
19:31:15 <Zakim> -uli
Zakim IRC Bot: -uli ←
19:31:17 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
Zakim IRC Bot: -Peter_Patel-Schneider ←
19:31:17 <Zakim> -Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: -Zhe ←
19:31:18 <Zakim> -baojie
Zakim IRC Bot: -baojie ←
19:31:23 <Zakim> -clu
Zakim IRC Bot: -clu ←
19:31:24 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau
Zakim IRC Bot: -bcuencagrau ←
19:31:28 <Zakim> -Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←
19:31:46 <Zakim> -Achille
Zakim IRC Bot: -Achille ←
19:31:52 <sandro> RRSAgent, make log public
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, make log public ←
19:32:02 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Scribe_Conventions
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Scribe_Conventions ←
19:32:17 <MarkusK_> Bye
Bye ←
19:32:17 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
19:32:21 <Zakim> -MarkusK_
Zakim IRC Bot: -MarkusK_ ←
19:34:17 <Zakim> -schneid
Zakim IRC Bot: -schneid ←
19:34:18 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended ←
19:34:20 <Zakim> Attendees were Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, +1.518.276.aaaa, josb, bmotik, +1.617.452.aabb, alanr_, uli, baojie, Sandro, Zhe, +0494212186aacc, clu, schneid, bcuencagrau,
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, +1.518.276.aaaa, josb, bmotik, +1.617.452.aabb, alanr_, uli, baojie, Sandro, Zhe, +0494212186aacc, clu, schneid, bcuencagrau, ←
19:34:23 <Zakim> ... msmith, Rinke, Achille
Zakim IRC Bot: ... msmith, Rinke, Achille ←
This revision (#2) generated 2008-11-13 17:31:04 UTC by 'mkrtzsch', comments: None