<sandro> PRESENT: Ian, Boris, Pfps, Bernardo, Sandro, MarkusK, michael_schneider, Achille, bijan, wallace, Christine, Rinke, Ivan
<sandro> REMOTE: Zhe
06:50:00 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-owl-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-owl-irc ←
06:50:18 <wallace> zakim, this will be owl wg
Evan Wallace: zakim, this will be owl wg ←
06:50:18 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, wallace ←
06:50:33 <wallace> zakim, this will be owl
Evan Wallace: zakim, this will be owl ←
06:50:33 <Zakim> ok, wallace; I see SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM scheduled to start 20 minutes ago
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, wallace; I see SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM scheduled to start 20 minutes ago ←
06:51:14 <wallace> ScribeNick: wallace
(Scribe set to Evan Wallace)
07:06:02 <ivan> zakim, dial Riviera_B
(No events recorded for 14 minutes)
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial Riviera_B ←
07:06:02 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
07:06:03 <Zakim> SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM has now started ←
07:06:03 <Zakim> +Riviera_B
Zakim IRC Bot: +Riviera_B ←
07:06:39 <ivan> zakim, drop Riveiera_B
Ivan Herman: zakim, drop Riveiera_B ←
07:06:39 <Zakim> sorry, ivan, I do not see a party named 'Riveiera_B'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, ivan, I do not see a party named 'Riveiera_B' ←
07:06:52 <ivan> zakim, who is there?
Ivan Herman: zakim, who is there? ←
07:06:52 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, ivan.
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand your question, ivan. ←
07:07:14 <ivan> zakim, dial Riviera_B
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial Riviera_B ←
07:07:14 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
07:07:16 <Zakim> +Riviera_B.a
Zakim IRC Bot: +Riviera_B.a ←
07:07:31 <Zakim> -Riviera_B
Zakim IRC Bot: -Riviera_B ←
07:07:40 <Zakim> -Riviera_B.a
Zakim IRC Bot: -Riviera_B.a ←
07:07:41 <Zakim> SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM has ended ←
07:07:42 <Zakim> Attendees were Riviera_B, Riviera_B.a
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Riviera_B, Riviera_B.a ←
07:07:54 <ivan> zakim, dial Riviera_B
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial Riviera_B ←
07:07:54 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
07:07:55 <Zakim> SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM has now started ←
07:07:56 <Zakim> +Riviera_B
Zakim IRC Bot: +Riviera_B ←
07:08:17 <pfps> zakim, who is on the phone?
Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
07:08:17 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B ←
07:08:21 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
07:08:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B ←
07:08:23 <Zakim> On IRC I see IanH, pfps, ivan, bmotik, bernardo, MarkusK_, RRSAgent, Zakim, wallace, sandro, Zhe, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see IanH, pfps, ivan, bmotik, bernardo, MarkusK_, RRSAgent, Zakim, wallace, sandro, Zhe, trackbot ←
07:12:24 <wallace> topic: Issue 138 Name of dateTime datatype
07:13:04 <wallace> pfps: talked with Henry Thompson of XML schema wg
Peter Patel-Schneider: talked with Henry Thompson of XML schema wg ←
07:13:17 <wallace> ... and there is no problem
... and there is no problem ←
07:13:34 <wallace> pfps: we will be using as identity the single timeline
Peter Patel-Schneider: we will be using as identity the single timeline ←
07:13:51 <wallace> ... not the seven value rep.
... not the seven value rep. ←
07:14:03 <wallace> ... our identity is their equality
... our identity is their equality ←
07:14:17 <wallace> ... The only thing we might consider is a note to
... The only thing we might consider is a note to ←
07:14:38 <wallace> ... implementers that you should keep the timezone info there
... implementers that you should keep the timezone info there ←
07:15:23 <wallace> boris: need to preserve the info needed for structural equivalence
Boris Motik: need to preserve the info needed for structural equivalence ←
07:15:50 <wallace> pfps: this means that we can use the new dataTime with required timezone
Peter Patel-Schneider: this means that we can use the new dataTime with required timezone ←
07:16:04 <wallace> ... they are meeting next week to resolve all their issue
... they are meeting next week to resolve all their issue ←
07:16:34 <wallace> ... we will thus know the name for this restricted type next week
... we will thus know the name for this restricted type next week ←
07:16:52 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:17:08 <wallace> pfps: they are going for their second last call soon, before publishing moratorium
Peter Patel-Schneider: they are going for their second last call soon, before publishing moratorium ←
07:17:21 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:17:30 <wallace> pfps: they have high hopes to have implementations ready soon
Peter Patel-Schneider: they have high hopes to have implementations ready soon ←
07:17:40 <wallace> ivan: my only fear about this is
Ivan Herman: my only fear about this is ←
07:17:59 <wallace> ... we cannot refer to something that it too far away from the state where we are
... we cannot refer to something that it too far away from the state where we are ←
07:18:20 <sandro> Boris: Tools working with dateTime should preserve the structural integrity of literals, but we may not want to make too strong a statement there -- we may not want to require "01"^^xs:int not be rewritten "1"^^xs:int.
Boris Motik: Tools working with dateTime should preserve the structural integrity of literals, but we may not want to make too strong a statement there -- we may not want to require "01"^^xs:int not be rewritten "1"^^xs:int. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
07:18:29 <wallace> ... by the time we get to Rec, we must refer to things that are at least candidate Rec.
... by the time we get to Rec, we must refer to things that are at least candidate Rec. ←
07:19:18 <sandro> Sandro: We should probably keep an AT RISK warning on xs:dateTime just in case that WG slips their schedule too much.
Sandro Hawke: We should probably keep an AT RISK warning on xs:dateTime just in case that WG slips their schedule too much. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
07:19:27 <wallace> pfps: we can close it, but we will still need to change the name
Peter Patel-Schneider: we can close it, but we will still need to change the name ←
07:20:42 <IanH> PROPOSED: Close issue 138 with an editors' note stating that we will use XSD name when they determine what it is; also note that this is at risk -- we may need to pick a new name if they don't make it to CR on time.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-138 with an editors' note stating that we will use XSD name when they determine what it is; also note that this is at risk -- we may need to pick a new name if they don't make it to CR on time. ←
07:20:58 <pfps> +1 (ALU)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU) ←
07:20:59 <ivan> 1
Ivan Herman: 1 ←
07:21:05 <IanH> +1 (Oxford)
Ian Horrocks: +1 (Oxford) ←
07:21:06 <wallace> +1
+1 ←
07:21:08 <bernardo> +1
07:21:19 <Zhe> 0
07:21:27 <Zakim> +Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: +Zhe ←
07:21:30 <MarkusK_> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
07:21:38 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
07:21:39 <Rinke> +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 ←
07:21:45 <wallace> ewallace: +1
Evan Wallace: +1 ←
07:21:51 <Christine> +1
Christine Golbreich: +1 ←
07:22:12 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
07:22:16 <IanH> RESOLVED: Close issue 138 with an editors' note stating that we will use XSD name when they determine what it is; also note that this is at risk -- we may need to pick a new name if they don't make it to CR on time.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-138 with an editors' note stating that we will use XSD name when they determine what it is; also note that this is at risk -- we may need to pick a new name if they don't make it to CR on time. ←
07:23:45 <wallace> ... however, the rdf construct for this does not impinge on their purview on this thus they wont complain
... however, the rdf construct for this does not impinge on their purview on this thus they wont complain ←
07:24:14 <wallace> ivan: Is there any specific concern that we should take into account?
Ivan Herman: Is there any specific concern that we should take into account? ←
07:24:46 <wallace> sandro: the RDF core working group was unhappy with creating internationalized strings at the time
Sandro Hawke: the RDF core working group was unhappy with creating internationalized strings at the time ←
07:25:13 <wallace> pfps: I don't think there will be a problem with this.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I don't think there will be a problem with this. ←
07:26:37 <sandro> sandro: (so basically, any awkwardness of rdf:text is due to a design circa 2002 that we can't do much about.)
Sandro Hawke: (so basically, any awkwardness of rdf:text is due to a design circa 2002 that we can't do much about.) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
07:27:53 <sandro> Topic: New Issues Affecting Core Documents
07:28:21 <sandro> subtopic: Issue-147 Add UnionOf and IntersectionOf on Data Ranges
07:28:57 <wallace> boris: we have unionOf, intersectionOf on classes but we dont have for datarange
Boris Motik: we have unionOf, intersectionOf on classes but we dont have for datarange ←
07:30:51 <pfps> boris: we can get some of these for dataranges through other means
Boris Motik: we can get some of these for dataranges through other means [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
07:31:10 <wallace> boris: the point is you could say range of a property is string or integer
Boris Motik: the point is you could say range of a property is string or integer ←
07:31:30 <pfps> boris: they are useful (e.g., <15 or >65) for age giving preferential treatment
Boris Motik: they are useful (e.g., <15 or >65) for age giving preferential treatment [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
07:31:33 <wallace> ... from a reasoning point of view things don't change very much
... from a reasoning point of view things don't change very much ←
07:31:46 <wallace> ... rdf already has it
... rdf already has it ←
07:32:09 <wallace> ivan: it gives more rdf graphs also expressible in DL
Ivan Herman: it gives more rdf graphs also expressible in DL ←
07:32:16 <pfps> boris: these are already in Full - because dataranges are classes and thus can participate in union/intersection
Boris Motik: these are already in Full - because dataranges are classes and thus can participate in union/intersection [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
07:32:52 <pfps> boris: reasoners have to have the facilities for this (from union/intersection for classes)
Boris Motik: reasoners have to have the facilities for this (from union/intersection for classes) [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
07:32:57 <wallace> boris: profiles can't have union of data ranges, even if it were possible I wouldn't go there
Boris Motik: profiles can't have union of data ranges, even if it were possible I wouldn't go there ←
07:33:12 <wallace> ... this is something we would only add to the general language
... this is something we would only add to the general language ←
07:33:16 <sandro> Zakim, who is on the call?
Sandro Hawke: Zakim, who is on the call? ←
07:33:16 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B, Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B, Zhe ←
07:33:18 <IanH> Q?
Ian Horrocks: Q? ←
07:33:35 <schneid> m_schnei: no technical issues with the RDF-Based Semantics, because datatypes / data ranges are classes in RDF
Michael Schneider: no technical issues with the RDF-Based Semantics, because datatypes / data ranges are classes in RDF [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
07:33:57 <wallace> bijan: its a late addition. I generally like expressivity. There aren't any users demanding this yet.
Bijan Parsia: its a late addition. I generally like expressivity. There aren't any users demanding this yet. ←
07:34:16 <wallace> ... I think that its true that we know how to build prepositional reasoners
... I think that its true that we know how to build prepositional reasoners ←
07:34:39 <wallace> ... my asserting that linear equations is a minor addition
... my asserting that linear equations is a minor addition ←
07:34:48 <schneid> m_schnei: intersections and unions of datatypes do not lead out of the class of all data values, so no problem with OWL Full
Michael Schneider: intersections and unions of datatypes do not lead out of the class of all data values, so no problem with OWL Full [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
07:34:59 <wallace> ... All I want to know is if we have a uniform principal here
... All I want to know is if we have a uniform principal here ←
07:35:05 <schneid> m_schnei: nothing would need to change in the RDF-Based Semantics
Michael Schneider: nothing would need to change in the RDF-Based Semantics [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
07:35:12 <sandro> RRSAgent, make records public
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, make records public ←
06:50:00 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-owl-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-owl-irc ←
06:50:18 <wallace> zakim, this will be owl wg
zakim, this will be owl wg ←
06:50:18 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, wallace ←
06:50:33 <wallace> zakim, this will be owl
zakim, this will be owl ←
06:50:33 <Zakim> ok, wallace; I see SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM scheduled to start 20 minutes ago
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, wallace; I see SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM scheduled to start 20 minutes ago ←
06:51:14 <wallace> ScribeNick: wallace
07:06:02 <ivan> zakim, dial Riviera_B
(No events recorded for 15 minutes)
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial Riviera_B ←
07:06:02 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
07:06:03 <Zakim> SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM has now started ←
07:06:03 <Zakim> +Riviera_B
Zakim IRC Bot: +Riviera_B ←
07:06:39 <ivan> zakim, drop Riveiera_B
Ivan Herman: zakim, drop Riveiera_B ←
07:06:39 <Zakim> sorry, ivan, I do not see a party named 'Riveiera_B'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, ivan, I do not see a party named 'Riveiera_B' ←
07:06:52 <ivan> zakim, who is there?
Ivan Herman: zakim, who is there? ←
07:06:52 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, ivan.
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand your question, ivan. ←
07:07:14 <ivan> zakim, dial Riviera_B
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial Riviera_B ←
07:07:14 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
07:07:16 <Zakim> +Riviera_B.a
Zakim IRC Bot: +Riviera_B.a ←
07:07:31 <Zakim> -Riviera_B
Zakim IRC Bot: -Riviera_B ←
07:07:40 <Zakim> -Riviera_B.a
Zakim IRC Bot: -Riviera_B.a ←
07:07:41 <Zakim> SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM has ended ←
07:07:42 <Zakim> Attendees were Riviera_B, Riviera_B.a
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Riviera_B, Riviera_B.a ←
07:07:54 <ivan> zakim, dial Riviera_B
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial Riviera_B ←
07:07:54 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
07:07:55 <Zakim> SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM has now started ←
07:07:56 <Zakim> +Riviera_B
Zakim IRC Bot: +Riviera_B ←
07:08:17 <pfps> zakim, who is on the phone?
Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
07:08:17 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B ←
07:08:21 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
07:08:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B ←
07:08:23 <Zakim> On IRC I see IanH, pfps, ivan, bmotik, bernardo, MarkusK_, RRSAgent, Zakim, wallace, sandro, Zhe, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see IanH, pfps, ivan, bmotik, bernardo, MarkusK_, RRSAgent, Zakim, wallace, sandro, Zhe, trackbot ←
07:12:24 <wallace> subtopic: XSD data types
07:12:35 <wallace> issue 138
07:13:04 <wallace> pfps: talked with Henry Thompson of XML schema wg
Peter Patel-Schneider: talked with Henry Thompson of XML schema wg ←
07:13:17 <wallace> ... and there is no problem
... and there is no problem ←
07:13:34 <wallace> pfps: we will be using as identity the single timeline
Peter Patel-Schneider: we will be using as identity the single timeline ←
07:13:51 <wallace> ... not the seven value rep.
... not the seven value rep. ←
07:14:03 <wallace> ... our identity is their equality
... our identity is their equality ←
07:14:17 <wallace> ... The only thing we might consider is a note to
... The only thing we might consider is a note to ←
07:14:38 <wallace> ... implementers that you should keep the timezone info there
... implementers that you should keep the timezone info there ←
07:15:23 <wallace> boris: need to preserve the info needed for structural equivalence
Boris Motik: need to preserve the info needed for structural equivalence ←
07:15:50 <wallace> pfps: this means that we can use the new dataTime with required timezone
Peter Patel-Schneider: this means that we can use the new dataTime with required timezone ←
07:16:04 <wallace> ... they are meeting next week to resolve all their issue
... they are meeting next week to resolve all their issue ←
07:16:34 <wallace> ... we will thus know the name for this restricted type next week
... we will thus know the name for this restricted type next week ←
07:16:52 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:17:08 <wallace> pfps: they are going for their second last call soon, before publishing moratorium
Peter Patel-Schneider: they are going for their second last call soon, before publishing moratorium ←
07:17:21 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:17:30 <wallace> pfps: they have high hopes to have implementations ready soon
Peter Patel-Schneider: they have high hopes to have implementations ready soon ←
07:17:40 <wallace> ivan: my only fear about this is
Ivan Herman: my only fear about this is ←
07:17:59 <wallace> ... we cannot refer to something that it too far away from the state where we are
... we cannot refer to something that it too far away from the state where we are ←
07:18:20 <sandro> Boris: Tools working with dateTime should preserve the structural integrity of literals, but we may not want to make too strong a statement there -- we may not want to require "01"^^xs:int not be rewritten "1"^^xs:int.
Boris Motik: Tools working with dateTime should preserve the structural integrity of literals, but we may not want to make too strong a statement there -- we may not want to require "01"^^xs:int not be rewritten "1"^^xs:int. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
07:18:29 <wallace> ... by the time we get to Rec, we must refer to things that are at least candidate Rec.
... by the time we get to Rec, we must refer to things that are at least candidate Rec. ←
07:19:18 <sandro> Sandro: We should probably keep an AT RISK warning on xs:dateTime just in case that WG slips their schedule too much.
Sandro Hawke: We should probably keep an AT RISK warning on xs:dateTime just in case that WG slips their schedule too much. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
07:19:27 <wallace> pfps: we can close it, but we will still need to change the name
Peter Patel-Schneider: we can close it, but we will still need to change the name ←
07:20:42 <IanH> PROPOSED: Close issue 138 with an editors' note stating that we will use XSD name when they determine what it is; also note that this is at risk -- we may need to pick a new name if they don't make it to CR on time.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-138 with an editors' note stating that we will use XSD name when they determine what it is; also note that this is at risk -- we may need to pick a new name if they don't make it to CR on time. ←
07:20:58 <pfps> +1 (ALU)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU) ←
07:20:59 <ivan> 1
Ivan Herman: 1 ←
07:21:05 <IanH> +1 (Oxford)
Ian Horrocks: +1 (Oxford) ←
07:21:06 <wallace> +1
+1 ←
07:21:08 <bernardo> +1
07:21:19 <Zhe> 0
07:21:27 <Zakim> +Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: +Zhe ←
07:21:30 <MarkusK_> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
07:21:38 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
07:21:39 <Rinke> +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 ←
07:21:45 <wallace> ewallace: +1
Evan Wallace: +1 ←
07:21:51 <Christine> +1
Christine Golbreich: +1 ←
07:22:12 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
07:22:16 <IanH> RESOLVED: Close issue 138 with an editors' note stating that we will use XSD name when they determine what it is; also note that this is at risk -- we may need to pick a new name if they don't make it to CR on time.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-138 with an editors' note stating that we will use XSD name when they determine what it is; also note that this is at risk -- we may need to pick a new name if they don't make it to CR on time. ←
07:23:45 <wallace> ... however, the rdf construct for this does not impinge on their purview on this thus they wont complain
... however, the rdf construct for this does not impinge on their purview on this thus they wont complain ←
07:24:14 <wallace> ivan: Is there any specific concern that we should take into account?
Ivan Herman: Is there any specific concern that we should take into account? ←
07:24:46 <wallace> sandro: the RDF core working group was unhappy with creating internationalized strings at the time
Sandro Hawke: the RDF core working group was unhappy with creating internationalized strings at the time ←
07:25:13 <wallace> pfps: I don't think there will be a problem with this.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I don't think there will be a problem with this. ←
07:26:37 <sandro> sandro: (so basically, any awkwardness of rdf:text is due to a design circa 2002 that we can't do much about.)
Sandro Hawke: (so basically, any awkwardness of rdf:text is due to a design circa 2002 that we can't do much about.) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
07:27:53 <sandro> Topic: New Issues Affecting Core Documents
07:28:21 <sandro> subtopic: Issue-147 Add UnionOf and IntersectionOf on Data Ranges
07:28:57 <wallace> boris: we have unionOf, intersectionOf on classes but we dont have for datarange
Boris Motik: we have unionOf, intersectionOf on classes but we dont have for datarange ←
07:30:51 <pfps> boris: we can get some of these for dataranges through other means
Boris Motik: we can get some of these for dataranges through other means [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
07:31:10 <wallace> boris: the point is you could say range of a property is string or integer
Boris Motik: the point is you could say range of a property is string or integer ←
07:31:30 <pfps> boris: they are useful (e.g., <15 or >65) for age giving preferential treatment
Boris Motik: they are useful (e.g., <15 or >65) for age giving preferential treatment [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
07:31:33 <wallace> ... from a reasoning point of view things don't change very much
... from a reasoning point of view things don't change very much ←
07:31:46 <wallace> ... rdf already has it
... rdf already has it ←
07:32:09 <wallace> ivan: it gives more rdf graphs also expressible in DL
Ivan Herman: it gives more rdf graphs also expressible in DL ←
07:32:16 <pfps> boris: these are already in Full - because dataranges are classes and thus can participate in union/intersection
Boris Motik: these are already in Full - because dataranges are classes and thus can participate in union/intersection [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
07:32:52 <pfps> boris: reasoners have to have the facilities for this (from union/intersection for classes)
Boris Motik: reasoners have to have the facilities for this (from union/intersection for classes) [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
07:32:57 <wallace> boris: profiles can't have union of data ranges, even if it were possible I wouldn't go there
Boris Motik: profiles can't have union of data ranges, even if it were possible I wouldn't go there ←
07:33:12 <wallace> ... this is something we would only add to the general language
... this is something we would only add to the general language ←
07:33:16 <sandro> Zakim, who is on the call?
Sandro Hawke: Zakim, who is on the call? ←
07:33:16 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B, Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B, Zhe ←
07:33:18 <IanH> Q?
Ian Horrocks: Q? ←
07:33:22 <sandro> REMOTE: Zhe
07:33:35 <schneid> m_schnei: no technical issues with the RDF-Based Semantics, because datatypes / data ranges are classes in RDF
Michael Schneider: no technical issues with the RDF-Based Semantics, because datatypes / data ranges are classes in RDF [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
07:33:57 <wallace> bijan: its a late addition. I generally like expressivity. There aren't any users demanding this yet.
Bijan Parsia: its a late addition. I generally like expressivity. There aren't any users demanding this yet. ←
07:34:16 <wallace> ... I think that its true that we know how to build prepositional reasoners
... I think that its true that we know how to build prepositional reasoners ←
07:34:39 <wallace> ... my asserting that linear equations is a minor addition
... my asserting that linear equations is a minor addition ←
07:34:48 <schneid> m_schnei: intersections and unions of datatypes do not lead out of the class of all data values, so no problem with OWL Full
Michael Schneider: intersections and unions of datatypes do not lead out of the class of all data values, so no problem with OWL Full [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
07:34:59 <wallace> ... All I want to know is if we have a uniform principal here
... All I want to know is if we have a uniform principal here ←
07:35:05 <schneid> m_schnei: nothing would need to change in the RDF-Based Semantics
Michael Schneider: nothing would need to change in the RDF-Based Semantics [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
07:35:12 <sandro> RRSAgent, make records public
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, make records public ←
07:35:16 <wallace> boris: you can handle this at the level of tableaux
Boris Motik: you can handle this at the level of tableaux ←
07:35:39 <wallace> christine: for a user point of view it is useful, I could provide e.g.s immediately
Christine Golbreich: for a user point of view it is useful, I could provide e.g.s immediately ←
07:36:11 <wallace> schneid: there was discussion a while ago on a public list where there was a request for exactly this feature
Michael Schneider: there was discussion a while ago on a public list where there was a request for exactly this feature ←
07:36:32 <wallace> achille: Can we support it by supporting union in XSD itself?
Achille Fokoue: Can we support it by supporting union in XSD itself? ←
07:36:47 <wallace> bijan: no XSD reasoner can do what we need to do with it.
Bijan Parsia: no XSD reasoner can do what we need to do with it. ←
07:37:05 <wallace> ... you get a choice of an XSD infoset but it won't do reasoning by cases
... you get a choice of an XSD infoset but it won't do reasoning by cases ←
07:37:29 <wallace> ianh: everybodies happy with it. It seems a no brainer to add it.
Ian Horrocks: everybodies happy with it. It seems a no brainer to add it. ←
07:37:47 <wallace> bijan: we should document the thing about not reusing XSD
Bijan Parsia: we should document the thing about not reusing XSD ←
07:38:04 <wallace> ... I will put a comment on the issue page.
... I will put a comment on the issue page. ←
07:38:26 <wallace> ivan: I don't have any real issue with the proposal, but there should be a point when
Ivan Herman: I don't have any real issue with the proposal, but there should be a point when ←
07:39:13 <wallace> ... we say "feature stop". When will we say "that's it guys" ?
... we say "feature stop". When will we say "that's it guys" ? ←
07:39:37 <wallace> ivan: it's not my intention to block this one.
Ivan Herman: it's not my intention to block this one. ←
07:40:46 <wallace> subtopic: issue 148 owl:topDataProperty may invalidate Theorem
07:41:21 <wallace> boris: we were trying to issue top data property in hermit and notice a problem that
Boris Motik: we were trying to issue top data property in hermit and notice a problem that ←
07:41:33 <wallace> ... could arrive address issue 147
... could arrive address ISSUE-147 ←
07:42:12 <wallace> boris: you could fix the set of datatypes
Boris Motik: you could fix the set of datatypes ←
07:42:48 <wallace> boris: assume we don't introduce union now
Boris Motik: assume we don't introduce union now ←
07:43:13 <wallace> ... but we already have top data property so now users can define their own
... but we already have top data property so now users can define their own ←
07:44:47 <wallace> schneid: from a full point of view 148 doesn't depend on 147
Michael Schneider: from a full point of view 148 doesn't depend on 147 ←
07:45:10 <bernardo> +q
07:45:10 <wallace> ivan: for symmetry purposes don't we have something similar for top object property
Ivan Herman: for symmetry purposes don't we have something similar for top object property ←
07:45:28 <wallace> boris: no, because it is not on a concrete domain
Boris Motik: no, because it is not on a concrete domain ←
07:45:32 <pfps> boris: if you have a union of all datatypes and make that the range of topDataProperty, then you "fix" the set of datatypes
Boris Motik: if you have a union of all datatypes and make that the range of topDataProperty, then you "fix" the set of datatypes [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
07:45:34 <schneid> m_schnei: 148 does not depend on 147, since OWL Full allows unions of data types anyway
Michael Schneider: 148 does not depend on 147, since OWL Full allows unions of data types anyway [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
07:45:35 <IanH> PROPOSED: q?
PROPOSED: q? ←
07:45:46 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:45:53 <IanH> ack bernardo
Ian Horrocks: ack bernardo ←
07:45:59 <wallace> bernardo: its about theorem 1, which is independent from the datatype theory
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: its about theorem 1, which is independent from the datatype theory ←
07:46:06 <pfps> boris: if a later WG adds other datatypes, this then becomes inconsistent, so additions to the language can retroactively make existing ontologies inconsistent
Boris Motik: if a later WG adds other datatypes, this then becomes inconsistent, so additions to the language can retroactively make existing ontologies inconsistent [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
07:46:29 <bernardo> -q
07:46:37 <wallace> ... if you use a top data property you can talk about datatypes globally
... if you use a top data property you can talk about datatypes globally ←
07:47:14 <wallace> bijan: but in my tutorials I will be clear not to use these for modelling
Bijan Parsia: but in my tutorials I will be clear not to use these for modelling ←
07:47:23 <pfps> boris: this seems bad, but union seems useful - the problem can be avoided by restricting the use of topDataProperty
Boris Motik: this seems bad, but union seems useful - the problem can be avoided by restricting the use of topDataProperty [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
07:47:54 <wallace> ianh: there is a philosophical point were the domain for datatypes is fixed
Ian Horrocks: there is a philosophical point were the domain for datatypes is fixed ←
07:48:08 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:48:10 <pfps> boris: the restriction is to only allow topDataProperty as a superproperty of other axioms
Boris Motik: the restriction is to only allow topDataProperty as a superproperty of other axioms [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
07:48:39 <pfps> markus: if you have "extra" values, then the example is always inconsistent
Markus Krötzsch: if you have "extra" values, then the example is always inconsistent [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
07:49:19 <pfps> boris: you have to be very careful because you could "exhaust" the rest of the data domain, and then you get to see these extra values
Boris Motik: you have to be very careful because you could "exhaust" the rest of the data domain, and then you get to see these extra values [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
07:49:44 <wallace> bijan: to speak in favor of this: this is a more minimal restriction
Bijan Parsia: to speak in favor of this: this is a more minimal restriction ←
07:49:59 <wallace> ianh: we are pretty much on the same page
Ian Horrocks: we are pretty much on the same page ←
07:51:13 <wallace> boris: theorem 1 doesn't apply to OWL Full
Boris Motik: theorem 1 doesn't apply to OWL Full ←
07:51:55 <wallace> schneid: this problem is already in OWL Full
Michael Schneider: this problem is already in OWL Full ←
07:53:18 <wallace> ianh: we have two proposals that are linked
Ian Horrocks: we have two proposals that are linked ←
07:54:45 <IanH> PROPOSED: Close issue 148 by introducing a global restriction on the use of topDataProperty so that it can only be used as a superproperty for other data properties
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-148 by introducing a global restriction on the use of topDataProperty so that it can only be used as a superproperty for other data properties ←
07:54:49 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
07:54:53 <pfps> +1 (ALU)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU) ←
07:54:55 <bernardo> +1
07:54:56 <Rinke> +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 ←
07:54:57 <MarkusK_> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
07:54:58 <Achille> +1
Achille Fokoue: +1 ←
07:55:00 <ivan> 1
Ivan Herman: 1 ←
07:55:01 <bijan> +1 (Manchester or Oxford)
Bijan Parsia: +1 (Manchester or Oxford) ←
07:55:01 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)
07:55:03 <wallace> ewallace: +1
Evan Wallace: +1 ←
07:55:04 <Christine> +1 (uvsq)
Christine Golbreich: +1 (uvsq) ←
07:55:05 <IanH> +1 (Oxford)
Ian Horrocks: +1 (Oxford) ←
07:55:06 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
07:55:29 <IanH> RESOLVED: Close issue 148 by introducing a global restriction on the use of topDataProperty so that it can only be used as a superproperty for other data properties
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-148 by introducing a global restriction on the use of topDataProperty so that it can only be used as a superproperty for other data properties ←
07:55:55 <IanH> PROPOSED: Close issue 147 by introducing UnionOf and IntersectionOf on Data Ranges
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-147 by introducing UnionOf and IntersectionOf on Data Ranges ←
07:55:58 <pfps> +1 (ALU)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU) ←
07:56:00 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
07:56:03 <MarkusK_> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
07:56:05 <bijan> +1 (Manchester)
Bijan Parsia: +1 (Manchester) ←
07:56:05 <Christine> +1 (uvsq)
Christine Golbreich: +1 (uvsq) ←
07:56:08 <Rinke> +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 ←
07:56:08 <wallace> ewallace: +1
Evan Wallace: +1 ←
07:56:10 <ivan> 1
Ivan Herman: 1 ←
07:56:10 <IanH> +1 (Oxford)
Ian Horrocks: +1 (Oxford) ←
07:56:11 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)
07:56:15 <Achille> +1 (IBM)
Achille Fokoue: +1 (IBM) ←
07:56:17 <bernardo> +1
07:56:42 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
07:56:46 <sandro> again :-)
Sandro Hawke: again :-) ←
07:56:56 <IanH> RESOLVED: Close issue 147 by introducing UnionOf and IntersectionOf on Data Ranges
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-147 by introducing UnionOf and IntersectionOf on Data Ranges ←
07:57:36 <Zhe> I just click +1
07:58:25 <wallace> subtopic: issue 144 Missing Base Triple in Serialization of Axioms with Annotations.
07:58:45 <pfps> zakim, who is here?
Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, who is here? ←
07:58:45 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B, Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B, Zhe ←
07:58:46 <Zakim> On IRC I see bijan, Achille, schneid, sandro, Christine, Rinke, IanH, pfps, ivan, bmotik, bernardo, MarkusK_, RRSAgent, Zakim, wallace, Zhe, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see bijan, Achille, schneid, sandro, Christine, Rinke, IanH, pfps, ivan, bmotik, bernardo, MarkusK_, RRSAgent, Zakim, wallace, Zhe, trackbot ←
07:58:54 <wallace> zhe: my position has not changed yet
Zhe Wu: my position has not changed yet ←
07:59:00 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:59:10 <wallace> ... oracle wants this base triple in annotation serialization
... oracle wants this base triple in annotation serialization ←
07:59:11 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
07:59:11 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B, Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B, Zhe ←
07:59:12 <Zakim> On IRC I see bijan, Achille, schneid, sandro, Christine, Rinke, IanH, pfps, ivan, bmotik, bernardo, MarkusK_, RRSAgent, Zakim, wallace, Zhe, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see bijan, Achille, schneid, sandro, Christine, Rinke, IanH, pfps, ivan, bmotik, bernardo, MarkusK_, RRSAgent, Zakim, wallace, Zhe, trackbot ←
07:59:43 <wallace> schneid: my position has also not changed
Michael Schneider: my position has also not changed ←
07:59:55 <wallace> ... I think the base triple needs to be in the mapping
... I think the base triple needs to be in the mapping ←
08:00:36 <wallace> ... this causes copies of axioms in the functional syntax (one with and one without annotation)
... this causes copies of axioms in the functional syntax (one with and one without annotation) ←
08:00:37 <Zhe> I can only hear fragmented voice from Michael
Zhe Wu: I can only hear fragmented voice from Michael ←
08:00:46 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer? ←
08:00:46 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-owl-irc#T08-00-46
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-owl-irc#T08-00-46 ←
08:00:52 <wallace> ... if we have rdf graph with assertions
... if we have rdf graph with assertions ←
08:01:48 <wallace> ... every tool has to reconstruct these base triples
... every tool has to reconstruct these base triples ←
08:02:34 <wallace> schneid: we should ask ourselves how would we build a ref impl for this
Michael Schneider: we should ask ourselves how would we build a ref impl for this ←
08:02:55 <wallace> boris: I would like to make this decision somehow coherent
Boris Motik: I would like to make this decision somehow coherent ←
08:03:14 <wallace> ... our story should be that the reified triples don't mean anything
... our story should be that the reified triples don't mean anything ←
08:03:42 <wallace> ... a reified version shouldn't have any consequences
... a reified version shouldn't have any consequences ←
08:04:19 <wallace> schneid: everyone has to upgrade
Michael Schneider: everyone has to upgrade ←
08:05:30 <wallace> boris: if we don't have a clear story about what these reified triples mean, it opens the door to further problems
Boris Motik: if we don't have a clear story about what these reified triples mean, it opens the door to further problems ←
08:06:12 <wallace> boris: this introduces a gap from the rdf base semantics and the OWL 2 RDF RL semantics
Boris Motik: this introduces a gap from the rdf base semantics and the OWL 2 RDF RL semantics ←
08:07:03 <wallace> ivan: what he is saying is that the mapping would ultimately put the reified triple
Ivan Herman: what he is saying is that the mapping would ultimately put the reified triple ←
08:07:25 <wallace> boris : the proposal is to get rid of table 417 from the RDF base semantics
boris : the proposal is to get rid of table 417 from the RDF base semantics ←
08:08:10 <sandro> Bijan: can we list all the downsides?
Bijan Parsia: can we list all the downsides? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
08:08:46 <sandro> Boris: you can't have an ontology which contains an axiom which is annotated and another which is not annotated.
Boris Motik: you can't have an ontology which contains an axiom which is annotated and another which is not annotated. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
08:08:47 <wallace> boris: the downside is you can't have an ontology that has an axiom that is annotated and one that is not annotated
Boris Motik: the downside is you can't have an ontology that has an axiom that is annotated and one that is not annotated ←
08:08:57 <sandro> Bijan: And we bloat the size of the ontology.
Bijan Parsia: And we bloat the size of the ontology. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
08:10:08 <sandro> schneid: But this is unavoidable anyway. Given an RDF graph built in collaboration with several authors. This has to mapped and reverse mapped. So the mapping tool has the same problem, with a parallel mapping of the same axiom differently annotated.
Michael Schneider: But this is unavoidable anyway. Given an RDF graph built in collaboration with several authors. This has to mapped and reverse mapped. So the mapping tool has the same problem, with a parallel mapping of the same axiom differently annotated. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
08:10:21 <sandro> Boris: Well, no, we could map them to a different blank node.
Boris Motik: Well, no, we could map them to a different blank node. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
08:10:35 <sandro> Ian: Sure, but it's okay, since we all agree.
Ian Horrocks: Sure, but it's okay, since we all agree. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
08:10:53 <wallace> ianh: are we ready to close the issue
Ian Horrocks: are we ready to close the issue ←
08:11:28 <IanH> PROPOSED: Close issue 144 by agreeing that the serialisation of annotated axioms will include the base triple
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-144 by agreeing that the serialisation of annotated axioms will include the base triple ←
08:12:13 <IanH> PROPOSED: Close issue 144 by agreeing that the serialisation of annotated axioms will include the base triple and removing table 4.17 from the RDF-Based semantics
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-144 by agreeing that the serialisation of annotated axioms will include the base triple and removing table 4.17 from the RDF-Based semantics ←
08:12:13 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
08:12:16 <bijan> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
08:12:17 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE. so worth getting up early in the morning :))
Zhe Wu: +1 (ORACLE. so worth getting up early in the morning :)) ←
08:12:18 <MarkusK_> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
08:12:19 <pfps> 0
08:12:20 <bernardo> +1
08:12:24 <schneid> wallace: +1
Evan Wallace: +1 [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
08:12:26 <Rinke> +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 ←
08:12:27 <Achille> +1
Achille Fokoue: +1 ←
08:12:28 <ivan> 1
Ivan Herman: 1 ←
08:12:30 <IanH> +1 (Oxford)
Ian Horrocks: +1 (Oxford) ←
08:12:45 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
08:12:54 <schneid> +1 (for me either :))
Michael Schneider: +1 (for me either :)) ←
08:12:56 <Christine> +1
Christine Golbreich: +1 ←
08:13:09 <IanH> RESOLVED: Close issue 144 by agreeing that the serialisation of annotated axioms will include the base triple and removing table 4.17 from the RDF-Based semantics
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-144 by agreeing that the serialisation of annotated axioms will include the base triple and removing table 4.17 from the RDF-Based semantics ←
08:14:57 <MarkusK_> scribenick: MarkusK_
(Scribe set to Markus Krötzsch)
08:15:28 <pfps> subtopic: issue 149 Some problems with OWL 2 RL
08:15:50 <MarkusK_> ivan: there are two issues here
Ivan Herman: there are two issues here ←
08:16:00 <MarkusK_> ... boris filed them as one
... boris filed them as one ←
08:16:29 <MarkusK_> ... the issue I found was that the functional syntax includes a number of built-in entities such as owl:thing, nothing, top*Property
... the issue I found was that the functional syntax includes a number of built-in entities such as owl:thing, nothing, top*Property ←
08:16:46 <MarkusK_> ... these are not present in the OWL RL rule set
... these are not present in the OWL RL rule set ←
08:17:20 <MarkusK_> ... in addition, some additional rules are needed o axiomatise those constructs in OWL RL
... in addition, some additional rules are needed o axiomatise those constructs in OWL RL ←
08:17:25 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:17:31 <MarkusK_> s / o / to /
s / o / to / ←
08:17:49 <MarkusK_> ivan: then there is another part uncovered in the discussion and addded by boris
Ivan Herman: then there is another part uncovered in the discussion and addded by boris ←
08:18:09 <MarkusK_> ... some of the required rules might generate a high number of additional triples in the store
... some of the required rules might generate a high number of additional triples in the store ←
08:18:10 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
08:18:10 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B, Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B, Zhe ←
08:18:12 <Zakim> On IRC I see BlazN, FabGandon, Achille, schneid, sandro, Christine, Rinke, IanH, pfps, ivan, bmotik, bernardo, MarkusK_, RRSAgent, Zakim, Zhe, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see BlazN, FabGandon, Achille, schneid, sandro, Christine, Rinke, IanH, pfps, ivan, bmotik, bernardo, MarkusK_, RRSAgent, Zakim, Zhe, trackbot ←
08:18:23 <MarkusK_> ... we had a long discussion whether this is good or bad from a user's viewpoint
... we had a long discussion whether this is good or bad from a user's viewpoint ←
08:18:41 <MarkusK_> ... would an average user care about the top properties and classes or not?
... would an average user care about the top properties and classes or not? ←
08:18:56 <MarkusK_> ... boris had goodexamples where it seemd useful but hte price might still be too large
... boris had goodexamples where it seemd useful but hte price might still be too large ←
08:19:03 <MarkusK_> ian: any suggestions for resolving this?
Ian Horrocks: any suggestions for resolving this? ←
08:19:03 <Zhe> q+
08:19:10 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:19:15 <MarkusK_> ivan: I would like to hear the oppinion of implementors
Ivan Herman: I would like to hear the oppinion of implementors ←
08:19:19 <IanH> ack zhe
Ian Horrocks: ack zhe ←
08:19:41 <MarkusK_> zhe: I am not in favour of adding all those triples for top properties and objects
Zhe Wu: I am not in favour of adding all those triples for top properties and objects ←
08:20:13 <MarkusK_> ... these rules are not needed to figure out that certain sub-class and sub-property axioms hold
... these rules are not needed to figure out that certain sub-class and sub-property axioms hold ←
08:20:17 <sandro> present-= Wallace
Sandro Hawke: present-= Wallace ←
08:20:21 <sandro> present-= Bijan
Sandro Hawke: present-= Bijan ←
08:20:42 <MarkusK_> zhe: in my oppinion, the rule set needs not to be complete in this respect
Zhe Wu: in my oppinion, the rule set needs not to be complete in this respect ←
08:21:20 <MarkusK_> boris: precisely because it is indeed easy to find out whether something is an instance of owl:thing
Boris Motik: precisely because it is indeed easy to find out whether something is an instance of owl:thing ←
08:21:30 <MarkusK_> ... implementations can have smart optimisations for dealing with them
... implementations can have smart optimisations for dealing with them ←
08:21:43 <MarkusK_> ... it would not be required to literally materialise all the triples for those cases
... it would not be required to literally materialise all the triples for those cases ←
08:22:03 <MarkusK_> ... and such optimisations will be required anyway for good implementations of OWL RL
... and such optimisations will be required anyway for good implementations of OWL RL ←
08:23:00 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:23:01 <MarkusK_> schneid: there are other entailments that I would not want to materialise, and there seem to be many applications where one would not want to materialise everything with forward-chaining
Michael Schneider: there are other entailments that I would not want to materialise, and there seem to be many applications where one would not want to materialise everything with forward-chaining ←
08:23:07 <MarkusK_> ... this is a mess even in RDFS
... this is a mess even in RDFS ←
08:23:25 <MarkusK_> boris: indeed, you cnanot even implement RDFS in this way.
Boris Motik: indeed, you cnanot even implement RDFS in this way. ←
08:23:26 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:23:39 <MarkusK_> pfps: Theorem 1 would be broken when not having the additional rules
Peter Patel-Schneider: Theorem 1 would be broken when not having the additional rules ←
<sandro> Meeting in progress. New content inserted above this line.
Sandro Hawke: Meeting in progress. New content inserted above this line. ←
This revision (#1) generated 2008-10-24 08:35:26 UTC by 'unknown', comments: 'First 90 minutes in decent shape'